Voting for the PNM again?
By Dr. Winford James
December 05, 2004
In January 2005, Tobagonians will vote for another directorate to lead their island for another four years and, with the political parties (two of them? three? four?) gearing up for the election, the question on the minds of most of the electors I have spoken to is whether or not to vote. Even so, they think the PNM will win because the opposition is split in two (if not three) and has been woefully weak. It would be good for a poll to be done, if only to make matters clearer for the electorate, but in keeping with the low attractiveness of Tobagonian politics to the few professional opinion-makers and -seekers over the years, none has been done so far. Since it looks as if the PNM will win, we must ask if it is important for them to.
Now, a 'new' Tobago PNM came out of the long wilderness four years ago under the leadership of Orville London with ample assistance from Hochoy Charles whose admirable economic adventurism and innovativeness crashed on the rocks of lack of accountability and growing public rejection of one-manship. It thrived over the four years on the rebirth of PNM pride, the illusion of their being part of so-called national governance with the Trinidad PNM, the departure of Charles from the NAR to resurrect the DAC, and the deterioration of a NAR already weakened by its dismissal from power. But now that it is time again to vote, the electorate is evaluating the stewardship of the London administration against the readiness of the opposition.
What might the voters (excluding the diehards one way or the other) be thinking? The major thoughts of those who are likely to vote back the PNM are unlikely to be more than the following: 'One term not enough to judge the London administration on.'; 'It better to have the same party in power in Tobago as the one in Trinidad.'; 'London and them en do too badly - they build roads and bridges, schools and health centres, and they employ a lot of people. All we have to do is to change them representatives who didn't perform.'; 'London and them honest and accountable.'; and 'The NAR break up. Caruth and Gift and them one way, and Hochoy gone he own way.'
The major thoughts of those who are likely to vote against the PNM are unlikely to be more than the following: 'All London and them do is mind the store. No real change. Same old khaki pants. They even roll back some of the gains of the NAR years, like the 4.03-6.09 minimum percent of the national budget.'; 'London and them promise this and that in their first budget but at the end of the term they still to deliver. They back away, partly as a result of pressure from Trinidad, and partly as a result of no real conviction on their part about Tobago as a special case in the political arrangement with Trinidad.'; 'London and them politics too quiet. They didn't agitate publicly for Tobago's rights and needs. And as a result, the Trinidad PNM continuing to take Tobago for granted. Look at what happen with the budget, the ferry, and the University of Trinidad and Tobago'; 'The NAR regrouping and they still have the major core of supporters in Tobago.'; and 'Hochoy and the DAC gaining ground. Now that the people see London, they know that Hochoy have better ideas and a stronger Tobago voice.'
Perhaps there are other significant thoughts but I would be surprised if they could not be included in those that I have just listed. But the latter must be weighed against another major thought growing in a growing number of minds: there is nothing really to vote for. The London administration has disappointed in being ultra-conservative and in merely minding the shop; it has not fixed (and has not been minded to fix) a single chronic Tobago problem after coming in with promise. The NAR, built on and held together by Robinson's persona, has faded into something that is almost unrecognisable with the latter's departure from active politics, with the numbing loss to the PNM four years ago, and with the departure of Charles back to the DAC. There is no unity of NAR and DAC in sight, Charles seeing himself as the fittest to lead, despite three consecutive electoral defeats under his experienced leadership. And even if a unity were to come before the election, the NAR somehow bowing to Charles' political value and his insistence to be leader, or Charles amazingly agreeing to be follower, it would be seen as naked shallow opportunism, a development that would hardly be attractive to a badly disaffected electorate. The UNC is still a non-starter, visible typically at election time.
So it looks as if many people will not vote this election, and they will include not only disaffected longstanding NAR supporters but also disaffected longstanding PNM ones. But you never fully know with an election. Multiple little changes in attitude that have been occurring over the last four years could result in something unprecedented.
But in the meantime, shocks, it looks as if the PNM will win by default.
^^ Back to top
|