A THIRD WORLD MENTALITY

Exactly why our political leaders — specifically, Basdeo Panday and Patrick Manning — refused to deal with this issue is best known to themselves. But, even without knowing the specific reasons for their reluctance, their inaction reflects political incompetence. This is because there would have been no political price to pay for changing the name of the nation’s highest award. The Roman Catholic Church, which oversees the country’s largest religious denomination, declared that it had no objection to the name change. The Maha Sabha, which is the country’s largest Hindu organisation, has been lobbying for the change. And polls have shown that a majority of citizens have no objection to a more neutral name, such as the Order of Trinidad and Tobago, replacing the Trinity Cross.

Moreover, the arguments offered in favour of retaining the Trinity Cross do not outweigh the arguments against. Some persons have pointed out that, as a symbol, the cross predates Christianity and that it is present in several non-Christian cultures. It has also been argued that the cross, instituted by the non-religious Dr Eric Williams and linked to the Victoria Cross, is a secular symbol. However, inasmuch as most of these commentators are themselves Christians, they are hardly unbiased.

More pertinently, the argument, even if true, is irrelevant. The issue is not whether the cross is universal or existed before Christianity. The question is how it is perceived now. The same persons who say it is non-Christian would probably voice serious objections if a cross were used, say, as a staff in a Carnival band for wining on. Also invalid is the slippery slope argument that, if the Trinity Cross is abolished, the name "Trinidad" also must be. Even if this were still a Spanish-speaking country, "Trinidad" does not have the same Christian connotations as a visible symbol.

The simple fact is, we live in a multi-religious, multi-ethnic, multi-cultural society. The only political system which has proven capable of negotiating conflicts between diverse groups is a secular system.

And, since symbols are a significant nation-builder, it is important that such symbols are all-inclusive. If certain groups feel excluded by a particular symbol, such as is the case with Hindus and Muslims, then the State has a responsibility to replace this symbol with a neutral one.

The fact that our leaders have been unable, or unwilling, to make this change signals a failure of both politics and rational thought. And that is often a characteristic of backward societies, which is why even symbolic gestures can be a key part of nation-building.