As T&T moves inexorably closer to the impending and eagerly anticipated general election, it is interesting to step back and take a look at the political landscape in two other countries where election winds are blowing. First of all, there is the British election campaign that is currently under way, and secondly there is the eagerly anticipated Federal election in Canada, which is due sometime this year. All three countries have a proud tradition of democracy, and in all cases, the incumbent is, or will be seeking, a fresh mandate from its citizens, to continue what it sees as unfinished business.
In Britain, the ruling Conservative Party has traditionally represented an ideology platform, and is fighting the election based on its record. In short, it is saying to the British people, here is what we have achieved, and here is how we plan to build on it in the future, by seeking a new mandate.
By contrast, the Labour Party's position is that the government's policies have been bad for Britain, and that the country therefore needs to alter its direction. The major issues are the economy, healthcare, immigration, as well as Britain's future in the European Union, and what impact it will have on the lives of British citizens. Elections are about providing the electorate with options, alternatives and clear unambiguous choices. Elections are about providing the electorate with a road map of where each party plans to take the country. In that regard, the political leaders in Britain recently had a televised debate so as to enlighten the population on where their respective parties stand on the issues in going forward. These types of debates are quite useful, and in the case of the US presidential elections, they are crucial.
The date for the Canadian election has not been announced as yet. However, the current Prime Minister has already indicated his strategy to portray his main rival as too youthful and too inexperienced to deal effectively with the economic, social and national security issues that affect Canada.
The personality factor is expected to be an issue, because the leader of the Liberal Party is the son of a very popular former prime minister, who some may see as riding on his father's coattails. It is highly anticipated that there will be a number of televised debates between Canada's political leaders, when the time comes.
Another issue that may affect the Canadian election pertains to three government Senators who, it has been alleged, were claiming personal expenses while purporting to be on official Senate business. Politicians implicated in such transgressions, have, in the past, been subjected to thorough police investigations and have been known to face criminal charges. The usual charge levied in such circumstances is breach of trust. There is concern on the government's side that the publicity surrounding these incidents could cause embarrassment or prove to be damaging, in an election year.
As we reflect on the impending T&T elections, we must therefore ask ourselves what are the defining issues. What distinguishes one party from the other, in ways that do not pertain to race? So far, the campaign is fraught with negativity and cynicism. It is interesting that no party offers any concrete plans, any specific goals or any vision or road map for the future. All that is heard or read is vitriolic personal attacks, scandals, insults, character assassinations, mudslinging, legal threats, accusations and counter accusations and empty rhetoric. It is unbridled, unrestrained, and devoid of any civility. Worst of all, this strategy of "pelting stones" at one another, has the potential to intensify, as the election draws closer.
So, how about a televised leadership debate in T&T between the two main protagonists–Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar and Dr Keith Rowley. It would be a step away from the vitriol as they attempt to engage each other with more civility and bring some dignity to the campaign.
The issues and challenges facing the country can be clearly identified and brought to the forefront. A competent, mutually respected and impartial moderator would be able to ensure that the public's interest is well served. The debate would put the spotlight on each leader, who can no longer remain nebulous, but must outline his or her vision for T&T, and most importantly, how they plan to achieve their goals. It is likely to have the citizens glued to their television sets.
How can a country expect to be progressive, when, in the opinion of the electorate, the only issue on election day is which party is less corrupt, or the ethnic origin of the leader? It should come as no surprise that a recent poll indicated that 33 per cent of the electorate is undecided. The reason they are undecided is that they are still waiting to hear how the two leaders plan to tackle the economic and social challenges facing the country, as it moves forward.
They are undecided because they have not heard how any party intends to make T&T a better place for all its citizens. They are undecided because it takes more than vitriol, race or rhetoric to earn their votes.
The concept of leadership debates, in this and in future elections, has the potential to free T&T from the yoke of race-based politics.
Michael Prince