This year marks the 60th anniversary of Trinidad and Tobago’s independence from colonial rule. The question is: how have we fared as an independent nation? Some may argue, this is a subjective question as success or failure can be viewed through the personal experiences of the individual. Others may take the view that 60 years is a relatively young age as far as nationhood goes, therefore, it is still too early to form a plausible opinion.
In my view, the island of Singapore’s meteoric rise to first world status in just 50 years after gaining independence, leads one to the unmistakable conclusion that T&T has underachieved as a society.
In contemplating his post-colonial nation, the visionary Lee Kuan Yew understood that the natural proclivity of a multi-racial society was to mobilise politically along racial lines. A tribal behaviour which led to a debilitating division of society and arrested development. He therefore took the unusual step to regulate political parties, one law being the parties candidates must reflect the demographic nature of the population. Hypothetically, should this law be applied to T&T the demographic profile of both UNC and PNM MPs would be 40 per cent Afro, 40 per cent Indo and 20 per cent “Other”.
As undemocratic as this policy may seem, it forced the political parties to mobilise along ideological rather than racial lines. The political discourse therefore revolves around concepts such as the degree of state control of the means of production or government policy on providing a social buffer against the excesses of the free market system. In other words, political mobilisation moved from the base notion of racial solidarity, driven by fear of being dominated by a racial group, to the question of ideology; namely the doctrines of Socialism vs Capitalism and the numerous combinations along the continuum.
As one takes a cursory glance at the constitutions of the two main political parties in T&T, the absence of any defining political philosophy is patently obvious. No direct references are made in the provisions of the constituting documents or the websites of either political party, as to their position on these ideological questions. Should one widen their search on the internet, Wikipedia identifies the ideology of the PNM as Social Liberalism while the UNC claims Social Democracy.
What, therefore, does all this mean to the everyday man in the street? As an example, shortly after independence, Eric Williams began the process of nationalising the commanding heights of the economy. A policy of public acquisition of commercial enterprises such as banks, fuel refining and distribution, media houses, hotels, airline, even flour and steel mills was implemented. Clearly a belief that government should control the means of production reflects a policy in keeping with the principles of Democratic Socialism.
This philosophy has never been challenged in any meaningful way by either party. Today, these public acquisitions, if not now defunct, are labour absorbing mechanisms and patronage for the party in power. They are typically loss making, inefficient entities that owe their survival to the lifeline of the tax dollar. The increasing transfers and subsidies used to maintain these state’s commercial enterprises, represents a reallocation of public funds. This carries an opportunity cost of investment in the social safety buffer needed to protect the most vulnerable in our society. Ironically, the concept of embracing the efficiency of free markets while providing for its social deficiencies is a core philosophy of both social democracy and liberalism, yet they are silent on this issue of state ownership of loss making commercial enterprises.
As we move into our seventh decade as a sovereign nation, we the people need to demand from our leaders a higher level of political discourse, such as the topic discussed above. For the sake of our youth and the future of our society, we must denounce what passes as politics today, such as two senior political veterans publicly flagellating each other over their names.
It is instinctive human nature to ascribe blame elsewhere when things fail or don’t go as expected, the usual scapegoat for failures in a society is the government, but according to Joseph de Maistre “Every nation gets the government it deserves.” Currently, we certainly deserve this bunch.
Eugene Sylvester
Carapichaima
"discourse" - Google News
June 27, 2022 at 06:19AM
https://ift.tt/1Lv5jyU
Time to elevate our political discourse | Letters to Editor | trinidadexpress.com - Trinidad & Tobago Express Newspapers
"discourse" - Google News
https://ift.tt/SdP8kpc
https://ift.tt/kF4BYmI
No comments:
Post a Comment