Not 'who' but what we go put?

27 Nov, 2000
THAT is the question! One recalls our Honourable Prime Minister addressing a public meeting in the Caroni East constituency and, in reference to the neighbouring Arima constituency, uttering words to the effect that if you are strong in numbers in a safe seat like Caroni East, then you must lend support to the areas in which you are not as strong such as Arima.

The report did not say whether the Prime Minister went on to describe the numerous ways in which "support" can be realised. At the time there appeared nothing unusual about this exhortation to loyal supporters to lend a hand.

Because it has become standard election campaigns that stalwarts are bussed from area to area to "bulk up the massives", and T-shirts printed nicely with party slogans are worn proudly to enhance the picture of apparent success. There are meetings deemed "local" where the prospective representatives outline their credentials and their plans for the development of the constituencies.

Then there are the "national" rallies that the national leaders address and in which the scope is widened to supposedly encompass the bigger questions and the vision for the nation as a whole.

It is at the latter that mobilisations take place across the board and party constituents lend a hand to each other according to needs and requirements. Par for the course.

But given all the shenanigans that have overwhelmed us, given the brash-face, bold-face attempts to pad electoral lists in the incumbent governing party's favour (only lately, there also have been counter claims of opposition padding), and given the now pervasive lack of integrity and the reckless disregard for even common decency, one is left to wonder whether that appeal to loyalists to lend a hand was not in fact a covert command to some, and probably a kind of subliminal signal to others, to lend a finger, particularly an index finger.

This is tantamount to a crude attack on our democratic process which is still so young and immature. Never before have so many in T&T been reduced to such a low level of moral existence by so few. This country needs once more to march for honesty, decency, morality in public affairs. This country needs now to stand again for basic civility. And all this, mind you, stems from our over-emphasis on "Who we go put" rather than on "What we go put". We stress Who we go put and assume that there will always be a "who" who knows how to behave and who will always pay homage to certain social conventions and practices.

But there are no guarantees that there will always be people who will consistently uphold the laws of the land and the premises and principles of our social contract, the Constitution, who, moreover, will persistently stand by the spirit of the laws of the land and the underlying spirit of our social contract. Now for sure we know that there are no guarantees. Now for sure we know that this land abounds with the unscrupulous.

Once the emphasis is on who and not what we shall continue to suffer such moral degeneration. Who presumes individual personalities which naturally brings with it questions of race, class, colour, religion, all the ingredients of ethnicity. That is the package which encompasses the who product that has to be marketed when elections are before us.

Everyone wants a who in power that is readily accessible to them. And accessibility is more easily facilitated by common ethnicity. It is therefore senseless to condemn the ethnic-nationalists among us when in fact the very game is designed to bring their kind to the fore and to limit their vision of the big picture to the very basic almost animalistic sense of self-preservation of one's own kind. That is the consciousness of every single dog, cat, rat, and so forth.

To move beyond that we must begin to emphasise what rather than who. What suggests structure and de-emphasises personalities.

We therefore, must seek to reconstitute all the political and socio-economic arrangements that are fundamental to our society. We must put in place political structures that would allow all our people to fully vent their positions, to debate and decide on the way forward in all aspects of their lives.

Certainly, we would find that the very structures created to allow this great, direct consultation shall be the very best forms that can be formalised and constituted as the people's forms of government. In recent columns we traced the emergence in our history of COSSABOs (Conferences of Shop Stewards and Branch Officers) and People's Parliaments which we envisaged as the answer to the question of what we go put.

Once people can be involved where they live and where they work in making the decisions in a direct democratic process, the questions of race and ethnicity shall be forced to take a back seat and eventually be minimised.

While most people seem to feel that the direct democratic process is too unwieldy, and too cumbersome, we are of the view that patience must be brought to bear on the process, and people allowed the time to develop through their own activity.

If not we in T&T shall continue with the representative form of democracy that brings with it the inherent Who we go put syndrome and all the abuses to our sensibilities that have been so intensified in recent times.

The only thing that deserves our respect and patience is the direct democratic process that empowers all of us. Once I hold power too just like you, what would I care what race you are or what religion you practise!