JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Sunday, July 27, 2025

TIME FOR A NEW PARADIGM?

by

20170107

The strike no­tice has been served, the bat­tle lines have been drawn, and to­mor­row we shall know whether the OW­TU will go ahead with its strike ac­tion at Petrotrin if the Gov­ern­ment fails to avert it.

What this mat­ter has re­vealed is the pos­si­bil­i­ty that the State may be held to ran­som if it does not mean­ing­ful­ly ad­dress the wage de­mands of the OW­TU on be­half of Petrotrin em­ploy­ees.

So far, the OW­TU is play­ing the ne­go­ti­a­tions process by the book and the Gov­ern­ment, as well as a va­ri­ety of pri­vate sec­tor um­brel­la or­gan­i­sa­tions, are plead­ing with the union not to go through with the strike ac­tion. All of this must be un­der­stood in the deep­er con­text of how we have ar­rived at this junc­ture in a broad­er philo­soph­i­cal sense.

In an ad­dress to a spe­cial con­ven­tion of the PNM in No­vem­ber 1970 at which time the "Ch­aguara­mas De­c­la­ra­tion: Per­spec­tives for the New So­ci­ety" re­placed the "Peo­ple's Char­ter" as the guid­ing philo­soph­i­cal doc­u­ment of the PNM, Dr Er­ic Williams had this to say in his ad­dress to the con­ven­tion:

"The PNM Per­spec­tives re­ject both lib­er­al cap­i­tal­ism (with its con­comi­tant of pen­e­tra­tion and take-over of the econ­o­my by mul­ti-na­tion­al cor­po­ra­tions) and the com­mu­nist or­ga­ni­za­tion of the econ­o­my and the so­ci­ety. In­stead, we fol­low the pat­tern that is be­ing in­creas­ing­ly de­vel­oped in de­vel­op­ing coun­tries of state par­tic­i­pa­tion in the econ­o­my, to the ex­tent of up to 51 per cent in par­tic­u­lar en­ter­pris­es, to en­sure that de­ci­sion-mak­ing re­mains in lo­cal hands."

That was the philo­soph­i­cal par­a­digm that Williams and the PNM adopt­ed in 1970 in the af­ter­math of the Black Pow­er up­ris­ing ear­li­er that year. In­deed, that has been the philo­soph­i­cal guide­line that has been adopt­ed by suc­ces­sive gov­ern­ments and has led to boom-and-bust cy­cles in our eco­nom­ic de­vel­op­ment as a coun­try.

That mod­el brought great pros­per­i­ty in the 1970s and ear­ly 1980s and then col­lapsed by the mid-1980s and the neo-con­ser­v­a­tive phi­los­o­phy of IMF struc­tur­al ad­just­ment poli­cies saved the coun­try from eco­nom­ic per­il by the ear­ly 1990s.

There was a re­sump­tion of that mod­el in the first decade of this mil­len­ni­um with new state en­ter­pris­es be­ing added once more to the pay­roll of the State as the oil-gas boom took place. Once again, ris­ing ex­pec­ta­tions were fu­elled by ris­ing rev­enues as well.

For the sec­ond time in our eco­nom­ic his­to­ry, the coun­try is fac­ing eco­nom­ic per­il be­cause of de­clin­ing oil and gas rev­enues and the in­abil­i­ty of the State to meet its com­mit­ments to its em­ploy­ees. Are we on the doorstep of an­oth­er neo-con­ser­v­a­tive struc­tur­al ad­just­ment pro­gramme to save the coun­try again?

The re­al­i­ty is that the trade unions in this coun­try have held firm to the Williams mod­el and have up­held its ide­o­log­i­cal in­tent. The pri­vate sec­tor-led um­brel­la or­gan­i­sa­tions seem to have gone along with it and have not adopt­ed an ide­o­log­i­cal po­si­tion more close­ly aligned with cap­i­tal­ism and the free mar­ket. In many re­spects, they have been ide­o­log­i­cal­ly neu­tral seem­ing­ly al­most afraid to ar­tic­u­late a more pro­found so­lu­tion to the prob­lem at hand.

The prob­lem at hand is whether the Williams mod­el of 1970 is still rel­e­vant to­day or is there the need for a change more than 46 years af­ter it was ad­vanced as a re­form of the first plan of 1956.

The trade unions have held firm­ly to the Williams mod­el and to its core val­ues. The pri­vate sec­tor has failed to clear­ly ar­tic­u­late a free mar­ket ap­proach and an em­brace of pri­va­ti­za­tion as their ide­o­log­i­cal po­si­tion. In­stead, they have be­come re­ac­tionary by call­ing the unions reck­less and ir­re­spon­si­ble.

The Gov­ern­ment is un­able to up­hold the val­ues of the Ch­aguara­mas De­c­la­ra­tion by try­ing to say that they are not hos­tile to the union, on the one hand, and yet they are ready to take ac­tion to break the ef­fect of the strike, on the oth­er.

The rea­son why the OW­TU is as strong as it is on this is­sue is be­cause of their firm ide­o­log­i­cal be­lief and com­mit­ment to their cause, while the pri­vate sec­tor is bereft of any philo­soph­i­cal con­vic­tion on the free mar­ket and pri­va­ti­za­tion as the op­pos­ing ar­gu­ment. The Gov­ern­ment is the mid­dle-man here seek­ing to re­act to the sit­u­a­tion, while be­ing re­luc­tant to dis­man­tle the Williams mod­el.

If it con­tin­ues this way, the en­try of neo-con­ser­v­a­tive struc­tur­al ad­just­ment poli­cies ad­min­is­tered by the IMF will be both the out­come of the cri­sis and al­so the sav­iour of the coun­try once again at great pain.

Williams' pur­suit of state cap­i­tal­ism can­not work if the State is un­able to gen­er­ate enough rev­enue to keep the mod­el go­ing. The pri­vate sec­tor is afraid of its own shad­ow on cap­i­tal­ism and the free mar­ket, the unions know ex­act­ly what they are do­ing and the Gov­ern­ment, which has been in di­a­logue with the IMF, is caught be­tween the dev­il and the deep blue sea.

If the pri­vate sec­tor could of­fer an ide­o­log­i­cal al­ter­na­tive so­lu­tion, the coun­try might ac­tu­al­ly have some­thing sub­stan­tial to de­bate. Fail­ure to do so leaves them cry­ing wolf about reck­less­ness and ir­re­spon­si­bil­i­ty when a new par­a­digm is need­ed.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored