Jan­u­ary 2025: Gov­ern­ment al­lo­cat­ed $140 mil­lion to the 2025 Car­ni­val cel­e­bra­tions.

Au­gust 2025: The Na­tion­al Coun­cil of In­di­an Cul­ture (NCIC) said it will cost $3.5 mil­lion to host Di­vali Na­gar 2025. It is ask­ing for the State to fund $1 mil­lion.

Au­gust 2025: The Na­tion­al Ram­leela Coun­cil of Trinidad and To­ba­go is seek­ing $1 mil­lion to stage this year’s cel­e­bra­tions.

Sep­tem­ber 2025: The To­ba­go House of As­sem­bly has al­lo­cat­ed $2 mil­lion for To­ba­go Car­ni­val en­tre­pre­neurs.

The above list is not ex­haus­tive. In T&T, we have a long his­to­ry of us­ing tax­pay­ers’ mon­ey to fund cul­tur­al events. One may ar­gue that cul­tur­al events are an in­trin­sic part of our his­to­ry and her­itage. They are what make us who we are, and there­fore, they should be fund­ed by the State. The State has a du­ty to pre­serve our her­itage, and this can­not be mea­sured in mon­ey. In fact, it is much more than mon­ey; it is about main­tain­ing the very foun­da­tion of our coun­try.

On the oth­er hand, year af­ter year, we see groups ask­ing for mon­ey for one-off events and ac­tiv­i­ties.

Many of the or­gan­i­sa­tions that re­ceive state funds are sea­son­al­ly ac­tive and, for the rest of the year, they re­main main­ly dor­mant. In most cas­es, there is no trans­paren­cy on the use of the mon­ey and mon­i­tor­ing and eval­u­a­tion prac­tices are nonex­is­tent.

The role of the State in the preser­va­tion of cul­tur­al her­itage is not al­ways a clear-cut one, es­pe­cial­ly in a mul­ti­cul­tur­al so­ci­ety. In the case of T&T, there has been a very lim­it­ed and lack­adaisi­cal at­tempt to con­cep­tu­alise and con­cre­tise the role that the State plays in the preser­va­tion, prop­a­ga­tion and cel­e­bra­tion of cul­ture.

It took us more than 55 years af­ter in­de­pen­dence to de­vel­op a Na­tion­al Pol­i­cy on Cul­ture and the Arts. And this pol­i­cy notes that, “The role of the Gov­ern­ment is viewed in­creas­ing­ly as flex­i­ble and strate­gic, with the state fa­cil­i­tat­ing, lead­ing or nur­tur­ing as the time and sit­u­a­tion de­mand.”

Giv­en the in­creas­ing re­quests for State fund­ing of cul­tur­al events, maybe we have reached the point where we need to clar­i­fy the re­la­tion­ship be­tween the State and cul­ture. This is es­pe­cial­ly need­ed to en­sure that all cul­tures will be giv­en an equal chance to de­vel­op and thrive.

First, we need to make a dis­tinc­tion be­tween cul­ture and en­ter­tain­ment.

In T&T, we com­mon­ly sell cul­ture as en­ter­tain­ment, as one-off events pure­ly for en­joy­ment pur­pos­es. Car­ni­val is a good ex­am­ple of this—so much ef­fort and mon­ey go in­to Car­ni­val cel­e­bra­tions. When it is over, noth­ing hap­pens again un­til the next year. Cul­tur­al art­forms such as stick fight­ing and lim­bo can be pro­mot­ed out­side of the Car­ni­val pe­ri­od, as well as ed­u­ca­tion­al ac­tiv­i­ties such as tours of mas camps, cos­tume-mak­ing, tra­di­tion­al Car­ni­val char­ac­ters, con­fer­ences, etc.

Sec­ond, in­stead of fund­ing en­ter­tain­ment events, the State can play an im­por­tant role in mak­ing cul­ture more prof­itable and sus­tain­able. This might seem a mam­moth task, but it is not re­al­ly—it just means redi­rect­ing funds in­to the de­vel­op­ment of in­fra­struc­ture, train­ing and de­vel­op­men­tal ac­tiv­i­ties that will have long-term ben­e­fits. For ex­am­ple, the Na­tion­al Coun­cil of In­di­an Cul­ture (NCIC) can low­er its cost of op­er­at­ing by in­vest­ing in so­lar en­er­gy and it can gen­er­ate in­come by rent­ing out its venue.

The Na­tion­al Pol­i­cy on Cul­ture and the Arts states that, “the ma­jor­i­ty of cul­tur­al ser­vice or­gan­i­sa­tions re­ly too heav­i­ly on State fund­ing, which has not en­cour­aged the de­vel­op­ment of their au­ton­o­my and sus­tain­abil­i­ty.” Yet, noth­ing sub­stan­tial has been done to en­cour­age or­gan­i­sa­tions to in­vest in long-term, sus­tain­able projects.

As much as or­gan­i­sa­tions and in­di­vid­u­als will try to ar­gue that the State has a re­spon­si­bil­i­ty to de­vel­op the coun­try’s cul­tur­al land­scape, this does not mean the State has to do so on­ly by pump­ing mil­lions of dol­lars in­to cul­tur­al events.

The State should not be fund­ing cul­tur­al events year af­ter year, which are sim­ply drain­ing mon­ey. There are many more pri­or­i­ty ar­eas where state funds can be used, for ex­am­ple, ed­u­ca­tion and health­care.

Third, it is very im­por­tant that when the State does al­lo­cate funds, there must be ac­count­abil­i­ty. Iron­i­cal­ly, our na­tion­al pol­i­cy im­plic­it­ly states all must be done to en­sure “mon­i­tor­ing and eval­u­a­tion ca­pac­i­ty with­in or­gan­i­sa­tions be­comes a con­di­tion for dis­burse­ment of grant fund­ing.”

Yet, some or­gan­i­sa­tions con­tin­ue to re­ceive mil­lions of dol­lars even though they have failed to sub­mit au­dit­ed state­ments for many years.

The Na­tion­al Pol­i­cy on Cul­ture and the Arts cov­ers the pe­ri­od up to 2024. This would be a good time to eval­u­ate and strength­en the frame­work for the sus­tain­able de­vel­op­ment of our cul­ture. It is nec­es­sary that the pol­i­cy out­lines a clear and eq­ui­table ap­proach to the dis­burse­ment of state funds to cul­tur­al or­gan­i­sa­tions and events “flex­i­ble” and “strate­gic” are too vague and non-com­mit­tal.

Even worse, that ap­proach, as stat­ed in the pol­i­cy doc­u­ment, cre­ates an open av­enue for dis­crim­i­na­tion and the politi­ci­sa­tion of cul­ture. If state funds are used in cul­ture, then there has to be eq­ui­table dis­tri­b­u­tion, rep­re­sen­ta­tive of our mul­ti-cul­tur­al so­ci­ety.

Cul­ture is more than char­i­ty. It is time for a new ap­proach.