You ever read a newspaper article headlined National Record Broken in such and such a sport and when you read further the competitor in question actually came last in the race? I am not saying that breaking a national sporting record is not important. But, Oh Lord!
True, I have never seen a boxing story in which one fighter was described as having placed second, but some accounts of contests in other areas of human endeavour have come rather close.
Sometimes there needs to be extensive excavation to extract some kind of recognition for the effort expended–extending way beyond the jaws and into the digestive tract, and beyond, of inglorious defeat.
That said, for people following contests of all kinds, I think it would be useful to provide advance guidelines on what should constitute a victory and what should be described as a loss if only because there are sometimes (unpleasant) shades of grey.
Achievement, for example, is sometimes used almost as a substitute for the word victory. The Olympics provide us with some good case studies in the use of such a linguistic twist. A first time does not mean first place. Okay, so national football teams do not routinely, in most instances, make it to the World Cup but beyond the tassa parade and the free houses, or what have you, achieving this is hardly an act of winning anything. This is an achievement, but not a victory.
So, let's come to what happened in Trinidad (not Tobago) last Monday.
The system for the holding of local government elections in Trinidad is not the same as what applies for general elections. In the former case, we have a mixed system of both first-past-the-post contests and proportional representation. This is only the second time that the nomination of aldermen to local government councils is being replaced by a system in which these representatives are appointed, out of a "closed list" on the basis of the proportion of votes received in the individual municipalities.
So, since 2013, the popular vote accrued on a regional (not national) basis has become a factor to determine who has emerged as the winner of a local government election in a specific region. This was the solution to initial word of a tie in Sangre Grande.
The popular vote at the national level does not count. The same thing happened when the Democrats lost the election in the United States notwithstanding its majority in the popular vote. That is the system there. All contestants entering that race knew so beforehand and are entitled to question the system post facto but are not on solid ground in asserting any kind of de jure victory because this is not going to be expressed in either the Senator or the House of Representatives or, especially, the White House.
Likewise, which party earned the most votes on Monday, does not mean anything when it comes to command of the 14 municipalities in Trinidad. It matters at the individual, regional levels only.
In Guyana there is a mixed system which employs the first-past-the-post method to elect the holders of 50 per cent of the seats on the municipalities and what they call National Democratic Councils and proportional representation for the other half.
This has created space for the participation of both individual, independent candidates and what are described as voluntary organisations or community-based organisations in the process. It is actually a remarkable system that organisations such as the COP, MSJ and NSA may wish to look at closely if they do not plan to remain shut out indefinitely.
Okay, so we basically understand what represents a victory at the municipal level in Trinidad–a majority of votes in electoral districts and a plurality of votes by region.
What also does not count, in an absolute sense, are the number of electoral districts won at the national level.
Bear in mind my proviso above because it is statistically possible for a party to win an equal number of electoral districts when compares with other contestants, understanding that some regions have more districts than others, yet emerge with fewer regions in the bag.
So, claiming victory by pointing to the popular vote nationally and the number of electoral districts held does not carry much weight. They are nice figures to cite, but they do not necessarily signal a win.
It was clear to everyone that none of the current political organisations, including the lesser players, had been able to ignite a high level of interest in the value of local government representation. This is not the same as proposing a reformation of the system. Local government reform is not the function, at this stage, of local government. It is the work of the Cabinet and parliament.
Additionally, national bacchanalist campaign issues of the kind raised over recent weeks gained very little traction among voters who are concerned about the small but hugely important issues of an improved quality of life in our communities. It might have been more useful, for instance, for issues of environmental health, citizen security and responsiveness to the small but important sources of irritation to have been addressed.
However, in instances of absurdly low voter turnouts, as happened on Monday, it can probably be said that while parties won municipalities, elections are what lost the election. That's a lot clearer to me than almost all the current claims of victory.