Tobago - the lost opportunity

I have not yet seen the view being openly explored, that a relatively fanciful but theoretically feasible solution to the THA impasse exists. The point actually came up, albeit fleetingly, on election night. It had also been raised several times during the internal self-government debates. But that has been all.

The fact is, there is a way to considerably satisfy the desires of almost everyone who voted on January 25. It is not unlike the prospect offered in December 2001 when we awoke on December 11 to the knowledge that the country had been split right down the middle in its political support for two main contenders.

As is the case in Tobago today, the constitution and electoral law were capable of only reaching the point of installation of elected officials, but not of activating the mechanisms to resume formal representation, and therefore island governance.

But these things are not just an issue of constitutions and laws. They are the stuff of politics – especially the politics of national development.

I remember the shenanigans of 2001 relatively well. Academia ought to have captured the dialogue and made sense of it. I am not sure whether this has ever been done. Where are the books? The papers.

When the moment arrived 19 plus years ago, there could have been an avalanche of knowledgeable opinion and analysis. Instead, all it found was pervasive partisan preference through all sectors of the national community, including academia. The quick resort to shibboleth prevailed. And we went nowhere.

It was the late Lloyd Best who captured the moment by proposing a reformulation of not only the constitutional models, but the political behaviours required to advance the game. Even so, the main players were not oblivious to the possibilities of the occasion. We were hearing the talk.

Could there have realistically been a rotation of command? The excavation of the best available skills and competence from among the ranks of the competitors – across the electoral aisle in the formation of a government of national unity? Whatever the public posturing, nobody really cared for the gigantic task. People could not understand that even under such circumstances, in a maturing country, the notion of civil society led opposition and participation is eminently possible.

In Guyana, such a question has arisen numerous times. But even as proportional representation heads off the mathematical possibility of a “tie”, on-the-ground political realities do more to reinforce division than the country’s constitution does to mitigate it. This should instruct those whose constant refrain in T&T is for “constitution reform.” They need to say what they really mean by this. They have not.

In this instance, the main reason for changing the rules cannot only be to break tied results. There ought to be a way to freely permit the arrangements necessary to enable willing political parties and their representatives to coalesce in the public interest.

To me, for example, there is little by way of broad policy prescription to distinguish the major players in Tobago – as is mostly the case nationally. Whoever emerges “victorious” – whether by way of fresh elections or judicially-induced solution – we are more likely to get, in a general sense, more of the same.

True, there is a feeling that longstanding strangleholds on power need to be discouraged – even as the PNM itself resided in the virtual THA wilderness between 1980 and 2001 but has held on since then. There is also the discomfiting spectre of corruption.

But who, for example, is going to overturn the provisions, made possible by the 1996 Dispute Resolution Commission, to allocate between 4.03 and 6.9 per cent of the national budget to Tobago’s financial affairs?

Who is going to negotiate a retreat from 70 per cent THA employment and all this means for private industry, independent food production, and entrepreneurship?

It is not that I am unaware of the dynamic which dictates what, prima facie, appears to be a disproportional per capita share of the national spoils. But even opponents of the measure are highly unlikely to reject this on their own turf.

I know. I know. It’s a whistle in the wind. But as a small country making our way in the world under difficult circumstances – today the pandemic – we cannot be shy about engaging our development in bold new ways.

But it seems like we are going to miss yet another opportunity to change the nature of the game, even if the rules continue to hold or are adjusted for convenience.