New and old T&T election business

Stick around long enough in the media business during election season, and you’ll recognise the substance in the old, biblical saying that there’s “nothing new under the sun.”

Our elections repeat familiar themes: party defections, propaganda (aka fake news), mysterious financial flows for campaigning, criminal charges, unethical behaviour, race-baiting, bribery, grossly over-inflated/unrealistic promises, and endless finger-pointing. The methods may change, but the plot stays essentially the same.

Even party rebels have become entirely predictable as an election story. Poll the generations and detect variances in “wow” factors regarding the party “switcheroos” - a word launched in the local lexicon by late T&T Guardian EIC, Carl Jacobs in the early 1990s - later borrowed by me, and “corrected” to read “switchcross” by editors of a UWI publication on the 1995 elections.

Still, none of this predictability makes elections dull or unimportant. Despite strikingly similar party agendas and shared reliance on state-driven solutions, electoral results should help shape public opinion, influence policy directions, and sharpen national priorities.

Consider actions against the scourge of violent crime, chronically (and in my view erroneously) focused on policing as supreme anodyne. Can you tell the difference between the parties, apart from the faces? GML’s Bavita Gopaulchan’s interrogation of some key players Monday together with platform rhetoric have not identified fundamental differences, though there is nothing to suggest an absence of genuine concern.

Also “economic diversification”- a fanciful term that pops up every cycle but rarely leads to comprehensive follow up, with every party hypnotically drawn back to energy revenues.

Heading into 2025, it all seems predictable. The way political content is being generated and spread appears to be a singular area of real change. Yesterday’s pamphleteers and propagandists are today’s social media activists, armed with memes and AI. Paid social media teams have long been assembled. The WhatsApp groups are teeming.

Meanwhile, much of the panic around AI-generated content - deepfakes, fake audio, doctored videos - isn’t about brand-new technology tailor-made for political deception. Even basic manipulation, enabling forged signatures and edited clips, has been around for ages.

The disgraceful Cambridge Analytica scandal of 2010 wasn’t the first or last of its kind either, though it did help push data privacy laws forward and brought current thinking on cybercrime more in line with reality.

Still, generative AI can make deception easier and more convincing. While AI isn’t the core problem, its misuse highlights how far some will go to mislead. The real issue seems to be the belief that dishonesty can win votes.

Cue the social scientists, now better known for off-the-cuff/top-of-the-head media “comments” as substitutes for studied research which, even so, needs to extend beyond the exclusive use of historical data. We should better understand the perils of over-reliance on both methods of explaining current realities.

But we can still look at some issues of historical fact for initial guidance. People are buzzing about the number of parties in this election - 17 in total. But that’s not a record. There were 19 in pandemic-stricken 2020. And back in 1976 and 1981, we had 11 and 12 respectively.

Voter turnout? Even the legendary 1986 33-3 landslide had a 65.45% turnout - still below the 88.11% peak of 1961. We’ve hovered around 65% average for decades. Without a major, phenomenal, shakeup, that’s unlikely to change.

But those with historical and contemporary interest would be well-advised to seek out some demographic indicators that have been largely absent in much of the current guesswork. I think there might be some important differences in 2025.

The presence of international observer missions is also more likely than not to confirm the professional conduct of the Elections and Boundaries Commissions (EBC), ritualised claims against which have never been proven outside of the predictable mauvais langue.

Ditto the importation of votes. I have before pointed to the existence of migration data to disprove longstanding mythical claims of 1961 malfeasance involving neighbouring island populations, and today there is the same kind of ole talk surrounding Venezuelans.

As for leadership changes close to elections? Not new. George Chambers became prime minister after Eric Williams’ death on March 29 and was appointed party leader after the fact, winning the elections of November 9, 1981.

ANR Robinson was chosen to lead the NAR months before the 1986 win. Kamla Persad-Bissessar won leadership of the UNC in January and led the party to victory in May 2010. The first time Keith Rowley entered an election as leader of the PNM was in the 2015 win.

In short, the drama might look different, but the stories are mostly the same. Let’s challenge ourselves to recognise today’s differences if there are any.