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.
