From 1956 to the present, two political parties have commanded the majority of electoral votes in T&T. While one has had a few name changes, one basic characteristic remains unchanged in both parties. They are both ethnic-dominated and have maintained an inundated ethnic leadership. Glaringly obvious, except of course to the wily deceptive who for their own ambiguous purposes go to great lengths (ethnic window dressing etc.) to mask this reality. And even while people of every ethnicity are welcomed in both parties, leading members of both major parties seems unable to restrain their veiled ethnic appeal.
Over the years however, scores of virtual worshippers of these parties have had their share of disappointment with the very people they entrusted to lead them and the nation with some degree of honesty, equality and racial harmony. And it is from this dissatisfaction, political opportunists saw, and stimulated a need for a ‘third force’.
Third parties have attempted to dismiss this ever-present ethnic divide with their supposedly ‘fresh’ approaches such as ‘national reconstruction’, ‘new politics’ etc., with great fanfare, but only to quietly slither back in their shells after election results confirm our ingrained ethnic preference.
A former prime minister summed it up quite appropriately…’Not a damn seat for them’. And if they did win a parliamentary seat, it meant that they can only side with one of the major parties in supporting or not supporting parliamentary bills, amendments etc.
But even with all the disappointment supporters have had with their major party, history has shown that they usually ‘go back home’ to their ethnic-based parties on realizing the futility of just a couple of parliamentary seats.
Noticeable are the one or two successful candidates of minority parties ‘going back home’ in crucial parliamentary decisions, carrying with them of course, the parliamentary seat/s of their newly-formed third party in support of a particular political party, much to the disapproval of the undecided that supported them. The truly undecided now need to ask, is there a newly adopted strategy where influential members of one of the major parties ‘break away’, form a ‘new’ party, draw the undecided then deceitfully slither back home with their successful seat/s? Or even, are third parties’ sole purpose (in particular areas) only to draw hardcore supporters, thereby giving the opposing major political party a greater chance of securing that seat? Are the truly undecideds being politically and/or electorally conned?
Decades ago, aspiring candidates were mostly county councilors, trade unionists or maybe a ‘small case’ lawyer. You might have been in the lower income bracket but you were communityoriented, had a desire for national development and a genuine concern for lower income citizens.
Today, when you scrutinize the composition of political parties, what is inescapable is that they are saturated with top-ranked legal personnel and competently supported by the business fraternity. By the time an election is announced, a ‘small man’ from Couva or Laventille may be tossed in for good measure.
In our political climate, given that third parties are hardly likely to form a government, the truly undecided need to ask themselves, which of the two major parties, successful third parties’ candidates likely to adhere should they win a seat or two? Is it the party they initially disapprove of? Despite the two major parties’ imperfect performance over the years, citizens would do well to make a tough decision and choose one of the two. To do otherwise would not only be an exercise in futility, you could also be voting for policies and people you were opposed to in the first place.
Candidates of third parties should therefore be asked, if the party they’re now promoting has a preconceived objective to merge (in parliamentary decisions) with one of the major ones, why fool yourself and hoodwink others into thinking that you are advocating a different approach?
Why are you not right now openly supporting the major party you know you’ll be most likely clinging to?
Some people would have you believe they are trying to achieve a congress of all people. Frankly, I believe they are more like a congress cnited in cational trickery.
Lloyd Ragoo
Chaguanas
via email