Race as explanation

THE EDITOR: In TT, race has conveniently been used to explain sociopolitical outcomes and as the basis to rebut criticisms of public policies and decisions. In many instances, race as explanation lacks credibility and so it seems with Prime Minister Rowley’s revocation of private security contracts for patrol of residential areas. His superficial reason was that the original decision “was inciting racial discord” between the one per cent and the 99 per cent.

It is common knowledge that every administration that held office in this country, including the present PNM led by Rowley, was quite comfortable with the economic power and influence exercised by the one per cent and their unique position to obtain contracts and concessions from the State. If Rowley’s administration is claiming to be different, there is very little evidence to support such a claim.

From time to time, there has been sporadic grumbling at the grassroots level on this issue but this has largely been inconsequential as with the media brouhaha created a couple of years ago by the statement of a leading member of the Syrian community extolling its power. Therefore there has to be a more substantial reason for the revocation.

As regards Rowley’s alleged concern to avoid racial strife and discord in this country, he cannot be taken seriously. In many instances in the past few years he has made statements which provoked racial animosity particularly against Indo-Trinidadians.

He is quick to allege race as the motivation behind any criticism of his government’s policies and actions. For example, when in November 2019 there was horrendous flooding in some Opposition-held constituencies and people remarked about the tardy, reluctant and insubstantial response of the Government compared to the speedy and fulsome relief measures afforded to the residents of Greenvale, Rowley attributed the criticism to race.

While the Opposition members in Parliament should be subject to justified criticism and exposure, the intemperate language used in terms of jammetry, thievery and treason represented a scathing racial attack not only on the Opposition members in Parliament but also on their support base. The language employed can be considered racially and gratuitously divisive.

In a press conference on April 1, Rowley referred to some people who ignored health and national security directives as “the recalcitrant minority.” Although the word “hostile” was omitted, the innuendo was unmistakable. It was deliberate, gratuitous and provocative.

The point of reference was Williams’ “famous” (as noted by Rowley) speech in Woodford Square on April 1, 1958, in which he excoriated Indo-Trinidadians as “the hostile and recalcitrant minority” for not voting for the allegedly progressive, patriotic and enlightened PNM in the federal elections of 1958.

Williams, however, asserted that he was not speaking about Indians such as Dr Winston Mahabir. The latter surmised that in Williams’ calculation “there were good Indians like myself and bad Indians like those who voted against the PNM.” Mahabir said he felt “used, compromised and deceived.”

This racially divisive tendency of the PNM with respect to citizens of Indian descent has survived over the years. Thus, 60 years later in November 2019, Rohan Sinanan, the PNM Minister of Works and Transport, would at a public meeting in Sangre Grande pronounce on the issue of corruption that not all Indians in politics are thieves and only the honest ones are to be found in the PNM. Presumably, all those Indians who are not in the PNM were, by inference, dishonest and corrupt.

Given its history, the PNM could hardly claim to be a party espousing racial harmony, national unity and a co-operative ethos. Rowley, as its present leader, is articulate, forceful, resolute and confident. He is a formidable debater and is in his element in the attack mode. These may be necessary attributes of a leading politician.

However, at the same time, he comes across as unduly combative, cantankerous, intemperate and impetuous. His language is, at times, uncouth and disrespectful and, wittingly or unwittingly, provokes deep antagonism. He does not appear to be calm, collected, persuasive and endearing in his appeal to encourage national co-operation and consensus. When his handlers attempt to cast him in this mode, his presentation is perceived as superficial, anaemic and contrived.

While Rowley may be an acceptable leader of his party and its supporters, he has, in my view, a long way to go in establishing himself as a trusted leader of the whole country and all its citizens. It is a sad and disappointing state of affairs.

The above comments however are not to be interpreted as an endorsement of any other political leader in the country.

TREVOR SUDAMA

San Fernando