The political merry-go-round!

21, Aug 2000
IF you stand for nothing, you may eventually die for nothing. Or worse still, given the present circumstance, you may be bought or sold for nothing. There are people in this country today who join political parties and even offer themselves as would-be candidates "for the fun of it".

There are others who seem to feel joining political parties is akin to joining video clubs. When one considers these people are the supposedly educated, the cream of T&T's modern crop, one is left to wonder what has become of our sense of values and sense of purpose.

One would have thought those among us who lay claim to being intelligent and successful in the field of their chosen endeavours, and boast about it, would be the ones to set the standards and define the parameters for the rest of society to follow.

In reality, the very opposite is the case. Our "citizens of substance", to use the old colonial terminology, are the ones who stand for nothing. They are the ones who measure themselves solely in terms of the material stuff they own, and the purchasing power of their dollars.

To them, matters of conscience, principle and moral rectitude are of little or no importance, since integrity has to be sacrificed on the altar of the almighty dollar. Is this what we are being reduced to in this time of the global village?

Are human beings to become mere objects caught up in a whirlpool of technological advances, powerful only because of its simplification of process, but geared solely to multiply and accumulate the dollar? Shall life be about us succumbing to a world of glittering spectacle, rather than a process of building purpose and moral character? How can one live believing nothing?

This is why one can perceive a sense of alienation in society today. People need to feel they belong to something. They need to know there is a greater good, a purpose, a value to their lives. We have said before in this space that the globalisation process, now over 500 years old, has the effect of reducing all and sundry to a common denominator. Masses of people worldwide have been objecting instinctively to such reduction.

Hence, the great rise of ethnic demands, the growing consciousness of "harmony in diversity". Also, the rise of non-conformist churches which allow people freedom to testify to the value and understanding of their own lives, to do so collectively in communities that provide for them that much needed sense of belonging to something that has some divine purpose.

Out of this sense of belonging comes that crucial right to self-determination and political empowerment. But, it all starts with community, the very source globalisation and its inherent economic tenets seek to destroy. While our "bright stars" seek the dollar and view those who do not as "stupid" because they wear "buss-up" sneakers, the mass of people seek some form of community. It stands to reason it is from this point, this sense of community, that all politics begin.

In the days of the monarchies, the royal families believed in their divine right to rule. It worked for a while because the masses of people also shared this belief. Once the masses of people gained further enlightenment, they moved beyond monarchies, though ceremonial remnants of monarchism would continue to exist.

The coming into existence of political parties shifted the divinity of rule away from "chosen, stuttering blue-bloods" and their clergy to direct "representatives" of the masses elected by the democratic process of the vote.

This shift did not happen in one smooth move. At first, there was limited franchise relative to property ownership and suchlike. People had to struggle to take the process to full adult universal suffrage of one man, one vote. Each party in history upheld certain specific interests.

A party has to have a policy which outlines how it views the world and its relations to others. In other words, the policy is supposed to make the philosophy of the group explicit. The party's programme elucidates the day-to-day activities in which the party engages to realise its aims and objectives: a direct result of its interests and philosophy.
A party, therefore, is not something one joins for "the fun of it" or merely for exotic pleasure as one would join "five or six video clubs to borrow movies".

It was the struggle of the masses of people for fulfilment and empowerment that brought political parties into existence. But like everything else, it is an ongoing process. Every step takes us closer to the ideal.

Parties rival each other and are forced, at election time, to justify their presence. They lay claim to lofty objectives, except the most fundamental ideal of total transfer of the "divine right to rule" into the hands of the people themselves. The closer any party comes to this ideal, the better chance of winning the election and holding governance for a period of five years.

At the end of which, another party may do better in terms of interpreting the mood of the people. If so, it may prove better in terms of camouflaging its real intentions by the one, true great ideal of "power to the people". You join a party today only if its purpose is to take us closer to that ideal. 'Nuff said!