A lot of people are dismayed by the quality and tone of the political rhetoric in our country and the divisive, racially charged crosstalk that is often present in parliament, the mainstream and social media and on political platforms and circles. Why are we behaving like this now? Are we turning our rich diversity assets of First Peoples, European, African, Chinese, Indian, Jews, Syrian-Lebanese, mixed, including douglas and multi- mixed, and now, Venezuelans, into a liability? Are we turning our backs on “every creed and race find an equal place?” Are we giving up on the idea of unity in the midst of diversity and currents of fusion?
Politicians and other citizens of our diverse Republic alike, do you not see what is happening all over the world? You want to turn your back on the peace, harmony, picong, give and take, goodwill, humour, laughter and camaraderie we have here and, instead, import that toxic life of intolerance, resentment and mutual hate? Do we want now to burst that fragile rubber band that holds us together as a people? And to the political parties, I ask ... do you want that to happen when two women are in charge of government and opposition? I would think not.
Let us not play around with fire. Fire can burn and can spread.
Trinidad and Tobago got Adult Suffrage in 1946. Up to 1956, in the years which included the 1946 and 1951 elections, candidates were largely individuals - well-known personalities with community presence. Although political parties existed in name (Labour, Socialist, Workers and Home Rule), they were loosely organised and personalities dominated.
When you read the roll call of elected members of the legislature of 1946 and 1951, significant names in community and national history come up. Albert Gomes, Patrick Solomon, Roy Joseph, APT James, Timothy Roodal, Chanka Maharaj, Clarence Abidh, Victor Bryan, Ranjit Kumar, Tubal Uriah Butler, Ashford Sinanan, Mitra Sinanan, Bhadase Sagan Maharaj, Pope Mc Lean, Aubrey James, Raymond Hamel-Smith, Edwin Dural, Surujpat Mathura, Adjodahsingh and Charles Netto.
As a child in the 1950s, I grew up hearing many of these names and never in my consciousness associated them with race. And neither in my family, in school, nor in Sangre Grande, where I grew up until age eight, did I associate any of these personalities with racial sectionalism.
The standout leaders during the pre-1956 period were Albert Gomes and Tubal Uriah Butler. Butler was comfortable with Indian collaborators from Reinzi onwards. Gomes, of Portuguese descent, was a coalition builder who crossed intellectual, political and racial boundaries.
When you look at the personalities in the legislative line-up against the background of our political evolution over the ten-year period from adult suffrage in 1946 to party government in 1956, the issue of race does not jump out at you. In that ten-year period, personalities emerged because they distinguished themselves in some way. And in the legislature, there was respect and admiration for each other’s work. Patrick Solomon, who was in the legislature then and who became a parliamentarian and minister in the Dr Eric Williams government of 1956, and who was often critical of Chanka Maharaj because of his grassroots, unorthodox, often theatrical, unschooled outbursts in the legislature, also publicly recognised Maharaj’s authentic and genuine representation of the people, his integrity, sincerity of intentions and genuine anti-colonial disposition.
When and how did deep divisiveness, disrespect and racial polarisation enter our politics?
In a fundamental way, it ironically began with the emergence of party politics when the People’s National Movement (PNM), founded as a multiracial party in 1955, emerged as an Afrocentric government post-1956. Dr Williams had brought together Chunnilal Saith, Kamaludeen Mohammed, Ibit Musahib, Winston Mahabir and Sayeed Mohammed, but Ivor Oxall’s 1968 book described the government as “Black Intellectuals come to Power.” From 1958, Indian leadership had begun a retreat under the weight of the “recalcitrant Indians” speech in Woodford Square, after Abert Gomes led a coalition with Bhadase Sagan Maharaj, who entered the legislature in 1951, to win the federal elections.
The recalcitrant indians speech alienated Indians inside the PNM and elicited a panic response in the community outside, which Bhadase Sagan Maharaj began to capitalise on, being leader of the Maha Sabha and the sugar union and which ultimately led to the formation of the Democratic Labour Party, the emergence of Dr Rudranath Capildeo as leader, the very divisive election of 1961 and the Marlborough House compromise on T&T Independence in 1962.
What to do now, 64 years Independent?
