Tag: Prof Ramesh Deosaran

Just back from Miami, I find our country noisier and more divisive than before I left.

But while the political heat is rising, the bottom-line question that must be asked is whether this country will be led to a safer, better place after the elections.

Who will likely do it, and how?

So the electorate waits to assess the various parties’ history, plans, policies and their final list of candidates.

In fact, as I quietly sat in my regular “refuge of peace” – Miami’s Barnes & Noble bookstore – this “who we should put” question disturbed my quiet reading. I was reading a book on “the damage to democracy” and then Thomas Sowell’s Fallacies of Social Justice.

Reading books should never be a lost art, a lost hobby or an educational tool. The symptoms are already beginning to show.

Anyhow, whichever political party wins the next elections, it will be very difficult to make this country “a safer, better place” if the parliamentary structure and related state institutions are not effectively reformed for improved political accountability and improved people-driven representation and governance.

Let’s take the indomitable UNC senator Wade Mark’s (former Speaker) passionate appeals for “parliamentary autonomy.” Parliament’s being in full administrative charge of its staff and resources is just halfway there. Having the executive separate from the legislature (Parliament) is the full way to go.

In fact, having the executive (eg ministers) separate but accountable to the legislature will be a strong justification, for a more coherent system for “parliamentary autonomy.” I repeat, there will be little or no improvement in political accountability or governance as long as the executive not only sits with but effectively controls the legislature – a Westminster-type backdoor dictatorship.

The father of the separation of powers, Baron de Montesquieu, wisely warned: “When the legislature and executive powers are unified in the same person or same body, there can be no liberty.”

We have a fake democracy. The evidence is clear. The ministers’ (executive) oath of office to serve “impartially, without fear or favour” is merely a disguise – a route to political hypocrisy.

And you know, neither the PNM nor UNC has yet formally uttered a word on this travesty of democracy. Are they both really “the same thing”? At least the UNC should say they “don’t like it so.”

Of course, there is more needed for a fuller democracy, for example, electoral reform.

So we can change the coat of arms, change street names or even pull down colonial statues as celebrated measures of decolonisation.

But it seems we lack the vision and self-confidence to push for the essential reforms required for decolonising our political system, for emancipating our minds. Symbols are important, but substance is much more. Maybe Frantz Fanon was right. The weakening colonised wounds remain deep.

We will hear many campaign promises as the mysterious election date creeps up. But in between, there are some spots of amusement, even humour. I enjoy the names of the various political parties, even the ones UNC political leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar calls “pop-up parties.” We have, in part, “patriotic, “progressive,” transformation,” “united,” and “national.”

But you can’t beat Timothy Hamel-Smith’s Hope – “Honesty, Opportunity, Performance and Empowerment” party. My favourite party name, though, goes to that never-give-up Laventille crusader, Lennox Smith. His party is Love – Laventille Out-Reach for Virtual Enrichment.

Now, as we guess who will win, there is room to ask why so many people want to go up for this election – over 200. Is it for revenge? To avenge injustice? To honestly serve the community and nation? For fame and popularity? To get rich? Those screening candidates should watch out for motive.

You see, politics is not an ordinary business. It is loaded with as much virtue as vice. Politics can make good men bad. Even an abundance of anti-corruption laws and integrity regulations seems insufficient. It is, therefore, necessary for political parties and their leaders to search and sift for candidates with the required character and integrity.

In a published letter in the press headed Choose our leaders wisely, citizen Vishnu Koon Koon said: “Politics profoundly influences not just the legal framework but the societal norms and values. Therefore, let us choose wisely, prioritising leaders who embody integrity and vision for a prosperous TT.”

Indeed, there is now a need for trust in our politicians, for confidence and faith in our political system. In addition to constitution reform, that too will be a giant step towards fixing the political system for a safer, better society.

During the Christmas season, a group of friends with mixed political loyalties, like so many citizens now, were expressing serious concerns about public-safety issues – crime, murders, corruption, politics. During the agitated discussion, blame was put on several high public officials whose names were loudly, even angrily, called out.

There were blaming, fingerpointing, etc, accompanied by disparaging words like “incompetent,” “unaccountable,” “shameless,” hypocritical” even “lazy and greedy”– until someone quietly asked: “Could we discuss these matters without calling names?” The response was: “But these highly-paid people are responsible, should be accountable and, if they can’t perform, resign.”

Calling such names publicly, however, does cause embarrassment, even humiliation. It seems a price to pay for public office. Right now, it seems risky not only to call names but to go after gangs too – a measure of our changed society.

Now our society, like others, has three public sides There is 1: its soft side, 2: its structures and institutions and in between, 3: its evil side. The soft side includes respect, kindness, gratitude, integrity, co-operation, trust in those who govern us and even discipline and civility. These are the qualities which make a civilised society. However, these are really not “soft.” They have hard impact on our social and political relations but, as widely noted, are in short supply here.

During the numerous Christmas and New Year speeches, these “soft” psychological indicators were widely used by several top-level officials (names left out) to advise the rest of us how to behave. They appeared disappointed that these humanising indicators were in very short supply. In fact, the structures and public institutions which were expensively built and staffed to help develop and secure these “soft” forms of human behaviour are themselves are in states of collapse. They became inefficient, ineffective and visibly not fit for their purpose. This joint disaster is like a cancer: it started small, but soon uncontrollably spread all over.

Even talkative leaders (no names called) from some of these expensive institutions have been found seriously lacking in practising the “good” behaviours they demand of our distressed 1.4 million population, which, when combined with the civic shortages on the “soft” side, leads us inexorably into our third side, the evil side: public disorder, crime, murders, corruption, painful inequity, mistrust, political arrogance – bringing the society near to overall collapse.

Through such failed moral leadership the country loses the greatest teacher of all – good examples. It is wisely said, “Don’t only tell me what to do, show me you do it too.”

That is especially so with some politicians (no names), where not only responsibility and accountability are thrown out of the window, but the political system is thrown into reverse gear, upside down, when these high-level politicians (no names) complain that it is the people who are to blame for the crime mess, not them.

No wonder the broken Advisory Committee on Constitution Reform described our society as “contradictory.” No wonder, too, Lloyd Best drifted from mechanical economics into what he called “social psychiatry” to understand our society. By their many confounding twists and turns, some politicians (no names) seem in need of mental treatment too.

In fact, to really understand this society, its competing fanatics and “do-no-wrong” politicians (no names), Sigmund Freud would have to come to the rescue with his theory of the subconscious and denial.

Now while trying to call a spade a spade without calling names, I came across a relevant article by Kenny Persad (Newsday, December 21) titled: Crabs-in-the-barrel mentality. You may find such “crabs” in politics (no names), in university (no names), in business, voluntary groups and in several public institutions.

Mr Persad, referring to the widespread “crab phenomenon,” explains: “The metaphor describes a situation where individuals, instead of supporting one another, try to pull down each other down, much like crabs in a barrel that prevent one from escaping.” Persad added: “When people lack personal achievements, it can foster feelings of resentment towards those who have made significant strides in their careers or personal lives.”

Like envy, Persad says this phenomenon “frequently shows up in the Caribbean as a response to anyone who dared to be exceptional or stand out.” This “crabs in a barrel” metaphor was also a favourite of the late Sir Ellis Clarke in describing our social character. We once came up with the “Carnival mentality.” Do we now have a “crab mentality” in this small, competitive society?