Ejecting the Parliament

HISTORY and tradition have a unique social value in the building of nations. They provide, among other things, the benefits of perspective, of understanding the ingredients of identity, an expanding source of inspiration and lessons for a more stable union. In a physical sense, the Red House, the most distinctive structure in the capital city of Trinidad and Tobago, embodies all these values stemming from its long connection with the everyday life of our country’s people.      

Above all the many parts it has played, however, the Red House has come to symbolise the democratic form of government by which our nation is governed since this majestic building has always been the home of our Parliament going back even to colonial times. Dominating the busy centre of Port-of-Spain, the Red House stands as a monument to our political evolution, a wonderful witness to the fact that freedom with all its constitutional rights reigns supreme in our little country. Indeed, no other country that has travelled the same political journey as TT can boast of having such a stately building connecting the growth of its Parliament and its democracy with the aspirations of its people.

The Red House, then, holds a unique psychological significance and value for our society, one that should be kept intact if not actively cherished. The nation will always recall that when armed insurrectionists attempted to overthrow the elected government, to destroy our freedom, they invaded the Red House where the nation’s affairs were being debated. It is mainly for this reason that we have opposed the proposal of Prime Minister Manning to sever the historical connection between the Red House and Parliament. We are disturbed by the fact that Mr Manning is determined to pursue such an idea without apparently appreciating the traditional value of the Red House as the home and centre of our democracy. History has bequeathed to us such an asset and we should be concerned not simply to preserve it but also to enhance its role in our political development.

We are yet to be convinced that the entire Red House, if it is effectively renovated and internally restructured for the purpose, cannot adequately contain all the ancillary offices and facilities for the proper operation of TT’s Parliament. House Speaker Barry Sinanan has come out in favour of the plan to build a new home for the nation’s forum, but he does not say that the entire Red House, including both floors, is insufficient for accommodating all the connecting offices he speaks about. A smoking room for Parliamentarians? Why? What, we wonder, does the Architects Association has to say about this? So far, we have heard no definitive opinion from this relevant group of Professionals.

The decision to eject the Parliament from its traditionl seat has been largely recognised as a one-man initiative of the Prime Minister unsupported by any popular consensus or political agreement. The fact that the PM wants the Red House for his own offices does not improve his image or inspire confidence. It is our view that if the Parliament belongs to the people who elects the membership of the House, then Mr Manning should at least get a sense of public feeling before he kicks out Parliament and installs himself in the Red House.