A lesson in Blair’s victory

Before the election in the United States last year, it was already known that Mr Bush and his inner circle of power-brokers had misled American citizens about the threat posed by Iraq. The invasion had taken place, the occupation’s timeframe had been extended, the financial costs were greater than predicted, and American soldiers were being killed daily. And still the American voters sent Mr Bush back to the White House.

Mr Blair, too, has been allowed to continue residing at 10 Downing Street. But he is now there with a reduced majority that will prevent him from joining the US in any more international adventurism. Mr Bush has been dropping hints that Iran or Syria is next on his to-do list. If it is true that, even before 9/11, he intended to attack Iraq, then it is just a matter of time before he begins warmongering again. (Although, given America’s military might, "war" is perhaps too strong a term. "Conquest," perhaps, is more appropriate.)

At any rate, Mr Blair paid the political price for also misleading the British people about the need to invade Iraq. The British political tradition allowed voters to make their displeasure known without the Labour Party being deposed. And we use the term "political tradition," rather than "political system," very deliberately.

Because it is not the superiority of the British system over the American one which allowed this difference. It is that Britons have more experience with politics than Americans, and so their system works with more sophistication.

This is shown by the fact that leader of the Opposition Conservative Party, Michael Howard, has resigned following his party’s defeat. It is shown by the fact that Mr Blair will not seek a third term and, indeed, may give way halfway through this one to his treasury chief, Gordon Brown. And why? Because Blair said he would not seek a third term and because, even though his party won, his diminished legitimacy among the British electorate has subjected him to pressure to step down, even within the Labour Party.

No parallel for this will be found in American politics. The safeguards there are more systemic than traditional. Mr Bush has to step down in four years.

Nor, given the conservative base of his support, is he likely to lose popularity within that time, no matter how much damage he does to America’s international image and social policies.

This shows the limits of constitutional reforms for us here in Trinidad and Tobago.

The fact is, all political systems depend on the commitment of men and women of conscience. This means that any system can be subverted, no matter how good it looks on paper. Franklin Khan’s resignation as Works Minister does suggest that we are maturing somewhat.

However, reforms are necessary to make it easier for politicians to act conscientiously, rather than just self-servingly. But the importance of tradition is clearly shown by what happened in Britain.

We must bear in mind, however, that as a small country we may not have the leeway to develop a tradition as Britain did. But the advantage we have is that we don’t have to invent the political wheel. Thus, even as we develop our own political systems, we can follow the best example of the nation which gave us the template.