The statesman vs the politician

Dr Eric Williams — Inward Hunger page 284, said, “On the last day of the conference I decided to settle the matter face to face with Dr Capildeo, Leader of the Opposition. I drew him aside during the tea interval, told him my original intention, indicated that I had abandoned it and explained that I would make a statement to the Conference on the resumption. I made the statement to the effect that I intended on my return to Trinidad to raise with the Opposition the general question of national integration and national unity with specific to (a) Nehru’s integration Committee in India (b) the promotion of national culture(c) the working of a campaign code on elections (d) fair employment practice without discrimination on grounds of race and political affiliation. Capildeo thanked me and withdrew all opposition to Independence.

On page 285, Dr Williams wrote “Before leaving London our top party people had preliminary discussions with some opposition members, clarifying procedures, modus operandi etc and that helped too.”

Now that we have returned to ground zero from almost one month of circling in orbit from Emancipation to Walcottmania, from the sacred observance of Eid al Mubarak to the ostentatious and profane celebrations of our golden anniversary, almost one month of anxiety, low productivity, increased crime, mental and physical traffic jams, the national pastime of indiscipline and sometimes unnecessary controversy — this was August 2012.

The big event however, was the celebration of our Golden Jubilee. Our newly installed Archbishops Fr Joe Harris, the people’s priest Fr Clyde Harvey and several other prominent citizens publicly expressed their concerns over the divisive format the celebrations took. Most of the criticisms were levelled at the Leader of the Opposition for taking the PNM into its own celebrations at the expense of the National Celebrations.

This is where I part company with these celebrated critics, not that I disagree with National Celebrations. The following defined my position in my Newsday March 19, 2012 — Speaking Out column.

“I don’t know what our Government plans for the occasion or what sort of celebration is being planned, but in my respectful opinion, it should be national in scope embracing both Government and Opposition, fully recognising all that we have achieved during this period, what and who we were on August 31, 1962 and what and who we are today. This should and must be an occasion to educate and inform our young citizens.”

This was five months before August 31, 2012. Our Government had enough time to appoint or select preferably and independent committee comprising the likes of former Chief Justice Michael de La Bastide, Prof Ken Ramchand, Prof Selwyn Ryan, former High Court Judge Mrs Jean Permanand, former Senator Rev Daniel Teelucksingh, Mr Michael Anthony, Prof Bridgitte Brereton, Fr Clyde Harvey, among several other highly respected public citizens and/or bipartisan Parliamentary committee to plan and advise on the celebration of this historical event.

To my knowledge, no such thing was done. Instead the Hon Minister of Planning and Development Dr Tewarie was given full responsibility for the celebrations automatically converting it into a bipartisan affair. Dr Tewarie’s first assignment was given to Machel Montano — no offense to the multi-talented superstar but this is our 50th Anniversary.

In my March 19, 2012 Speaking Out column, I wrote, “Anniversaries are about people and events, our successes, failures and our experiences through the journey August 1962-August 2012. The likes of Sparrow, Chalkdust, Gypsy, Relator and several others are still around.”

Dr Tewarie’s original programme for the celebrations was published in the print media without any consultation with the Opposition. It was carefully designed to ignore the contributions of the Father of the Nation Dr Eric Williams and the achievements of successive PNM Governments. Re-enactment was not on the agenda.

It was only after a prolonged attack on the planned programme and Dr Rowley’s announcement of the PNM’s plan for the celebrations, did the government, and in my view correctly so, alter its programme again without consultation with the Opposition, included the most significant historical event. All this would have been avoided with the selection of an independent and/or bipartisan Parliamentary committee.

When the US celebrated its 200th Anniversary in 1976, Mr Lee Iacocca the chairman of General Motors was appointed Chairman of the Celebrations Committee almost two years before the date.

Anniversaries of this magnitude cannot and must not be confined to political partisanships. They must be all inclusive to have the desired national effect and not create the divisiveness that we witnessed on Wednesday 30 2012. It was the Government’s responsibility to chart the course not the Opposition. Once the Government in consultation with the Opposition had charted a bipartisan course the Opposition would have had no choice but to comply or pay the political price for their divisiveness.