For decades, lo­cal gov­ern­ment re­form in Trinidad and To­ba­go has been stag­nant: pol­i­cy pa­pers re­main on shelves, con­sul­ta­tions lack clo­sure and leg­is­la­tion is passed but nev­er ful­ly pro­claimed.

Each cy­cle re­news hope that the sys­tem clos­est to the peo­ple will fi­nal­ly be em­pow­ered to serve them bet­ter. Yet, com­mu­ni­ties still ex­pe­ri­ence un­even ser­vice de­liv­ery, frag­ile in­sti­tu­tions and a per­sis­tent sense that lo­cal gov­ern­ment is treat­ed as an af­ter­thought rather than a pil­lar of na­tion­al gov­er­nance.

That con­text makes the cur­rent mo­ment im­por­tant—and del­i­cate. The rul­ing Unit­ed Na­tion­al Con­gress (UNC) ad­min­is­tra­tion has sig­nalled a shift in tone, if not yet in law. Min­is­ter of Rur­al De­vel­op­ment and Lo­cal Gov­ern­ment Khadi­jah Ameen has ar­gued that many in­ef­fi­cien­cies can be fixed with­out rush­ing head­long in­to sweep­ing leg­isla­tive re­form. Her em­pha­sis, for now, is on im­ple­men­ta­tion, op­er­a­tional dis­ci­pline and pro­duc­tiv­i­ty with­in ex­ist­ing arrange­ments, along­side the promise of a na­tion­al plan­ning di­rec­tion.

That ap­proach is not with­out mer­it. Lo­cal gov­ern­ment in T&T does not fail sole­ly be­cause of out­dat­ed statutes. It al­so fal­ters when re­sources are mis­used, over­sight is weak and ser­vice de­liv­ery is politi­cised.

But prag­ma­tism must not slide in­to com­pla­cen­cy, nor should re­form be­come hostage to par­ti­san cross­fire. Re­cent ex­changes over the $2.1 bil­lion al­lo­ca­tion to re­gion­al cor­po­ra­tions il­lus­trate the dan­ger. Min­is­ter Ameen in­sists the is­sue is not fund­ing but mis­man­age­ment, point­ing to po­lice in­ves­ti­ga­tions, in­flat­ed con­tracts and waste­ful spend­ing, and stress­ing that al­lo­ca­tions to Peo­ple’s Na­tion­al Move­ment-led cor­po­ra­tions ex­ceed those to UNC-run bod­ies. Op­po­si­tion may­ors, mean­while, warn that brand­ing cor­po­ra­tions by par­ty colour weaponis­es gov­er­nance and un­fair­ly vil­i­fies work­ers and com­mu­ni­ties that “do not wear par­ty jer­seys.”

Both sides touch on a deep­er truth: lo­cal gov­ern­ment can­not thrive when it is treat­ed as a po­lit­i­cal bat­tle­ground rather than a pub­lic ser­vice in­sti­tu­tion. Coun­cils ex­ist to clean drains, main­tain roads, man­age pub­lic spaces and re­spond to dis­as­ters—func­tions that af­fect cit­i­zens di­rect­ly and re­gard­less of po­lit­i­cal loy­al­ty. When gov­er­nance is framed as “PNM mon­ey” ver­sus “UNC mon­ey,” ac­count­abil­i­ty weak­ens and pub­lic trust erodes.

This is why an en­light­ened ap­proach to lo­cal gov­ern­ment re­form is need­ed—one that mar­ries short-term ef­fi­cien­cy with long-term struc­tur­al clar­i­ty. Im­ple­men­ta­tion mat­ters, but so does vi­sion. Au­ton­o­my, fis­cal in­de­pen­dence and clear­ly de­volved pow­ers can­not re­main ab­stract as­pi­ra­tions for­ev­er. The Mis­cel­la­neous Pro­vi­sions (Lo­cal Gov­ern­ment Re­form) Act of 2022, which ad­just­ed coun­cil­lor terms and sig­nalled broad­er change, still awaits full op­er­a­tional­i­sa­tion. Years of con­sul­ta­tion, in­clud­ing re­ports and drafts as re­cent as 2024 and 2025, have al­ready mapped much of the ter­rain. The chal­lenge now is po­lit­i­cal will.

Lo­cal gov­ern­ment is not mere­ly an ad­min­is­tra­tive con­ve­nience. It is democ­ra­cy in its most tan­gi­ble form: coun­cil­lors res­i­dents can call, of­fices they can vis­it, de­ci­sions that shape dai­ly life. It is al­so a train­ing ground for na­tion­al lead­er­ship and a buffer against so­cial in­sta­bil­i­ty when it works well—and a cat­a­lyst for in­equal­i­ty when it does not.

The coun­try does not need an­oth­er decade of talk, nor does it need re­form re­duced to par­ti­san point-scor­ing. What it needs is bal­ance: firm ac­tion against cor­rup­tion and waste, trans­par­ent and fair fund­ing, re­spect for work­ers and com­mu­ni­ties and a clear, time-bound path to­ward gen­uine em­pow­er­ment of lo­cal au­thor­i­ties.

Strength­en­ing lo­cal gov­ern­ment is not a favour to coun­cils. It is an in­vest­ment in gov­er­nance it­self—and in the qual­i­ty of life of every cit­i­zen.