Someone bearing the name Jamal Mohammed, and the face of the former communications officer of the PP Government, sent me a note on Facebook. The following is part of this note:
"Let the construction of the highway proceed...you are only inciting unnecessary emotions and creating division amongst our ranks...let your few members negotiate a reasonable settlement...cash and relocate...I believe Nidco has been making some generous offers...regrettably, you are beating a dead horse and you have lost this battle and war...it is time to move on..."
I believe this note is helpful to remind ourselves of five principles which are important in the arduous, confusing and seemingly unending task of nation-building.
We need rational,not tribal thinking
First, what does the writer mean by "our ranks"? The word "rank" suggests that there is an enemy, and that people of the same ilk, the same ethnic persuasion perhaps, should close in, keep tight together, to protect ourselves, to prevent division, discord, disarray. Is T&T a battlefield? Should persons of the same ilk, political, economic or ethnic group, close ranks, especially when the going gets tough?
Must we live with this siege mentality? Is the person or group who "breaks rank" with the tribe betraying the tribe, leaving it open to attack and dissolution? What an outmoded, reprehensible and dangerous view of our world! T&T, and the Americas, is a cosmopolitan kingdom.
While the maintenance of cultural distinctiveness is essential, in matters of the economy, the market, the politics and the development process, we must break the bonds of the ethnic, the rank, the party; engage with all groups; and let science, logic and rationality be our guide and method.
Legitimacy comesfrom right action
Second, if those who vote in a government, close ranks and support this Government in the face of rampant misbehaviour in public office, what legitimacy or right do they have to challenge any future government which might misbehave in public office? Legitimacy, authority and right proceeds from the conviction to act against injustice, everywhere, and at all times, all people, all governments.
You cannot choose to blow darts on social media, on radio, in the newspapers, in the streets and in your sermons, only against the proverbial "other." If you do so, you impair your future and your authority to critique all other proverbial tribes which come to power.
We fight, we don't flee
Third, Mr Jamal wants us to give up. Did the Prophet give up in his war against the infidels? Did Christ give up in his fight against the Roman Imperium? Did Arjuna give up in his war against the Kauravas? Do you, and the nation, fully appreciate the scale of injustice being waged against the people? The abuse tolerated? The sacrifices made? The skill and humanity and mastery which have gone into our struggles? The debauchery and spite that the people have encountered from their elected leaders?
Must we give up our fight for social, economic, financial, ecological justice? To the breaker of promises, the abusers of patrimony, the women, the elderly, the ordinary citizen? Must we just give up our communities, like lambs to the slaughter? What a cowardly imprecation, Mr Jamal. We must fight to build justice, the nation, not run away from "battle and war" as you phrased it.
Seeing through the PR
Fourth, why are you reciting that ignominious phrase, "it is time to move on," to us? Where did you learn this phrase? This is the phrase adopted by the blighted leader to smoothen, paper over, rub away all contradiction. Must we not expose, explore, resolve contractions? Or should we just paper them over, smoothen them, till they make a festering sore?
As a nation, must we not confront the contradictions confronting us, develop creative solutions to them? Or must we run our nation by glib and falsely reassuring mantras: "I am advised," "the greater good," "progress"? We want leadership which confronts the brutal facts, not papers them over with tongues of crepe.
Need for transparentprocedures
Fifth, there is the accusation that we are "inciting unnecessary emotions." Hmm. I thought we were trying to have our institutions, the Cabinet, the Ministry of Works, Nidco, the EMA, the Ministry of Finance, the departments executing procurement conduct themselves transparently and follow process. It is the failure of these institutions which led to our request to the Prime Minister for a review of the Debe to Mon Desir Highway, and a hunger strike–calling for an independent adjudication.
Should we abandon our calls to have the conclusions of this adjudication, the call for an independent cost-benefit analysis, a social impact assessment, a hydrology report, abided by? Why doesn't Mr Jamal ask the Prime Minister to abide by the fact-based, scientific conclusions of the Armstrong Report? Why has she refused to?
Mr Jamal asserts that we are beating a dead horse. We have met twice with the Honourable Prime Minister, twice with the Leader of the Opposition, twice with the executive of the COP, once with the current leader of the COP, once with the past leader. We have met many times with the MSJ leader. We have met with His Excellency, the President of the Republic.
We are encouraged with the abundant support which we receive from musicians, masmen, kaisonians, religious leaders and members of the public. We have never lost faith in the capacity of our social, cultural and political leaders, and our public, to accept logic, and ultimately make the right decision.
Wayne Kublalsingh
via e-mail