Last week’s column took note of the 24th anniversary
of the passing of T&T’s first Prime Minister, Dr
Eric Williams. His seminal role in T&T’s independence
project was reflected upon.
Dr Williams was determined in the pursuit of his goal of political
independence for T&T. But he was flexible in the means
he adopted to achieve it. Historian that he was, he was acutely
conscious of our unpropitious antecedent circumstances as
Old World peoples finding ourselves in the New World. He was
under no illusions as to the challenges T&T faced at Independence
and drew them to our attention.
Unfortunately, the printer’s devil eliminated or obscured
some of the points made.
Dr Williams understood the fears of those who were expressing
so strongly their reservations about T&T cutting the colonial
umbilical cord and assuming the responsibilities of independence.
This awareness and the flexibility that accompanied it were
ultimately responsible for the success of the Marlborough
House negotiations. That Dr Williams and Dr Rudranath Capildeo,
the DLP Leader, were able to reach a meeting of minds on Independence
for T&T, despite the fact that their initial positions
were poles apart, reflected tremendous maturity on their part,
a tribute to their capacity for compromise and their willingness
to see the big picture. This resulted in a win-win situation
for everyone. A more propitious start for T&T’s Independence
could hardly have been desired or expected. The process augured
well for the future.
Two very important elements in our constitutional arrangements
at Independence were the entrenched provisions regarding recognition
and protection of fundamental human rights and freedoms and,
equally, the creation and entrenchment of an independent Judiciary,
one that would certainly not be beholden to the Executive.
These were safeguards against possible abuse ensuring that
persons who felt themselves aggrieved had recourse. Those
who exercised executive power had to be held accountable.
While these are normal provisions of democratic governance,
they were a sine qua non in our case. They were necessary
to allay the fears that the idea of independence i.e., Government
by the people, created in the hearts and minds of many of
our people.
The circumstances of our history would help explain why so
many of us found it so difficult to be comfortable with what
appeared to be a hasty plunge into the unknown of Independence.
As was pointed out last week, we are all a heterogeneous immigrant
people inhabiting a small land space. There are few survivors
from among indigenous people. The major ethnic groups were
the Europeans, Africans and East Indians.
The Europeans first interacted with the Africans in a master/slave
relationship. Following emancipation, the ex-slaves preferred
to work their own land. Alternatively, they would work on
the estate only in exchange for higher wages than the planters
were prepared to pay. The planters resorted instead to cheaper
East Indian indentured immigration. There now developed a
master/indentured servant relationship, the ex- slave/indentured
servant relationship and the former master relationship with
the latter two.
It was arising out of these unequal and complex relationships
in a colonial society that mutual suspicions and conflicts
between groups arose. Loyalties were to the group rather than
to the larger society. The fault lines that beset T&T
today have their origins in this period of our history.
The challenge confronting contemporary T&T today is how
to transform the thought processes of our people away from
interpreting our current problems in terms of that negative
history and causing them to seek solutions from a more productive
perspective that says “notwithstanding that negative
history…” While we must never forget our negative
inheritance we must consciously and determinedly set about
liberating ourselves from it.
Dr Williams understood that we had to take up this challenge.
He wrote: “After August 31, 1962, the people of T&T
will face the fiercest test of their history—whether
they can invest with flesh and blood the bare skeleton of
their National Anthem, ‘here ev’ry creed and race
find an equal place.’ That is their challenge. They may
fail. Others more important and better endowed than they have
failed conspicuously. That would be no justification for their
own failure. But merely to make the attempt, merely to determine
to succeed, would be an enormous tribute to their capacity,
a powerful inspiration to frustrated humanity, a wonderful
opportunity for self gratification…”
The magnificence of Dr Williams’ prose was one of his
tools of leadership. He mobilised and elevated us by its beauty
and simplicity as he elaborated his perspectives for T&T
with which the vast majority of us were able to identify.
Too many of our present leaders have opted to eschew his example
in preference for the coarse and the vulgar and in the process
they have only succeeded in lowering the tone of public discourse.
With respect to the building of this nation, it is easy to
understand the great expectations of our people. But 43 years
is a short time in the life of any nation. While our democratic
system is rooted in adversarial politics, incitement to violence
is not a legitimate component of such politics; it is subversive
of the democratic method.
Yet there are political leaders and their surrogates for whom
the rhetoric of violence and race have become their means
of mobilisation in response to issues of crime, constitution
reform, and now a current issue involving the Judiciary. The
emotionalism that is being deliberately imported into these
thorny issues makes rational discussion near impossible.
While the country is not on the brink, it must address the
issues that are giving rise to anxiety and discord. Notwithstanding
these, there is much in our 43 years that is cause for confidence
and reassurance. We must not allow the Cassandras in our midst
to prevent us from seeing the wood for the trees.
To be continued.
