AT THE HALFWAY MARK

 To understand Trinidadian and Tobagonian politics you have to realize that both are very different and that the things that motivate voters in Tobago are not the same things as in Trinidad. We are very roughly at the halfway mark of the present Government's term and it might be useful at this stage to take a look at things the way they are - and not how we would want them to be.

Let's take Trinidad first: the island is cursed with two major races that are very roughly equal in size. If you belong to one race you will vote , say, for the UNC, and if you belong to the other race you will vote, say, for the PNM. At least, that is the mantra. But it ain't as simple as that! That rather blanket statement applies to very, very roughly only sixty percent of the registered voters. In other words UNC has a base support of approximately thirty percent of registered voters and PNM has (again, very roughly) an equal amount of supporters who will vote for "their party" no matter what. Race trumps everything amongst these rather rabid supporters on both sides who will vote for "their" side no matter what. Allegations of corruption and incompetence etc., whether true or not, matter little to these people.

Then you have (again all figures are very rough) about fifteen percent of the electorate who lean towards the PNM and the same amount who lean towards the UNC. These voters can be persuaded to either switch sides or not vote at all as their sympathies, although coloured a little by race, are influenced by other factors such as, for example, the economy, corruption, etc.. That leaves  a "floating" vote of approximately ten percent, and it is this section which makes the difference. Put another way, the two main parties have to convince this section of the electorate, who will not vote or be influenced by race, that they can do better than the other side. Last time around in 2020 the PNM's rather obvious unspoken mantra was "we are not the UNC". The UNC's mantra was "we can do it better". The UNC managed to eke out a small victory in Trinidad but lost out when the two seats in Tobago were handed to the PNM.  The UNC failed to provide enough voters in either island with reasons to believe that they (the UNC) could make the lives of the voters better and the PNM managed to sell to enough people that they, not being the UNC, were the natural party to govern in default of there being a better alternative.

Now, Tobago has a very different racial make up. For one thing, the electorate is almost one hundred percent African, so the Indian/African thing is relatively non-existent. In addition, in Tobago the voters tend to be rather clever with their vote; they will go wherever they think that they will have the most leverage and upon whom they can rely the most. It's all about self-interest - and you know what? They are right to think this way. Oh! A minority will vote ethnically - that's a given, but the average Tobagonian will look to see where he can get the most butter for his bread.  The UNC has signally failed historically to understand this and has relied instead on support in Trinidad (and the occasional Tobagonian who can muster enough votes in Tobago) to defeat the PNM, in order to get hold of the reins of power

So? Back to Trinidad! There are a small handful of marginal seats in the forty-one seat Legislature (of which thirty-nine are in Trinidad), such as Barataria/San Juan, where the PNM/UNC voters" till ah dead" are roughly equal to one another and so the winners will be chosen by the real floating voters in those constituencies. A very small movement in any of those marginal seats could spell victory or defeat for either of the two main parties. At present, there are about four or five marginals and a swing in one will not necessarily mean that all will swing the same way. The quality of the respective candidates in terms of persuading people to support them will make the difference.

As for the fringe parties like the People's Empowerment Party (PEP) or the one led by Gary Griffith, they will continue to struggle and are unlikely to be able to garner much support even though their leaders may continue to talk a lot of sense. Unfortunately, money talks and neither of these fringe parties has enough money to run any type of campaign that can persuade voters to support them. The PEP's leader is certainly trying though and has been quite innovative in his use of social media. Will his efforts succeed? Highly unlikely at the present time.

Of course, as former British Prime Minister Harold Wilson once said, "a week is a long time in politics", and we have not weeks, but more than two years until the next elections are due! In that time any number can (and will probably) play. 

One final point: whether we admit it or not, our politics are more presidential in nature than most people realize. It is a given that voters will compare the two leaders, Dr. Rowley and Mrs. Persad-Bissessar, and cast their votes accordingly. In this regard, voters will look carefully at both leaders and make their judgements accordingly. Rabid supporters on both sides need to look at this particular point and think very carefully: "can my leader garner enough support in the country in order to win?" is the real question that needs to be asked after a cold and unemotional look at the situation as it continues to play out. That is, of course, assuming that they really do want "their side" to win! Heated emotion has never defeated cold logic - something that the rabid supporters on both sides fail to understand.

EMAILGATE AND MISLEADING PARLIAMENT

 Two completely separate dramas are taking place right now on both sides of the Atlantic. On one side the former President, Donald Trump, is facing a possible criminal charge that he was involved in and approved a payout to a porn star that he had slept with when his wife was pregnant and he was running for the Presidency of the United States. The allegation on which the possible criminal charge is based is whether the money that was used to pay the porn star off came from campaign funds. If that is true then the former President faces a jail term . Wouldn't that be something if Trump lost the case!?

On the other side of the ocean former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson is facing a charge that he deliberately misled Parliament over some parties that were hosted in his name at No. 10 Downing Street during the pandemic, and that these parties breached the lockdown rules set and approved by the former Prime Minister himself and that he (Johnson) deliberately misled Parliament when he said  that the lockdown rules were never breached. (Incidentally, this has turned out to be untrue but the ex-PM has said in his defence that he didn't  intentionally mislead Parliament when he said that the rules were never breached. In other words, there was no intention on his part to mislead.)

Now, in criminal law there are two parts to proving beyond reasonable doubt that a crime has been committed: one part is the act itself - the actus reus - and the other is the intention - the mens rea. That is why, for example, there is a difference between murder and manslaughter. In murder there is the fact that a person has been killed and the intention was to kill him. In manslaughter, a man has been killed but there was no intention to kill, though it was reasonably foreseeable that death would have resulted from the particular act. 

In both of these cases the intention of the alleged perpetrators is all important. The prosecution in both cases has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused politicians not only did whatever they are accused of, but that it was their intention to do so knowing that it was wrong. In civil matters the standard of proof is much lower; it is on the balance of probabilities!

Why am I raising this now? Because I was thinking about Dr. Rowley and his "emailgate" scandal. Dr. Rowley said in Parliament that the report he was making resulted from somebody unknown to him leaving the so-called evidence in his mailbox. Now, nobody really believes that Dr. Rowley doesn't know who the author of that now discredited report is. Indeed, the evidence on a balance of probabilities  points to one particular person who is known to Dr. Rowley and because he (Rowley) knew the author, he was happy to believe that the allegations were true. But there is no evidence beyond reasonable doubt that this person gave Dr. Rowley the information.

In other words, although a reasonable person on the balance of probabilities might conclude that Dr. Rowley really did know who the author of that report was, the evidence beyond reasonable doubt that Dr. Rowley knew him simply does not exist. Put another way, there is no evidence beyond reasonable doubt that Dr. Rowley knew that the accusation that the former Prime Minister and some of her senior Ministers had conspired to commit murder was false and that in the circumstances, it can only be that while there is no justiciable evidence that Dr. Rowley, knowing the report to be untrue, deliberately misled the Parliament, there is enough circumstantial evidence to suggest that at the very least he knew where the information was coming from and that it was probably unreliable.  But circumstantial evidence just ain't good enough so Dr. Rowley gets a free pass!

TAKING IN FRONT

 The Trini expression "taking in front" needs paying attention to as regards the flooding problem that has plagued us for God knows how long. We have begun the Dry Season and it is only a matter of time before the rains return with a vengeance. 

So, it is not unreasonable to ask the requisite authorities what exactly are they planning to do right now and what exactly have they done. Because, as sure as night follows day the Rainy Season is going to come this year and there will be the potential for flooding again. It would make a great deal of sense, therefore, to "take in front" and do everything that is needed to be done in an effort to, at the very least, minimize the flooding, if not eliminate it altogether. We can't continue like the pharisee who gets rid of his sins at the gate of the temple by crying "Korban". 

Paying attention to this problem now could save  a lot of money downstream and would make a lot of sense. 

All too often in this society we act as though we are surprised when  a foreseeable event (like flooding) happens. We then wring our hands in anguish and try to blame everybody and his mother (except ourselves, of course) for the particular disaster although it was clearly foreseeable. All that it takes is a little bit of commonsense mixed with a little bit of foresight. So? Can we ask NOW what (if anything) is being done NOW about this clearly foreseeable problem? And, for the record, this is not about politics or political name calling. This is only about fixing a potentially looming problem that has some potentially very serious consequences.

IN HONOR OF ALL WOMEN

 It is with appropriate shame and embarrassment that I didn't pay attention to International Women's Day and all that it means and is supposed to mean. By way of explanation (and not by way of excuse) the fact is that there are so many "special" days in honour of some thing that I simply (and wrongly) regarded this day as just another one of those "days" that somebody has dreamed up but don't really mean a darned thing.

But it was forcibly brought home to me today when early this morning somebody gave my wife a single rose in appreciation of all that she has done and to thank her. It then occurred to me that not only as a husband of some twenty-six tears, but as a father of three beautiful daughters and as a grand father of four gorgeous girls that I ought to have paid attention to this day and all that it stands for.

Women  should be able to live their lives and make their own decisions without male interference. If we are to talk about freedom and equality it must be so not only for men, but for half of the world's population - women - as well. Sadly, all too often we read about women being abused or enslaved by traffickers Just because men are physically bigger and physically stronger than women, men have tended to dominate women. Instead of dominating with the strength of an argument, men dominate with simply the strength of their arm. 'You will do as I say or I will beat you until you obey' is the mantra.

This can't be right. Indeed, although it has persisted for a lloonngg time, the length of time that this attitude has persisted has never been right. And recognition of what women have done and are doing is important for all of us.

So, today it is right and proper that we honor women - ALL women; the mothers, sisters, daughters and wives that have carried us and nurtured us from time immemorial. Let me put it another way: your mother was a woman!

A MILLION ACCUSATIONS AND NO PROOF OF ANYTHING

 Tell me something: how many people in T&T do YOU think actually believe that our leaders in offices that are supposed to be non-political, are in fact non-political and who make their decisions on strictly non-political terms. These offices (e.g., the office of the President, the Chief Justice, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Commissioner of Police , the Registrar of the Supreme Court etc.) are supposed to be strictly non-political. We are therefore supposed to trust that whatever decision  a holder of one of these offices makes is certainly not tainted with any type of political flavour. 

And you have only got to look at it to understand why this ought to be so.  All of these offices carry with them enormous power and a biased holder of such an office can do enormous damage to an individual citizen who is challenging the Government of the day and who will have a really hard (and expensive) time in correcting whatever decision was made against him/her.

So it was with not little consternation that I read in the news that the case against Mr. Basdeo Panday - a former Prime Minister - was dropped apparently for lack of evidence. Why? The newspaper report says that it was because some witnesses are now dead while others have migrated and as a result the case against Mr. Panday is now very weak. But, Hello! Was the case ever a strong one? If so, why then was it never brought to trial? And where does the dropping of this case against Mr. Panday leave him now? The damage that he suffered from the rather obvious publicity that accompanied these charges certainly did achieve (if nothing else) great damage to Mr. Panday's political career - whether he deserved it or not!

There were, for example, a whole bunch of cases related to the construction of the new airport terminal in Piarco. Indeed, it was reported that some Americans involved in the construction of the airport were charged with bribery and corruption and either they were found guilty or they pleaded guilty (I can't remember which). But I thought that the American case was related to one or more of the corruption cases down here. And the American case was completed years ago. Why did the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) then withdraw one or more of the local corruption cases? Was the withdrawn case(s) linked to the American case in which the persons were found guilty? If so, why didn't the DPP go up to the States and get the evidence from that case and apply it down here?

There are a million questions that one should have about criminal matters down here. For example, why are these high profile cases against "big wigs" never heard? Why do they take so much time to be heard and completed? Why can a politician (like Dr. Rowley, for example) make a very, very serious allegation (emailgate) that the then Prime Minister and some leading members of her cabinet were involved in a plot to murder somebody and absolutely nothing comes of it? The accusation is simply left hanging in the air, nobody is ever charged and the press  or some politician then regurgitates it as though it was a proven fact! On this point alone, do you realize that Dr. Rowley made the accusation, has never withdrawn it and has never been called upon to withdraw it? And then we have a terrible accusation made again under Parliamentary cover that some Members of Parliament are engaged in trafficking of women and children. But nothing is done about it! So? Is the allegation true? If so, who has the responsibility of investigating it (in other words who is the actual person doing the investigation) and when exactly can we get some closure on this horrible act?

I could go on, but hopefully you have got the point. So? let me put the question with which I began this post in another way: do you believe that there is anybody in a strictly non-political office who is exercising his/her functions in that office in a partisan manner? If so, who do you think he/she/them is/are and what should we do about it?