Developing political change

Maybe long ago, just prior to and in the aftermath of Independence, we had the embryo of political development, even if we only had one genuine political party. But putting that aside for the moment, how do we, if indeed we can at all, develop genuine, and meaningful political discourse which can lead to governance which actually includes and embraces the views of whomever is in opposition at any given time? Our political agendas have deteriorated into Basdeo Panday’s shameless statement that “the role of the opposition is to oppose” and it has become clear that this level of national irresponsibility was embraced shamelessly by Rowley’s PNM between 2010 and 2015, and now by Kamla’s UNC . And strangely we, through our political parties taught this stultifying practice to the Americans.

The United States has a more relaxed political adversarial culture than what was imposed upon us by the British. Democrats or Republicans can vote against their party lines in Congress or Senate without being disciplined or expelled. They can vote either their conscience or the will of their constituents against what their party is supporting.

We, lacking any sense of true independence of thought or deed, stick with the British-imposed system that party members face discipline if they do not vote with the party line in Parliament.

In 2005 UNC member Chandresh Sharma was brought before the Privileges Committee for good cause and UNC members of that committee did the correct thing and voted to discipline Sharma.

This enraged UNC leader Panday and those members were suspended by him and served out their term as independents. That was the birth of the now dead Congress of the People party. But at least it was conceived and born standing for decent and correct behaviour.

When Barrack Obama was overwhelmingly elected president of the United States in 2008, the Republican party took a selfish and clearly racist position of voting against every piece of legislation presented by Obama—for eight long years.

That Obama was re-elected in 2012 meant nought to the Republicans.

That Obama took a country in economic crisis and turned it around despite the blockages they put in his way meant nothing to them. It was clear that they believed it was better the country grind to a halt than support any legislation sent by Obama.

When Patrick Manning called a suicidal early election in 2010, in order to stymie a vote of confidence that would have sunk him, he allowed another amalgam of parties (remember the NAR in 1986?) to take the government from the PNM. The CO P subsequently died in the embrace of the UNC . The PNM, now in opposition under Keith Rowley, whom Manning had attacked consistently, set out in Trumpian fashion to stymie every initiative of the UNC . But make no mistake here, when the PNM regained power in 2015, the UNC , now unfettered by any partners or alliances set out to oppose and derail any legislation which the PNM envisaged.

So just like America our existing political parties seek to oppose legislation just for the sake of it, or the spite of it, and our country, and we, the people suffer from their inability or refusal to govern. And make no mistake about it, this negative, stonewalling policy towards governance is not going to change in the foreseeable future, not in the United States, and certainly not here.

Politics is at a new low here and everywhere in the world.

And it is this realisation of failure all around, with only their dwindling sycophant sections able to give any support to either failed side, which creates the imperative for change. But change to what, and wrought by whom? We have no rising movements, indeed we have no movements, no groundswell of agitation or hope that could develop into a potential political party which could find or attract candidates to contest, far less win an election.

Yes, we have a new and noisy party—the People’s Empowerment Party, but that, for all its founder’s and only spokesperson’s Facebook barrages, comes across as soapbox shouting rather than an organisation being formed where other people have a voice to offer.

Dissent and disagreement are not encouraged there, so this organisation seems well in the mould of all other parties. So, from where can a challenge be built? CO P was a developing party when they were seduced into joining UNC in 2010.

But they are now a dead entity.

From where I sit, I see no current potential for a real party, not an amalgam of has-beens and hopefuls, to rise to our nation’s rescue.

This is not an enc o u r a g i n g scenario.