"But disagreement, which is inevitable, is healthy for society, as Sunstein (2003) eloquently argues. It helps us to move from poor or even good policies to better ones, and it is particularly effective at doing this when disagreements are clear, reasoned, and inclusive. Transparent, well-organised policy analysis can help people formulate effective choices, and thereby turn heat into light."
Christopher Robert and Richard Zeckhauser-The Methodology of Positive Policy Analysis
The problem with the stand-off between Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar and environmental activist Dr Wayne Kublalsingh is that they are both right.
The Prime Minister-who, it is becoming clear, sees the project as an important part of her legacy, bringing development to her rural constituency and its neighbouring areas-cannot allow the government's plans, which will facilitate traffic to Fyzabad, Siparia, Debe and Penal on the way to Point Fortin, to be delayed by an environmental activist with a hazy plan and shifting demands.
Added to this are the overruns, arising out of any deviation on the agreed routes, which are sure to be added for delays and changes in scope estimated to run into hundreds of millions on an already bloated project estimated to cost $7.2 billion before the first backhoe was mobilised.
Kublalsingh, who sees the highway projects as uprooting entire communities and projecting environmental disaster to the sensitive area around the Oropouche lagoon, contends that re-routing the highway would not only result in significant cost reductions but would preserve the communities now in danger of being dislocated and protect the lagoon.
It is a typical public policy dispute, routinely played out in developed countries all the time without anyone having to threaten a hunger strike for resolution.
In an academic paper published in September 2010, the two Harvard Kennedy School professors developed a model for the resolution of such public policy disputes that we would do well to emulate. In fact, the approaches being adopted by the leading protagonists in this dispute are eerily textbook examples of what one would expect in a major policy dispute.
The Prime Minister, for example, has complained that Kublalsingh keeps shifting the demands, where he once began by simply asking for an audience with her, then for her to agree for a review (which was granted), before asking that work be suspended while an independent team is appointed to oversee the matter.
But that is precisely how public policy debates are conducted. Robert and Zeckhauser found that "...advocates of contested policies may strategically misrepresent their preferences or beliefs if they think that, in the ultimate tug and haul of policy debate, such dissembling will lead to an outcome they prefer."
While the PM and her Cabinet (with the very public abstention of Winston Dookeran), in the face of appeals to reason and sentiment, have become, to some elements of the public, "dispassionate analysts wedded to a particular position," who "having (been) published on a particular subject in the past, she might feel the need to periodically defend her former model or position, if only for consistency or personal pride.
If such path dependence is strong, the disagreements that emerge will tend to persist." This is why the PM and her spokesmen have taken to describing her as a strong leader who will not be easily swayed even by concerns of one man's health against her responsibilities to the nation.
The debate is being played out before a largely ignorant public who, for those resident north of the Caroni bridge and do not particularly venture past the Sea Lots lighthouse, are not even clear of the geography of the propositions being debated or of the merits of the proposals being advanced.
To make matters worse, as Richard and Zeckhauser found "...no matter the original source of a difference in beliefs, people naturally seek out individuals and sources of information that further reinforce those beliefs. This may take the form of ensconcing oneself amid like-minded friends, colleagues and news sources, all of which tend to reduce the unpleasant challenge and cognitive dissonance of being confronted with opposing viewpoints."
Which is why those thousands who supported Kublalsingh in his campaign against the smelter can so easily turn against him in the current campaign, since it is clear that many of the positions taken are being driven by the support of like-minded friends and colleagues.
Unfortunately for us, the only way out of the situation is the kind of analysis which we are not used to employing for public expenditures, whether it be a billion-dollar highway, the purchase of the OPVs or simply spending $4.5 million for a lime in the Queen's Park Savannah.
Thirty years ago, when the highway was conceived, for example, environmental considerations may not have figured as strongly as they do now, and the Government should have factored this into their consideration when making their policy decisions. In a sense, we have learnt nothing since the smelter debate.
The research suggests public policy should be based on sensitivity analysis based on clearly-spelt-out parameters which would not only anticipate the kinds of objections being raised by Kublalsingh but provide a rationale for decision-making should they arise. The analysis can even take into account the disappointment of political investors dependent on contracts for the highway.
The debate becomes unhealthy not just over Kublalsingh's decision to inflict damage to his own wellbeing and the trauma it brings to his family and the national community, but when, on the other side, we see a callous indifference to human suffering. The public deserves to be presented with more compelling arguments on both sides.
Maxie Cuffie runs a media consultancy, Integrated Media Company Ltd, is an economics graduate of the UWI and holds an MPA from the Harvard Kennedy School as a Mason Fellow in Public Policy and Management.