The funding of Carnival

Such a discussion, however, has to be reserved for a subsequent column. This column confines itself to outlining various views on the subject of State funding for Carnival.

The February 20 Newsday posed a topical and provocative question as follows: “Can Carnival survive without Government support?” Interestingly, of the 12 people interviewed by the newspaper and their responses published in the “People In The Street” column, seven people (the majority) said it can, one was non-committal and four said the festival needed Government’s financial backing to survive.

It is noteworthy that, of the seven who said Carnival could survive without Government’s financial assistance, six of them had addresses in north Trinidad — Portof- Spain, Morvant (2), Laventille, Cascade and St Augustine and the majority were women.

Some expressed the view that Carnival is a business and should be run as such and, having been commercialised over the years, is now big business. Others lamented that Government funds have spawned levels of corruption in Carnival and, instead of being self-reliant, people have become lazy with easy access to State funds.

Indeed, many are the reports of the role of organisers, officers of the various associations, cultural entrepreneurs, lobbyists and middle men who capture State funds and utilise them for various unspecified purposes without record or accountability.

While the respondents referred to above cannot be deemed a statistically significant sample, they were, I believe, randomly chosen and do, in my view, reflect the views of a large portion of the population on this one aspect of the Carnival enterprise.

I am not quite certain what aspects of Carnival Government’s funds are eventually employed to support. My own position is that people should be free to enjoy themselves in whatever form they choose within the confines of the law and generally acceptable social norms. They however should do so at their own expense.

I do take exception to the tax dollars to which I contribute being used to support aspects of the celebration which glorify nakedness, lewdness, crassness and violence and which promotes calypso lyrics devoid of creativity or class with some of them flagrantly denigrating sectors of the population.

Nevertheless, there are thousands who are of the firm conviction that Carnival must be financially supported by the Government since it is the national culture and its health and well-being cannot be reduced merely to monetary considerations.

They will argue that pan is now established as the national instrument and is vigorously promoted only during the Carnival season while calypso as an art form is the epitome of our verbal cultural expression and can only flourish in the Carnival environment.

There are still many others who cling to the view that Government’s funding of Carnival is necessary to boost tourism and foreign exchange earnings despite scepticism expressed about the sustainability of the industry based on the attraction of a two-day festival. In any event, a rigorous analysis of financial costs and benefits of the Carnival celebration would cast serious doubt on the claim that the tourist arrivals associated with it do in fact boost our net foreign exchange earnings.

Then there are those who believe that withdrawal of Government support would see an escalation in crime. However, despite huge Government funding over the years , crime has escalated to unprecedented levels.