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

THE RACE CARD

by

20160723

The re­cent com­ments on Ra­dio Jaagri­ti by Mr Sat­narayan Ma­haraj to the ef­fect that the late prime min­is­ter Patrick Man­ning was a racist drew the ire of Prime Min­is­ter Dr Kei­th Row­ley. The Leader of the Op­po­si­tion, Kam­la Per­sad-Bisses­sar, asked ques­tions about whether the events re­count­ed by Ma­haraj were true or not, while not agree­ing on the race ques­tion.

While re­ject­ing the view that Man­ning was a racist, I recog­nise that the chal­lenge that has been pre­sent­ed here is the ques­tion of the in­ter­pre­ta­tion of po­lit­i­cal and pol­i­cy events. That chal­lenge starts with the is­sue of recog­nis­ing that in so­ci­eties like ours po­lit­i­cal pa­tron­age and po­lit­i­cal ac­tions are of­ten cast in racial terms as a means of de­scrib­ing mo­tive.

This has be­dev­illed our so­ci­ety both be­fore and af­ter in­de­pen­dence. The talk of a racial di­vide is of­ten con­fused with what is re­al­ly a po­lit­i­cal di­vide. This has been ex­ac­er­bat­ed over the last 30 years with the fact that the coun­try's old­est par­ty, the PNM, has had to ro­tate pow­er with oth­er par­ties since 1986.

The emer­gence of a re­al two-par­ty sys­tem since 1991 with the emer­gence of the UNC as an op­po­si­tion and then as a gov­ern­ment has changed the po­lit­i­cal dy­nam­ic of the coun­try in such a way as to blur the lines be­tween race and pol­i­tics. Be­fore the NAR de­feat­ed the PNM in 1986, there was nev­er any se­ri­ous chal­lenge faced by the PNM for its first 30 years of ex­is­tence (1956-86).

How­ev­er, its last 30 years (1986-2016) has seen fre­quent ro­ta­tions of pow­er in 1986, 1991, 1995, 2001, 2010 and 2015. It is this phe­nom­e­non that has cre­at­ed a high­er de­gree of po­lit­i­cal angst than be­fore about po­lit­i­cal con­tests. Pri­or to 1986 there was nev­er any doubt about who would win elec­tions as it was a fore­gone con­clu­sion that the PNM alone was dom­i­nant.

How­ev­er, the seeds of po­lit­i­cal change were al­ways ly­ing be­low the sur­face and the elec­torate was not as racial­ly po­larised as some would have us be­lieve. The 1981, 1991, 1995, 2001 and 2007 elec­tions bore tes­ti­mo­ny to that fact based on the out­comes with third par­ties hav­ing an im­pact on the re­sults.

The ex­is­tence of strong third par­ties in so­ci­eties where there are sup­pos­ed­ly strong bi­fur­ca­tions of vot­ing be­hav­iour tend to un­der­mine the race ar­gu­ment. Their lim­it­ed suc­cess is usu­al­ly a func­tion of the sys­tem of elec­tion.

It is of­ten said that race is the en­gine of pol­i­tics in plur­al so­ci­eties. The cre­ation of anx­i­ety and fear are fac­tors that usu­al­ly dri­ve po­lit­i­cal cam­paigns at the ground lev­el while main­tain­ing mul­ti­cul­tur­al­ism above the sur­face on all sides. The in­ter­play be­tween race, re­li­gion and eth­nic­i­ty can make a lethal cock­tail for any so­ci­ety to en­dure dur­ing peak pe­ri­ods of po­lit­i­cal ac­tiv­i­ty.

De­spite all of this, T&T has done quite well com­par­a­tive­ly speak­ing with oth­er de­vel­op­ing coun­tries. There is al­ways the pres­ence of some­thing called "the race card" which can be used as a tool of guilt or mo­bil­i­sa­tion. The deep­er is­sue is the ques­tion of so­cial­i­sa­tion and how peo­ple think.

The re­cent con­cerns ex­pressed by the Min­is­ter of Ed­u­ca­tion about the un­der-per­for­mance of schools in the East-West cor­ri­dor in re­la­tion to schools in cen­tral and south Trinidad is one of those mark­ers of ad­vance­ment which is cru­cial to the fu­ture de­vel­op­ment of the so­ci­ety.

Ed­u­ca­tion­al op­por­tu­ni­ties are equal­ly avail­able to all and have been in­creas­ing­ly so in the post-in­de­pen­dence pe­ri­od, how­ev­er, it is the oth­er fac­tors of home life, school dis­ci­pline, com­mit­ment of teach­ers among oth­ers that can make the dif­fer­ence. The Min­is­ter of Ed­u­ca­tion must be com­pli­ment­ed for flag­ging the is­sue be­cause in 20 years from now that can make the dif­fer­ence be­tween young pro­fes­sion­als and young crim­i­nals as sad as that may seem.

Dr Row­ley's re­sponse to Ma­haraj raised the is­sue of sedi­tion large­ly be­cause of the ref­er­ence to race in the com­men­tary by Ma­haraj. Kam­la Per­sad-Bisses­sar cau­tioned him about the use of the term large­ly be­cause there were is­sues of in­ter­pre­ta­tion of con­tro­ver­sial events. The fact that those kinds of ex­changes can take place among po­lit­i­cal lead­ers in our so­ci­ety with­out the at­ten­dant vi­o­lence that such ex­changes would bring in oth­er de­vel­op­ing coun­tries is a sign of ma­tu­ri­ty.

There are some by-prod­ucts emerg­ing from these ex­changes as the Guardian re­port­ed last Tues­day that for­mer speak­er Oc­c­ah Sea­paul in­di­cat­ed that she planned to sue Prime Min­is­ter Row­ley about his com­ments on her tenure as Speak­er dur­ing a pe­ri­od of con­tro­ver­sy in Ju­ly-Au­gust 1995.

In gen­er­al, it is usu­al­ly dif­fi­cult to have a civ­il con­ver­sa­tion about is­sues of race in this so­ci­ety be­cause of a pref­er­ence for a psy­chol­o­gy of avoid­ance of the sub­ject it­self. In rais­ing the is­sue at the open­ing of Par­lia­ment last year, Pres­i­dent An­tho­ny Car­mona said: "Why can we not all just get along?" (Hansard, House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives, Sep­tem­ber 23, 2015, p 9).

Un­for­tu­nate­ly, life is not as sim­ple as that. Dis­agree­ment is as healthy as con­sen­sus in en­sur­ing that rights and free­doms are pro­tect­ed. For us, race is not a cri­sis, but rather a re­al­i­ty that we have learned to live with peace­ful­ly.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored