All governments, in countries across the globe, continue to explore various ideas and theories on the way a state should be constructed and how it should operate. Theories on how to construct a state is, of course, not new. In 427BC for instance, Plato, a Greek philosopher coined the word polis. This polis or politics was ideally one in which features such as moral, social and religious elements were embodied. Unfortunately, according to Plato these elements were usually absent and thus Plato had to re-examine, in this case, the nature of the Athenian democracy-its ideals and its practice-as the starting point for the reconstruction of the polis. Driven by the fact that Athens had been defeated by oligarchic coups and also Plato's shock of the execution of Socrates, he argued that these were features of political and moral failures on the part of the polis. In addition, he suggested that there was a sickness in public life and his task was to describe its symptoms, analyse its cause and then to recommend a cure. In his now landmark book, the Republic, he attempted to reveal the reality behind the superficial appeal of the state. He admitted that 'the diversity of its characters, like the different colours in a patterned dress, made it look very attractive'. He noted that while there was liberty and freedom of speech, the freedom to do as one liked was not a principle but the absence of principle. Indeed, according to Plato, it indicated a lack of restraint, an absence of order, the negation of knowledge, principle and truth. He also noted a similar contradiction with the democratic belief in equality.
According to Plato, it really was an inability or refusal to discriminate between the worthwhile and the harmful. This inability, he felt, led to moral corruption, insolence, licence, extravagance and shamelessness. Plato further argued that in the absence of a good environment and good training, good character cannot result. He believed, however, that the only legitimate option was not reform but rather a revolutionary reconstruction of society. He felt, however, that before reconstruction could take place what was necessary was a diagnosis of the disease within the society. It is evident that Plato's ideas on some of the dysfunctions of a state continue to be relevant today. In Trinidad and Tobago, the civil society is constantly bombarded with 'propaganda' of what successes the present Government has achieved, and on the part of the Opposition the failures of the Government. More recently, too, the Prime Minister in her anniversary address commented that she was about to embark on a reconstruction of the ministries-in other words, a reconstruction of the apparatus of the State. In order to understand the dynamics between the governing party and the opposition party as well as the challenges in reconstructing a state, however, it is necessary to have some understanding of how the state, in this case Trinidad and Tobago, was constructed. Like all ex-colonial societies, Trinidad and Tobago along with nearly 50 colonies was part of the larger empire, Great Britain. Initially, the method of management introduced within each colony was one where a governor reported directly to the secretary of state in Britain. All 50 territories were governed by a unified system of colonial rules and regulations. However, amidst increasing agitation by the local population (in this case transplanted population-see McMillan, 1938 'Warning from the West Indies'), and given the burden of managing these colonies, it was clear that the British were in a quandary. On one hand, they had a responsibility for managing colonies in which there was an absence of a suitable middle class to rule and on the other hand, the enterprise of managing the colonies was far too expensive to maintain.
During the period 1920-1950s, therefore, the British embarked on a number of 'experiments'. For instance, one proposal was to unify the public services of all the West Indian territories. Another proposal was the Federal Experiment followed by the attempt to "West Indianise" the public services (for more of these see my book Colonial Administration: A Reader: Open Campus). Finally, in many of the colonies, independent status was granted in the 1960s and after. One can suggest, however, that in granting the colonies independent status, the British seemed to be very cautious. As Ghany pointed out in his essay (See Ryan's Independence Experience), while leaning heavily on the model employed in Great Britain, the Westminster model of government, a number of modifications were made in the territories. One of the more critical was the introduction of a written constitution. The introduction of the Westminster Whitehall model of government in the ex-colonial territories was based on a number of assumptions. One assumption was that there would be a middle class to rule the country. The second assumption was that this middle class would have the expertise to deliver goods and services to the rank and file. What the framers failed to recognise, it seemed, was the diversity of races in the various territories and the contentions that this diversity would give rise to, if the various views, cultures and ideas were not harnessed. When colonies were granted independence, it was evident that no attempt was made to unify the various sectors of the society. No doubt, the early governments were concerned with the development requirements of the countries as well as the establishment of appropriate infrastructure. By failing to introduce mechanisms for redress of perceived imbalances and perceived discrimination, what emerged over time was a growing distrust between the various segments of the society. Over time, the country has grown acclimatised to rumours of positions on state board and senior governmental positions being distributed to party supporters with the changing of each governmental guard. The idea of each racial group protecting its own kind, is also understood as a 'norm'.
In attempting to reconstruct a state, therefore, it would be wise to heed the advice offered by Plato. First of all, examine the ills within the society. In this case, the ills are many-increasing crime rates, poor delivery of many services, rising costs, increasing levels of inflation, poor roads, lack of infrastructure, a widening gap between the upper and the lower classes, the drug trade and its role as a major player in maintaining an underground economy. Given these kinds of ills, it is difficult to understand, how a mere re-shifting of the boundaries of a ministry or ministries, or reshuffling of ministers (if managers are poor in one area it is not expected that efficiency will improve if they are shifted to another) will lead to significant improvements. What may be necessary then in the reconstruction of any society or organisation is to have an indepth knowledge of the problems within that society or organisation. The perceptions of the civil society as well as other organisations may be a useful point for someone to actually embark on much needed reconstruction. Of course, it will be difficult to fix all problems or find solutions. However, any public policy student will know that after a diagnosis of the problem, there will be the need to embark on a rational model of prioritising what is important or critical in order for a country to progress. First and foremost, what may be really necessary is to have both the Opposition and the Government of a country when the guard is changed, attend a retreat which is managed and where free and frank discussions are encouraged. The Government and the Opposition should work together to ensure that the state should have the development of the country. After all, this is why the citizens elected both the Government as well as the Opposition in the first place. Citizens should demand that the persons who sit in Parliament should lead by example in placing the good of the country first.