The latest war of words between the United National Congress (UNC) and the People's National Movement (PNM) over the Community Environmental Protection and Enhancement Programme (CEPEP) and the Unemployment Relief Programme (URP) is an example of how political rivalry continues to overshadow real issues facing T&T.
Both programmes, originally conceptualised to provide short-term employment, have become convenient political footballs. In recent weeks, accusations have been traded with the governing UNC claiming the former PNM administration has weaponised the programmes to reward loyalists, while the PNM has countered that the UNC is engaged in misinformation and hypocrisy.
But while politicians spar, thousands of workers are caught in the middle–men and women who cannot find regular employment elsewhere, who depend on these jobs to pay bills, send their children to school, and to keep their families afloat. The uncertainty that political bickering generates does nothing to ease their daily struggles.
Both CEPEP and URP were conceived as social safety nets. CEPEP, launched in 2002, was intended to beautify communities, clean public spaces, and engage workers in meaningful environmental projects. URP, in existence since the 1970s with a few name changes over the years, was designed to provide short-term employment for unskilled workers, especially in times of economic hardship.
On paper, these programmes have merit. In practice, however, they have become synonymous with inefficiency, corruption, and—perhaps most destructively—political patronage.
Instead of confronting these challenges head-on, both parties seem more invested in scoring political points.
This is not to say that scrutiny is unwarranted. CEPEP and URP have, over the years, cost taxpayers billions of dollars. However, scrutiny must be rooted in constructive criticism and policy reform—not partisan mudslinging.
The core issue lies in what these programmes have come to represent: not just temporary employment, but a form of political patronage. Instead of being stepping stones toward self-sufficiency, these programmes often trap people in cycles of low-wages and short-term labour with little chance of upward mobility. Worse yet, they foster a political culture in which citizens feel compelled to tie their livelihoods to party colours.
The UNC, as the ruling party, has a responsibility to ensure CEPEP and URP operate with accountability, fairness, and purpose. The PNM, as the opposition, must offer credible alternatives and support bipartisan reform. Both parties need to remember that these programmes are not tools to control votes—they are lifelines for the vulnerable.
Ultimately, the most important question is: Should CEPEP and URP continue in their current form? Or should the country shift toward programmes that genuinely empower people through skills training, apprenticeships and pathways to permanent jobs in both the private and public sectors?
There must be a cultural shift away from seeing public employment programmes as political spoils. Citizens deserve to work with dignity and without fear that the outcome of the next election will determine whether they eat or not.
T&T must mature beyond this destructive cycle, where basic public services and employment are manipulated as tools of electoral advantage.
The people of T&T deserve better than political theatre. They deserve programmes that are run transparently, managed professionally, and geared toward genuine upliftment, not electoral calculus.
The conversation about CEPEP and URP must move beyond 'the red versus yellow' narrative and focus instead on building a fairer, more productive system that serves all citizens.
Let CEPEP and URP serve the nation, not partisan agendas.