Toward supremacy of the people

11 Dec, 2000
When people are being marginalised in the context of their creative constructs, such as mas and pan, their struggle for fulfilment is always expressed in an aggressive conflict of diametrically opposite concepts.

In the early '70s, when the people seemed to be losing artistic control due largely to philistine, middle-class penetration and commercialisation, many well-known spokespersons had their say on the matter.

Lord Kitchener in song said "this is how we know we use ta play mas in Trinidad" and, with accompanying dance, he sought to show how the people performed their mas when Carnival was "theatre of the streets", to quote Hill. It was a rebuttal of the meaningless gunk to which mas portrayal had been reduced. The contradiction came to be best expressed in the antagonism of concepts between Peter Minshall ­ as authentic traditionalist ­ and all the others presently operating in the mould of the "gliterrati".

But it was the Burrokeets who would take things to the very extreme and pose the question boldly. Is mas what we do or what the gliterrati does? The large multitude that followed Burrokeets in the mid-'70s, by sheer quantum, answered in their favour. In so doing, Burros' virtually went back to ole mas even on Carnival Tuesday ­ the day set aside to mark creative excellence.

In terms of pan, the situation was similar. Stalin in song asked "Whey I Band?" questioning the direction that had ensued with commercial sponsorship of steelband. The bands, Stalin contended, were now in danger of losing their traditional identity completely. All Stars was then Catelli and Desperadoes, Witco.

Pan was facing a similar fate as mas. The phenomenon, Tripolians, reverting to the traditional pan-round-yuh-neck, was indeed a similar statement to the society. Neither Burrokeets nor Tripolians was the answer to the problem. The people, in order to draw attention to their predicament, had posed in concepts the extreme, diametrical opposites. A process on the battlefield to resolve the antagonistic poles had to be arrived at, after a period of intense dialogue. That synthesis had to represent a new stage of form and content ­ another level of social development ­ more advanced than anything which existed before in our lives.

Interestingly, Burrokeets blocked-up the prime venues and prevented the flow of pretty middle-class mas. They could neither be co-opted nor accommodated by the Carnival controllers. Meanwhile, the Tripolians concept was easily incorporated and formalised in the structure and schedule of Pan Trinbago programmes.

In every conventional steelband activity, there is now room for the traditional "single-pan" bands. But the contradictions raised and posed are still to be resolved. What is the importance of all this? Isn't the same social phenomena being parallelled in our political existence?

The PNM in 1956 brought to fruition the concept of party politics. What the PNM met in the early '50s, after the demise of both Cipriani's and Butler's primary organisations, was rampant individualism dominating the political landscape. The PNM changed that and established the paramountcy of political structure underlined by philosophical vision.

One thought individualism and independents in the electoral process was something never to be seen again. But with party supremacy and the supreme leader at the centre, stifling the direct democratic expression of the masses below, the "independent" as the diametrical opposite has been posed vigorously.

Independents are not the answer to the predicament of the masses who desire the broadening of democratic practices. Empowerment of Tobago, Toco, Caroni, Point Fortin and the rest has to be the answer. Paramountcy of party can no longer suffice in these modern times, in the global village. After these elections, we shall enter an epoch of really interesting political demands. None shall really escape "unscathed"!