Tony Rakhal-Fras­er

Do gen­er­al, par­lia­men­tary, lo­cal elec­tions have the ca­pac­i­ty to de­liv­er de­mo­c­ra­t­ic gov­ern­ment to a pop­u­la­tion and so­ci­ety? It is a ques­tion I have been mulling, with ref­er­ence to T&T and else­where. The hold­ing of “free and fair” elec­tions is sup­posed to give cre­dence to a de­mo­c­ra­t­ic sys­tem of gov­er­nance. How­ev­er, af­ter the elec­tions, peo­ple are left on the side­lines with pow­er on­ly to en­gage in fruit­less com­plaints about poor qual­i­ty gov­ern­ment, cor­rup­tion and more.

Mod­ern forms of elec­tions to place rep­re­sen­ta­tives in a Par­lia­ment emerged in the 17th and 18th cen­turies in Eu­rope and Amer­i­ca as a means of de­ter­min­ing the will of the peo­ple, and to al­low them to par­tic­i­pate in their gov­er­nance. Eu­rope was emerg­ing from the Dark Ages and in­to the Re­nais­sance and the Age of En­light­en­ment. In­di­vid­ual and col­lec­tive free­dom, the de­vel­op­ment and ap­pre­ci­a­tion of art, an es­cape from ig­no­rance to ex­plore sci­en­tif­ic knowl­edge, and to move away from dom­i­na­tion by Feu­dal Lords to Par­lia­ments de­mand­ed that peo­ple be­gin to par­tic­i­pate in gov­ern­ment.

Mod­ern Par­lia­ments are con­sti­tut­ed of elect­ed in­di­vid­u­als who are in the­o­ry rep­re­sen­ta­tive of the peo­ple who elect them. Such rep­re­sen­ta­tives are re­quired to re­flect the will, am­bi­tions and ob­jec­tives of their con­stituents in pol­i­cy mak­ing and pro­grammes for the de­vel­op­ment of the na­tion­al com­mu­ni­ty and in­di­vid­ual con­stituen­cies.

Those ob­jec­tives, how­ev­er, can best be achieved through con­stant qual­i­ty in­ter­ac­tion be­tween the rep­re­sen­ta­tives and the elec­torate in a process of in­ter­ac­tion which starts even be­fore the polls are tak­en.

It is clear that our sys­tem of cam­paign­ing for elec­tions and the gov­er­nance and in­sti­tu­tion­al struc­ture ex­ist­ing for the ef­fec­tive and par­tic­i­pa­to­ry func­tion­ing of gov­ern­ment does not now ex­ist. Af­ter the elec­tion, the in­ter­ac­tion be­tween rep­re­sen­ta­tives and con­stituents is rel­e­gat­ed to once-a-week meet­ings in which com­plaints and pe­ti­tions are tak­en note of, and ad­di­tion­al promis­es made with a few hand­outs giv­en to the most in­di­gent (“hard-up”) in the con­stituen­cy.

From the se­lec­tion of can­di­dates through elec­tion­eer­ing and cam­paign­ing, there ex­ist di­chotomies be­tween the ide­al and the prac­tices adopt­ed. Cam­paign plat­forms are laced with un­re­al­i­ty and mau­vais langue against the op­pos­ing par­ties and can­di­dates. Can­di­dates and par­ty spokes­men toss around ide­al­is­tic and gen­er­alised poli­cies and pro­grammes as the bases for their elec­tion. Post-elec­tion, cam­paign promis­es do not square with re­sources held by the State and the ca­pac­i­ty for pro­duc­ing and im­ple­ment­ing the promis­so­ry notes which lit­tered the cam­paign ground.

One of Dr Williams’ and the PNM’s ma­jor plat­form promis­es of the 1956 elec­tion cam­paign was to end cor­rup­tion which fes­tered in the colo­nial ad­min­is­tra­tion. In the 2010 cam­paign the Peo­ple's Part­ner­ship plat­form res­onat­ed with claims of the cor­rup­tion of Man­ning’s PNM; by 2015, the PNM voic­es echoed with mass cor­rup­tion charges against the PP/UNC 2010-2015. Promis­es were made to “lock up” Madame and Mr X. The same rhetoric is be­ing spewed by the UNC as 2020 and fresh elec­tions ap­proach—no­body in jail.

Every gov­ern­ment over the last 15 years was elect­ed on the ba­sis of hav­ing the so­lu­tion to con­quer­ing crim­i­nal­i­ty; the crim­i­nal cul­ture has be­come en­dem­ic, in­dica­tive of the use­less­ness of elec­tions as a vi­tal first step to achiev­ing stat­ed ob­jec­tives.

The re­cent de­c­la­ra­tion of the po­lit­i­cal leader of the UNC, Kam­la Per­sad-Bisses­sar, that her par­ty will fol­low PNM’s Patrick Man­ning when he said a few elec­tions ago that the par­ty would con­test alone, win or lose alone is in­struc­tive.

The de­c­la­ra­tion says our two ma­jor par­ties have con­fessed not to be able to rep­re­sent the na­tion­al in­ter­est. In Gov­ern­ment and Op­po­si­tion, the two par­ties blame each oth­er for adorn­ing their con­stituen­cies with the spoils of the na­tion while starv­ing the oth­er half of the na­tion. Trib­al­ism is on full dis­play.

Elec­tions, there­fore, do not as­sist with achiev­ing ob­jec­tives which are in the na­tion­al in­ter­est; they tear the na­tion apart.

To be con­tin­ued.