Pol­i­tics is a dif­fi­cult pur­suit which is why it is dif­fi­cult to de­fine or mea­sure suc­cess or fail­ure in po­lit­i­cal life. Pol­i­tics is al­so con­cerned with how and what we com­mu­ni­cate. It is ad­ver­sar­i­al in na­ture as each side scores points by point­ing out the fail­ures of the oth­er side, not suc­cess­es, to in­flict rep­u­ta­tion­al dam­age and there­fore lim­it cred­i­bil­i­ty.

But if pol­i­tics is about man­ag­ing pub­lic re­la­tions, man­ag­ing a coun­try is a more hard-nosed af­fair. Gov­ern­ing a coun­try re­quires that re­al is­sues be ad­dressed by im­ple­ment­ing so­lu­tions that can work for the ben­e­fit of all. This means us­ing the im­mense pow­er re­posed in the State to get the job done.

The Con­sti­tu­tion has built-in checks and bal­ances that prob­a­bly frus­trate elect­ed of­fi­cials. They are de­signed to lim­it the pow­er of elect­ed of­fi­cials to cer­tain bound­aries to pre­vent the Ex­ec­u­tive branch from rid­ing roughshod over cit­i­zens’ rights. This is an ever-present dan­ger as French pres­i­dent Em­manuel Macron has dis­cov­ered.

Ex­tend­ing the re­tire­ment age by two years to age 64 was forced through the leg­is­la­ture with­in the law. It may have been le­gal and the tech­ni­cal­ly-cor­rect choice, fi­nan­cial­ly and de­mo­graph­i­cal­ly, but it did not have the sup­port of the pop­u­la­tion. It has led to wide­spread protest and ag­i­ta­tion and squan­dered his po­lit­i­cal cap­i­tal.

In T&T, no ad­min­is­tra­tion has been guilty of the kind of clear and de­ci­sive ac­tion as­so­ci­at­ed with the Macron ex­am­ple. Quite the op­po­site. Key de­ci­sions are post­poned or avoid­ed as they are too po­lit­i­cal­ly sen­si­tive un­til a cri­sis can be cre­at­ed to jus­ti­fy the ac­tion that would or­di­nar­i­ly have been self-ev­i­dent and ought to have been tak­en years be­fore.

Our elect­ed of­fi­cials speak glibly about what they deem their re­spon­si­bil­i­ty, rather than ac­cept­ing their ac­count­abil­i­ty to en­gage the pow­er of the State. The cur­rent crime prob­lem is an out­stand­ing ex­am­ple of this fail­ure.

Cit­i­zens have dif­fi­cul­ty un­der­stand­ing why elect­ed of­fi­cials with mul­ti­ple de­grees can­not fix the coun­try’s prob­lems. They con­clude ei­ther the coun­ty is un­govern­able, elect­ed of­fi­cials aren’t com­pe­tent, or the prob­lem is too com­plex.

The re­al­i­ty is that po­lit­i­cal ob­jec­tives and pri­or­i­ties are some­times at odds with what is best for the coun­try. Politi­cians fo­cus on their longevi­ty, pop­u­lar­i­ty, in­flu­ence, and how that ex­tends their par­ty’s chances of elec­toral suc­cess, not how best to gov­ern the coun­try.

Hence much of the po­lit­i­cal plat­form rhetoric is about the past, the fail­ures of pre­vi­ous ad­min­is­tra­tions, and al­le­ga­tions of cor­rup­tion.

Run­ning a coun­try re­quires a fo­cus wider than a po­lit­i­cal di­a­tribe. It en­com­pass­es many dis­ci­plines and man­ag­ing the coun­try’s fi­nan­cial and peo­ple re­sources is the key task. Politi­cians are in a lead­er­ship role, how­ev­er un­suit­ed they may be to that re­spon­si­bil­i­ty.

They are elect­ed to gov­ern and serve the needs of the en­tire coun­try, not se­lect­ed com­mu­ni­ties or tribes. They must shape pol­i­cy and man­age the coun­try’s re­sources in a man­ner that ben­e­fits all. That means pru­dent in­vest­ment and ex­pen­di­ture de­ci­sions, that will prop­er­ly po­si­tion peo­ple and the coun­try to meet the ex­ist­ing and emerg­ing chal­lenges. And there are many chal­lenges.

Gang vi­o­lence and the cur­rent state of law­less­ness did not hap­pen overnight. Blame can­not be as­cribed to any one po­lit­i­cal par­ty or group. Abu Bakr re­peat­ed­ly in­di­cat­ed that all par­ties looked to him and his groups for as­sis­tance in win­ning elec­tions, claims which were nev­er forcibly de­nied. To move the coun­try for­ward politi­cians have to change their ap­proach and tone.