Indo, Afro-Trini voting patterns

I WRITE ON the issue of the voting patterns of Indo and Afro- Trinis to emphasise the point that such voting behaviour is not always simple and straightforward and bear elements of some complexity with ethnic support waxing and waning depending on circumstance and conjuncture.

If the statistical analysis and estimates seem tedious to some, the exercise is necessary to throw light on the subject and dispel some flawed perceptions, particularly with regard to the alleged Indo-Trinidadian propensity for monolithic electoral solidarity.

As previously indicated, the Indo-Trini votes were distributed among five parties in the 1976 general election. My estimates of Indo-Trinidadian voter turnout for the parties are as follows: ULF — 74,000; DLP and SDLP — 15,332; DAC — 14,000 and PNM — 17,000 or about 10 per cent of the total of 169,194, indicating that its Afro- Trini base remained firm. Thus, I calculated that a total of about 120,000 Indo-Trinis came out to vote in 1976.

However, in 1981, five years later, the ULF, now the only Indo-Trini party, received only 62,781 votes.

Assuming that the increase in Indo- Trini votes from 1976 to 1981 was more or less cancelled by Indo- Trini voter abstention in the latter election, the minimal support for the ULF meant that about 57,000 Indo-Trini votes went to support the two other major parties, ONR and PNM, both Afro-Trini dominated. The ONR, however, was by far the greater beneficiary of Indo-Trini voter support.

In the 1981 general election, the ONR obtained 91,704 votes (not 81,000 as stated by Raffique Shah).

This voter support, according to Shah, indicated that the “Afro vote … ceased to be racially anchored” (Express 16/5/17).

While undoubtedly a large number of Afro-Trinis supported the ONR, my view is that equally large numbers of Indo-Trinis also voted for the ONR with Karl Hudson- Phillips as its leader as against the ULF led by Basdeo Panday. In 10 Indo-dominated constituencies — St Augustine, Caroni East, Chaguanas, Couva North, Couva South, Naparima, Princes Town, Oropouche, Tabaquite and Siparia — the ONR obtained a total of 22,997 votes which would have been overwhelmingly Indo-Trini votes.

In eight marginal constituencies — Barataria, San Juan, St Joseph, Tunapuna, San Fernando West, Pointe-a-Pierre, Fyzabad and Nariva, all with a heavy Indo-Trinidadian voting presence — the ONR polled a total of 27,305 votes. If we assume that two-thirds of these votes were of Indo-Trini origin, we come up with a figure of approximately 18,000.

When added to the approximately 23,000 in the 10 traditional Indo-Trini dominated constituencies, the total is approximately 41,000. If we further assume that in all the other 18 constituencies, the Indo-Trini votes amounted to about 5,000, we have a grand total of approximately 46,000, which is about 50 per cent of the total national vote for the ONR.

We must also bear in mind that, apart from Indos and Afros, the ONR also attracted almost total support from the mixed elements, local whites, French Creoles, Chinese, Syrian, Portuguese etc. Thus, Indo-Trinis may have constituted the largest ethnic sector of support for the ONR.

Clearly, if my estimates and calculations of ethnic distribution of voter support for the ONR in the 1981 general election is credible, then Shah’s thesis of Indo-Trini monolithic support for the Indo- Trini party is groundless.

Furthermore, while the PNM would have attracted some Indo- Trini and other support, the overwhelming portion of its 218,557 votes in the 1981 general election would have been anchored in its Afro-Trini base. It is this concentration of Afro-Trini support that enabled the PNM to win the unprecedented number of 26 seats in the House of Representatives.

Such a conclusion refutes Shah’s a r g ume n t of the Afro- Trini vote being liberated from the PNM.