You can't turn on a television and miss it–on the right, the Trump phenomenon in the US, and its natural opposite, on the left, the Hillary Clinton/Bernie Sanders show. The drama is all about the race for the US presidency, but beneath the TV spin, there's actually some substance.
Two clearly defined opposing forces are at play. The overarching Republican vs Democrat narrative pits reactionaries against progressives. The Democrats elected the first African American to the presidency, You can't turn on a television and miss it–on the right, the Trump phenomenon in the US, and its natural opposite, on the left, the Hillary Clinton/Bernie Sanders show. The drama is all about the race for the US presidency, but beneath the TV spin, there's actually some substance.
Two clearly defined opposing forces are at play. The overarching Republican vs Democrat narrative pits reactionaries against progressives. The Democrats elected the first African American to the presidency, who instituted a reform agenda, which the Republicans fought every step of the way. But even within the progressive vision, there's conflict: some who now support Sanders, an old-school leftie, think it's too far from liberalism's cherished values and some who think it'll do, and support Clinton.
The Republican side seems to be the dark reflection of the Democrat. Its conservative principles remain plutocratic, patriarchal, and regressive–all perfectly embodied in Donald Trump, who also faces opposition from the Republican establishment's banner of "true" (Ayn Randian) conservatism.
The key issue is that it's a battle of ideas as much as personalities, and the progressives seem to be winning. Cut to our troubled isles. Our creaky news cycle in the last week showed the PM clouting two of his senior ministers for speaking out of turn. The first was the Minister of Health's attempt to bark down the abortion debate. No, no, said the PM, he (the Minister) is not the Government. Debate on.
Then came the usually glib Faris Al Rawi, putting hope in many hearts about the decriminalisation of marijuana. No, no, said the PM, moments before he jetted off to the metropole–I 'ent know nothing 'bout that. The usually debonair AG seemed decidedly discombobulated on the CNC 3 News on Monday night as he backpedalled.
An interesting side question is why would the PM openly embarrass two of his senior ministers, one of whom (the AG) is a staunch henchman who stuck it out through the PP years? Might it not have been more discreet to send a text–"Faris, wha' is dat about ganja?" Or, "Terrence, take a pill, nuh." And not since that legislative lemur, Trevor Sudama, strode shoat-like into the Parliament has a MP needed a pill more than the present Health Minister.
But that's the bread and butter of political experts to whom I'll leave it. More interesting are the issues–progressive and reactionary, left-right, conservative- liberal–or their lack of coherence here. On the one hand, the Health Minister is anti-choice, and zealously so. On the other hand, the AG seems to be at least aware of the slow revolution in Western countries away from the unwinnable war on drugs, and a bit progressive.
But they're in the same party. So here's the question: What ideas and beliefs define and separate the political parties in our system? In the US, like the UK and Europe, the choices are a usually reactionary conservatism and progressive liberalism, with various sub-categories. In our speck of the woods, there appears to be no such distinction or classification in political choice. The PNM and the UNC began as race-based parties, and though each has significantly increased its appeal to the other ethnic group, no ideas have emerged to act as coalescing principles. In fact, the choice for either seems to be guided by a distaste for the other much of the time.
Each party occasionally spouts some vaguely sensible policy prescription, but it's never premised on commitment to any clear value system. Each barrels along, doing whatever is convenient, easy, or handed down from the IMF/World Bank/Washington oracles. Neither can claim to be progressive as the term is defined in popular Western consciousness. The UNC's last term in government showed how truly vacuous it and its supporters are. Its woman leader did little for women, gender, or the vulnerable. Her only legacy is the Children's Authority, which is an anomaly rather than an illustration of a norm. In fact, most of the seemingly progressive policies become monsters in implementation–public healthcare, GATE, CEPEP.
As guiding or founding principles and continuity go, the PNM nominally retains the skeleton of an ethos provided by its founder, Eric Williams. But the UNC is nothing more than a marriage of convenience of various economic and social groups. Its founder, Basdeo Panday, commented recently that the UNC today was not what he had founded, and used words like "kidnapped" to describe it. Which doesn't say much for "his" UNC either.
The progressive agenda usually includes environmentalism, LBGT rights, gender equity, prison reform, reproductive choices for women. The conservative view is usually blindly focused on law and order, religion, and "tradition" (i.e., status quo). But not here. Wildly divergent ideas shoot from unlikely quarters.
The Roman Catholic Archbishop has proposed a very enlightened, common-sense prison reform move, but is anti-choice. The Maha Sabha head is pro-legalisation of marijuana, but anti-LGBT. The LGBT community has used social media to make its presence significant, but is apathetic to other matters. Social media have, almost accidentally, brought the violence that suffuses the society (domestic, school fighting, crime) to national consciousness, but it's brought no change. Environmentalists have finally begun to be noticed by the public at large, but are still marginal.
The Bocas Lit Fest gave a tantalising glimpse of how such a locus of ideas could function politically during its panel on human rights, but the present situation exposes the fundamental hollowness of our states, based on reaction and populist manipulation, not principle and thoughtful choice. And this malaise, the inability to produce ideas, and the unwillingness to entertain them, as many thinkers and social scientists have noted, remains the cause of our collective misery.
End.instituted a reform agenda, which the Republicans fought every step of the way. But even within the progressive vision, there's conflict: some who now support Sanders, an old-school leftie, think it's too far from liberalism's cherished values and some who think it'll do, and support Clinton.
The Republican side seems to be the dark reflection of the Democrat. Its conservative principles remain plutocratic, patriarchal, and regressive–all perfectly embodied in Donald Trump, who also faces opposition from the Republican establishment's banner of "true" (Ayn Randian) conservatism.
The key issue is that it's a battle of ideas as much as personalities, and the progressives seem to be winning. Cut to our troubled isles. Our creaky news cycle in the last week showed the PM clouting two of his senior ministers for speaking out of turn. The first was the Minister of Health's attempt to bark down the abortion debate. No, no, said the PM, he (the Minister) is not the Government. Debate on.
Then came the usually glib Faris Al Rawi, putting hope in many hearts about the decriminalisation of marijuana. No, no, said the PM, moments before he jetted off to the metropole–I 'ent know nothing 'bout that. The usually debonair AG seemed decidedly discombobulated on the CNC 3 News on Monday night as he backpedalled.
An interesting side question is why would the PM openly embarrass two of his senior ministers, one of whom (the AG) is a staunch henchman who stuck it out through the PP years? Might it not have been more discreet to send a text–"Faris, wha' is dat about ganja?" Or, "Terrence, take a pill, nuh." And not since that legislative lemur, Trevor Sudama, strode shoat-like into the Parliament has a MP needed a pill more than the present Health Minister.
But that's the bread and butter of political experts to whom I'll leave it. More interesting are the issues–progressive and reactionary, left-right, conservative- liberal–or their lack of coherence here. On the one hand, the Health Minister is anti-choice, and zealously so. On the other hand, the AG seems to be at least aware of the slow revolution in Western countries away from the unwinnable war on drugs, and a bit progressive.
But they're in the same party. So here's the question: What ideas and beliefs define and separate the political parties in our system? In the US, like the UK and Europe, the choices are a usually reactionary conservatism and progressive liberalism, with various sub-categories. In our speck of the woods, there appears to be no such distinction or classification in political choice. The PNM and the UNC began as race-based parties, and though each has significantly increased its appeal to the other ethnic group, no ideas have emerged to act as coalescing principles. In fact, the choice for either seems to be guided by a distaste for the other much of the time.
Each party occasionally spouts some vaguely sensible policy prescription, but it's never premised on commitment to any clear value system. Each barrels along, doing whatever is convenient, easy, or handed down from the IMF/World Bank/Washington oracles. Neither can claim to be progressive as the term is defined in popular Western consciousness. The UNC's last term in government showed how truly vacuous it and its supporters are. Its woman leader did little for women, gender, or the vulnerable. Her only legacy is the Children's Authority, which is an anomaly rather than an illustration of a norm. In fact, most of the seemingly progressive policies become monsters in implementation–public healthcare, GATE, CEPEP.
As guiding or founding principles and continuity go, the PNM nominally retains the skeleton of an ethos provided by its founder, Eric Williams. But the UNC is nothing more than a marriage of convenience of various economic and social groups. Its founder, Basdeo Panday, commented recently that the UNC today was not what he had founded, and used words like "kidnapped" to describe it. Which doesn't say much for "his" UNC either.
The progressive agenda usually includes environmentalism, LBGT rights, gender equity, prison reform, reproductive choices for women. The conservative view is usually blindly focused on law and order, religion, and "tradition" (i.e., status quo). But not here. Wildly divergent ideas shoot from unlikely quarters.
The Roman Catholic Archbishop has proposed a very enlightened, common-sense prison reform move, but is anti-choice. The Maha Sabha head is pro-legalisation of marijuana, but anti-LGBT. The LGBT community has used social media to make its presence significant, but is apathetic to other matters. Social media have, almost accidentally, brought the violence that suffuses the society (domestic, school fighting, crime) to national consciousness, but it's brought no change. Environmentalists have finally begun to be noticed by the public at large, but are still marginal.
The Bocas Lit Fest gave a tantalising glimpse of how such a locus of ideas could function politically during its panel on human rights, but the present situation exposes the fundamental hollowness of our states, based on reaction and populist manipulation, not principle and thoughtful choice. And this malaise, the inability to produce ideas, and the unwillingness to entertain them, as many thinkers and social scientists have noted, remains the cause of our collective misery.
End.