Impasse symptom of bigger crisis

February 12, 2001

If at the end of the day we all can clearly define what we are prepared to fight for, the present impasse between the Prime Minister and the President would have brought us a hell of a lot of good. Undefined battles fed by hysteria and emotion usually lead people to "fight-up" rather than "fight".

Orville London, the new Chief Secretary of the Tobago House of Assembly, was the man who some time ago outlined the distinction as a guideline to intelligent functioning. To "fight" is to be proactive, to "fight-up" is to be reactive.

"Fighting" presupposes one is focused on the fundamental issue at hand, has examined the relevant dimensions, thought things through and, as a result, has worked out strategy and tactics to handle the various stages in the process of resolving burning questions and antagonistic contradictions.

"Fighting-up" pays no regard to process and involves, by and large, the incoherent engagement in "outing bushfires". "Fighting-up" is unrelated activity devoid of any scientific thought or analysis. In the coming days, we shall measure ourselves by how well we "fight" rather than "fight-up".

The view here is the PM/President impasse is not the crisis but a mere symptom of it. The crisis is the enduring social breakdown of the fundamental political and socio-economic relationships that comprise the basis of the society.

As we said before, the relationships between leadership and led, boss and worker, parent and child, teacher and pupil, etc have all been called to question as our social structures have become outdated and anachronistic.

Our people have outgrown the plantation and its inherent arrangement of things. We need new structures to suit the new consciousness and the new demands of the people.

As we said before, our conception of control, authority and rule has remained basically 17th century, despite the fact we have come face to face with the realities and demands of a fast-paced, modernised, globalised world market.

How can people in such a context concretise their own empowerment? How can people come to vote, not for someone else, but for themselves?

People want to decide and manage for themselves all their affairs, their everyday social and economic activity. That is the focus - that is what we have to keep our sights on and everything we do must be part of the process to realise this goal. Otherwise, we shall only be "fighting-up".

But, it would appear fate has conspired to keep us right on track, for just as we seemed to be getting over-embroiled in the PM/President impasse and the country seemed to be intensifying the polarisation and the racially emotive responding to every issue no matter how minimal, Caroni, as if by divine design, has ground itself to a halt.

The question of sugar and the political economy of sugar production, where it, Caribbean civilisation, all began, has struck us full in the face, so to speak. We cannot escape. We must begin at the beginning.

At the end of last week 8,000 sugar workers went on strike because Caroni cannot pay salaries. Management, after all the talk and all the stated good intentions, has brought the company right back to dependency on the Treasury and, at present, they are seeking subvention from the Government to the tune of some $250 million.

Most of all, Caroni stands to lose its preferential market in Europe for failing to meet agreed quotas. So what's new?

Since the turn of the century, Caroni has been, to some extent, a massive URP programme. The key to the establishment of a whole new system of social, economic and political relationships in T&T lies with the dismantling of the sugar industry and the land reform that will ensue. Sugar is dead as an export commodity. We need to bury it.

It is good to hear the Minister of Enterprise say he has the guts to do it. We have maintained, since 1995, the UNC is the regime that possesses the moral authority, and that it is their historic mission to transform the sugar industry.

We must insist they do it. One has truly performed only when one has fulfilled one's historic obligation. The plan involves maintaining limited production by way of contracted cane farmers to satisfy local domestic and industrial consumption, while, at the same time, diversifying Caroni's activity.

The big question is: How can any regime, which dares, unite the population around a programme of land reform instituted only in Caroni, particularly given the fact the country is already split down the middle on almost every single issue?

The answer, of course, is the land reform has to be on a national scale, involving areas such as Chaguaramas, Wallerfield, Cumuto, etc, as well as all the unutilised land holdings of the oil companies, moreso since it is the marine acreage and the gas therein that is now important.

If the land reform is not nationwide in scope and is not relative to our overall industrialisation and development policy, then half the population will be alienated from the ensuing process of wealth creation and empowerment.

We cannot once again leave half the population without compensation and reparation for their past and present contributions since that will be a recipe for disaster.