WHY WE NEED CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

 I have often wondered: are we in T&T really a practicing democracy? Last time I looked a democracy was defined as being 'of the people, by the people and for the people'. But it seems that what we are getting is a 'party-led' democracy as opposed to a 'people-led' one. In other words, if you want to rule this country, you don't need to worry too much about what the people think, you only have to worry about what the people in YOUR party think. Take control of your political party and you can end up as the prime minister. And you don't have to be a genius to realize that I am talking about both sides of the political divide. Most people vote 'party' and very few vote for individuals - no matter how incompetent the party nominee might be or how competent the individual might be.

If ever there was a case for constitutional reform this is probably the most telling argument. What exists now could never have been the intention of the framers of the Constitution; the idea was always let the people have the power - one man/woman, one vote! But it isn't like that. The peoples' needs and wants are always secondary to what the party thinks and wants. And by 'party' I mean BOTH of the two main political parties in T&T. Can we fix this? Maybe. But it would mean putting in place a system of government that would reduce the power of the two parties - something that both sides would resist tooth and nail because it is always easier to preach to a small number than it is to preach to a large one. And any system that reduces the power of the political parties is obviously a big 'no-no'.

I do have some ideas on how to do this, but I won't give them now. I'll wait until you have digested what I have said here. If you agree then read my next blog. If you don't agree that we need to change our Constitution then don't bother reading it for you won't agree with any of my ideas. But pay attention to to my central point: we need to transition away from a party-led democracy to a people-led one.

I have always been taught that the first step towards fixing a problem is to define it.  You might need a paragraph, a chapter or even a whole book to explain the sentence. But if you can't define it in one sentence then you really don't understand the problem- or you may not have one at all.

IS THE CRIME SITUATION GETTING BETTER?

 IT IS sometimes very difficult to understand exactly what the TT Prime Minister, Dr. Rowley, means when he makes certain comments. For example, he said that there had been 29 fewer murders that there had been in a previous time period and that this therefore was evidence that his handpicked Commissioner of Police was being effective in her controlling crime in this country and that his confidence in his Minister of National Security is justified.

Well, that is all well and good, and might well be true. But how are we to know? The statistics on crime are not published or are not easily available. I suppose that we ought to be grateful to Dr. Rowley & Co.  that the most awful crime statistic seems to be going down (according to them). Why this is so is left unexplained. Were there more arrests? More convictions? What exactly has caused this particular statistic to drop by 5 percent? I suppose that the point is that it is dropping and why it is going down is because of "improved policing". But the message clearly is that we don't need or deserve any kind of explanation. Put up and shut up, is the message.

But If that is so, why does everybody that I talk to feel more afraid now than before? Let me put it this way: 8 years ago everybody knew somebody who knew somebody who had been a victim of some sort of crime. Today it is a lot closer: everybody knows somebody who has been a victim of some sort of crime. Check it yourself and see. Nobody is going to say that they don't know anybody who has been a victim. Now, if that means that there has been an improvement in the suppression of crime that would be most surprising indeed. On this fact it is not possible to say that things are improving even if the actual murder rate is going down. (By the way, what exactly counts as a murder? How is this particular statistic calculated? Is murder defined as an unlawful killing? Does it include unlawful police killings? Or is it that we simply don't deserve any type of explanation at all?)

One reads in the newspapers and sees on television our leaders led by the Crime Minister and backed up by his underlings saying in effect that they are working very hard to contain the problem and have been seeing some light at the end of this particularly long and dark tunnel. This is in direct contrast with how people are seeing (and feeling) the situation. But the media is soft on the Government and collectively they are not critical - although to be fair, there are  many more critical articles appearing than there used to be. Question: is this last fact evidence that the media is slowly coming around to the realization that the crime situation is indeed getting worse and not better as is being claimed by the Crime Minister & Co.? Indeed, is the crime situation really getting better?

 Below is what I thought was a most relevant post from the Los Angeles Times for T&T. I thought of paraphrasing it but decided to post it in full. The argument basically is that our crime wave (as well as Palo Alto's) is/was fueled by poor economic circumstances. It is an argument that resonates with me.

January 10, 2024   View in browser Cars pass a Facebook sign in East Palo Alto in 2021. (Carolyn Cole / Los Angeles Times) By Ryan Fonseca Good morning. It’s Wednesday, Jan. 10. Here’s what you need to know to start your day. How East Palo Alto went from U.S. “murder capital” to murder-free California’s biggest winter storm so far is on its way 10 under-the-radar spas to rejuvenate in hot water in and around L.A. And here’s today’s e-newspaper From U.S. ‘murder capital’ to zero homicides In 1992, the small Bay Area city of East Palo Alto made national headlines as the “murder capital” of the U.S. At the time, 42 people were murdered in the city, which had a population of 24,000. That works out to a murder rate of 175 homicides for every 100,000 residents. “Officials attributed the upswing in homicides to an increasingly violent drug trade that lures buyers from throughout the Bay Area,” former Times reporter Jenifer Warren wrote at the time. “More than half of the homicides were narcotics-related, statistics show, and 70% of the victims were involved in criminal activity when they were killed.” Just over three decades later, the city is making headlines again — this time as a success story. After years of declining killings, East Palo Alto ended 2023 with an important local milestone: zero murders. So how did the small city go from murder capital to murder-free? Times reporter Brittny Mejia spoke with city and police officials past and present, along with community leaders, to find out. As she explained this week, “a complicated mix of circumstances” helped reverse the trend. One reason that’s been floated: gentrification. The Bay Area’s tech boom brought new residents, raised housing prices and pushed out some longtime residents. But as Brittny reported, community members and leaders in East Palo Alto “argue that poverty and crime don’t necessarily go hand in hand.” “They point to increased development since they earned the grim title of murder capital, including an Ikea and a Four Seasons hotel,” she wrote. “Also: more job opportunities, programs for youth and community policing. And time.” In the wake of its 1992 designation, the short-term response was more cops and more arrests. The city more than doubled its police presence as the county and nearby cities sent officers to help. That crackdown helped bring the number of murders down to four in 1993. But city leaders held that more policing alone was not a long-term solution, Brittny noted. They took the view that true progress would be achieved through economic development, better job opportunities for residents and a concerted effort to build community trust with law enforcement. A newly developed shopping center hired local residents. Local nonprofit and faith-based groups launched after-school programs that kept young people off the streets. Some residents went out in groups to intimidate drug dealers and take photos of cars driving into neighborhoods to buy drugs. Community members shared those photos and other information with police. In the 17 years between 2006 and 2022, homicides in East Palo Alto numbered in the single digits. Then, in the early moments of 2024, city officials celebrated their new milestone — and they hope to keep it that way. “It really is a testament to the commitment of the community to fix itself,” Sharifa Wilson, who was mayor of East Palo Alto in 1992, told Brittny. “The fact that we were labeled the homicide capital gave us an attention that we needed, and then we took that attention and turned it into something positive. If you give us lemons, we’re gonna make lemonade.”

POLITICAL MUSINGS

 WE ARE still about 19 months, legally, from when the next election in T&T is due. Clearly, so far out it is not really possible to make any kind of accurate prediction about what will happen. The truth is that as things stand right now, any number can play. But it might be helpful to look at some straws in the wind.

The first 'straw' is definitely crime. Apart from the obvious incompetence of both the Minister of National Security and his hand-picked Commissioner of Police as well as a climbing (and seemingly out of control) murder rate, just about everybody in this country has either been a victim of crime or knows someone who has been a victim.  Every single day there is a report in the newspapers of a murder or a robbery or of a beating of somebody. How this will play out at the polls is anybody's guess, but this problem is causing some PNM core support to slip. What is interesting though, is that this support is by and large not going over to the Opposition UNC but seems instead to be just "parked" up. The UNC has so far been unable to convince anybody (except for its core supporters) that it can and will do a better job on this issue.

The second "straw" is the economy. While most voters understand that a large problem with our economy is that just about everything that we eat is imported and people do understand that a sizeable portion of the current inflation is imported and therefore, not the Government's fault. But many people have lost their jobs and the cost of everything is going up. We all read about the price of oil going down sometimes, but our gasoline prices never do. People notice these things, especially when times are tough - as they are now. As it is, too many people have lost their jobs for the PNM to feel comfortable.

The third "straw" is that people generally are not enamored with either political Party or their respective leaders.  The UNC has not addressed this problem, and while it seems that they are trying to do something about it and are aware that it exists the UNC hierarchy seems to be banking on the fact that the "fed upness" with the PNM is such that a sufficient number of PNM voters will simply stay home and not vote, while most of their supporters will turn out and vote.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the opinion of Dr. Rowley generally is not a good one. A sizeable proportion of the population do not seem to hold him in very high regard. Unfortunately for the UNC, the same can be said of their leader.  Whether either or both can fix this problem remains to be seen. There is a lot of time left  and anything can happen. Meanwhile, there are a number of (for want of a better word) 'fringe' parties that so far haven't been able to make a note. They have all been campaigning and crying out for change, but so far none of them have set fire to the population in a way that they can seriously be considered as a viable alternative, although, to be fair, many of their criticisms are most valid. What they can (and probably will) do is to take enough votes away in a marginal constituency and thus hand the election to one side or the other. Both the PNM and the UNC are aware of this particular problem but neither has done anything about it  -  yet! 

I have been making a joke that because of this situation that I'm going to form my own political Party. People take me seriously until they hear my name for the new Party: the Free Democratic Action Trinidad & Tobago Party, or FDATT for short. Everyone who has heard the name of my new party says that they will vote for it!

HONOURABLE MEN

 I HAD PLANNED on writing about the state of the country after Christmas and the New Year had passed. But after learning of the death of Basdeo Panday on January 1st I decided that for the first post of this year I would  write a few words about him before resuming my various musings and commentaries.

I have read with great interest and taken not little pleasure in the many accolades that I have seen about the great man. And yes, Basdeo Panday was a great man. So to paraphrase William Shakespeare, this post is about burying Panday, not to praise him. And continuing with the Shakespearean analogy I would say that "the evil men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones. So let it be with ..." Panday. 

Our noble Prime Minister, Keith Rowley, in referring to Mr. Panday called him "an actor, Lawyer, labour Leader and Politician". Nowhere did Dr. Rowley refer to Mr. Panday as a former Prime Minister although this omission  was glaring to many and obvious to both sides of the political divide. But, again paraphrasing Shakespeare, Dr. Rowley is an honourable man. So if he neglected to mention in his eulogy that Mr. Panday was once a Prime Minister that sin of omission can be forgiven because he (Dr. Rowley) is indeed an honourable man. Indeed, Dr. Rowley's Government has ordered that the nation's flags be flown at half mast as  a symbol of mourning for Mr. Panday, and has also ordered that the State will meet the Panday family's funeral expenses as well as a State funeral for his predecessor.

Dr. Rowley is an honourable man and will doubtless mention these actions as evidence that he is an honourable man. Paraphrasing Shakespeare again, I am not writing here to criticize any honourable persons but simply to mourn for Basdeo Panday. That Mr. Panday would have had a suitable comment concerning Dr. Rowley's omission is beyond doubt, but he would never have hesitated had the shoe been on the other foot,  to mention that his successor was once a Prime Minister and would have recognized him as such. But then, Basdeo Panday was indeed an honourable man. 

MERRY CHRISTMAS

 There is a lovely Christmas song which says that this season of Christmas is the most wonderful time of the year. I do agree. The season encompasses just about everything from the religious to the festive. And what is absolutely wonderful about our little country is that just about everybody joins in the festivities, the parties, the gift giving and even Santa Claus! You don't have to be a Christian to join in. Indeed, many people who aren't Christian join in enthusiastically.

Put another way, this season effectively achieves what we all mouth during the year: all inclusivity.  We are also reminded to have consideration for the poor, the weak, the infirm and everybody else who might not be happy (with good reason) at this happy time. That this is right and needed throughout the year is also true. But even this dark cloud doesn't take away from the genuine good cheer, especially in Trinidad & Tobago.

I want to use this opportunity to wish everybody (and I do mean everybody) a very merry Christmas and that all your Christmas wishes come true, and, of course, a very happy, prosperous and successful new year.

Robin Montano

I'll return in the new year with my usual commentaries.

MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS

 

It is impossible to get any sort of accurate reading about life in Trinidad & Tobago from reading the daily newspapers. The various articles are usually skewed in favour of one side or another of the political divide or don't present an accurate picture of how people really feel. So, here are a few questions that need to be asked and answered:

1)   Are people in general satisfied or dissatisfied with the way things are going in T&T?

2)   Do people in general feel that T&T is on the right track?

3)   How would most people describe how they feel about their lives in T&T? Good? Bad? Indifferent? Do they think that the country is going downhill or that life is getting better? Depending on who you ask, you would probably get a different answer to this question. Most UNC supporters  believe that the country is going downhill. Most PNM supporters have grown somewhat disenchanted since the last election, but are probably not disenchanted enough to switch their votes to the UNC.

4)   How have inflation and job losses impacted the picture concerning peoples' perception on the economy? 

5)   Is race still a factor in the collective minds of the electorate? If so, why has there been just about no discussion at all on this issue? The newspapers collectively seem to shy away from any discussions about this. Why?

6)    On the question of the murder/crime rate, how has this affected peoples' thinking? Is there  a discontent about this? Is that discontent shaped partially - and in many cases amplified - by peoples' fear of what the 'other' Party might or might not do?

7)   How many PNM people think that the economy might improve under PNM? How many UNC people believe that it will improve under the UNC?  In other words is "Its the economy, stupid" a major factor on most peoples' minds?

8)   What do people think of Dr. Rowley and how he has been leading the country? What do people think of Mrs. Persad Bissessar  and her aspirations to become Prime Minister?

9)   In 2020 PNM won the election by running "we are not the UNC". In 2025 the signs are already there that they will try  a reprise that theme (with possible modifications). Will that be enough?

With a little less than two years to the next election there is obviously a lot of time for opinions to change, but if you want to know what is going on the answers to these questions should help you.

ILLEGAL TRAFFICKING IN GUNS

 

It is now virtually impossible  to find anybody in Trinidad and Tobago who has not been affected either directly or indirectly by gun violence. There are several questions the answers to which might help our collective understanding of the problem that we are facing.

 Okay, so first question: we all believe that there is a massive amount of illegal trafficking in illegal guns. Is this really true? If so, what is the size of the problem? Certainly, it appears that there is a huge amount of illegal guns in the country with more coming in every day. Is this true?  If so, how are these guns coming in? Are they coming through the ports? Who is bringing them in? Whether this perception is so or not, what exactly are the authorities (police, customs etc.) doing about it? And when will we, the citizens, be able to see and feel some relief? 

If it isn't true, why does everyone and his mother believe that it is true? What exactly are the plans of the Government and the police to deal with the problem? And if they can't disclose these plans (confidentiality) then when exactly would it be fair to say that they have failed? Six weeks from today? Five weeks? When can we fairly say that the authorities (Government, police, etc.) have failed? And who has workable solutions? What exactly are they?

Next question: where exactly are the regulations controlling  the illegal trafficking of guns failing? Of course, I am assuming that I am correct in thinking that there is little or no real enforcement of the regulations.  But certainly, based on the evidence before us there seems to be massive evidence that the regulations dealing with illegal firearms are failing miserably. Why? Again, what are the authorities doing about this?

Third question: where exactly can one find easily all data relating to the illegal trafficking of guns? Where exactly is the data that can tell us whether or not our perception that we are in the middle of a crime epidemic is accurate? Who is responsible for keeping this data? The Government? The police? Customs? All of them? Who?

Fourth question: if the data shows clearly that there is indeed a lot of illegal trafficking in guns, then who is ultimately responsible for that and what exactly are they going to do about it? And when exactly can we expect some relief? Do the authorities know who is importing these illegal guns? If so, why have no arrests been made? And if they don't know, why don't they know? I do understand that justiciable evidence may be hard to come by, but if there is illegal trafficking in guns it should exist. Why are we, the citizenry, being kept in the dark about this?

I could go on, but hopefully you get the point. Without clear and concise answers to these and other questions we are "spinning top in mud". At the very least, the answers to these questions (and others) should help us to think more clearly rather than throw our hands in the air like the Pharisee who gets rid of his sins by doing just that (throwing his hands in the air) and crying "Korban".

There are many other questions and this list is not intended to be a complete one. Please note that I am not talking about LEGAL guns; that is a whole other discussion. And to be clear, I believe that there is a massive amount of trafficking in ILLEGAL guns. And therein is where I believe that the problem begins and ends and that without asking and getting answers to the hard questions on the questions we will never solve the problem. Maybe the question should be do we really want to solve this problem?

Esequibo - Part Two

 

The news out of South America is certainly not good. On the one hand, you have a dictator in the form of President Maburro (and yes, the mis-spelling is deliberate) and on the other hand you have an ally, a member of Caricom, under a serious threat of war and forcible annexation of its territory.

While it is clear that President Maburro is extremely unpopular in his country - more than 10 million Venezuelans (from a total of about 30 million) have fled his awful regime - what is not so clear (at least here in the Caribbean) is what exactly is the claim on the Esequibo that Venezuela has and why does this claim resonate with most Venezuelans

Very briefly, it is because most Venezuelans believe that their country was cheated in the arbitration that ended with a decision for Great Britain (then the ruler/owner of Guyana). Their argument is that they believe that the decision was fundamentally unfair because at the time Britain was one of the most powerful countries in the world - if not the most powerful. Therefore, they argue, there was at the very least, the perception of bias and undue influence on the arbitrators, none of whom were South American. And this perception of bias, they argue, voids the decision of the arbitrators. 

Then there is the recent decision by the International Court Of Justice (ICJ). The Venezuelan argument (in a nutshell) is that Venezuela never signed up to the treaty that established the ICJ and therefore they are not bound by any decision that it makes. Indeed, that is their major justification for not taking part in the proceedings in the first place.

I have put all this out because it hasn't been clear from the many news reports as to whether or not there is any other side to the claims of that awful dictator, Nicholas Maburro other than those of the Guyanese.. Unfortunately, even the Devil may sometimes have an argument that should at least be listened to.

So? What is the answer? Certainly on the surface, at least, both sides appear to  have good  arguments that need to be settled without recourse to violence (war).

I have deliberately not set out the Guyanese arguments, but, in one sentence, they can be summed up by saying that they have been in possession of the lands for more than 125 years and the revival of the Venezuelan claim is not just bogus, but is intended purely to help Maburro who faces an election soon. It is a good argument.

So? What to do? Perhaps there might be another arbitration composed of  members from both Caricom and allies of Maburro in Latin America (to avoid any perception of bias).  And there should be an agreement that the decision of this tribunal will be final and binding on both sides.

It is absolutely clear that war should be avoided, and that should be the motivation for all right thinking peoples to try to help. And Caricom needs to help now! Today!

HOW MUCH IS A BILLION DOLLARS?

  Sometimes we can get caught up with numbers that few of us really understand. For example, if you heard the the Government had spent a billion dollars on X (whatever X is) you would (depending on your political persuasion) say that was a fair price or that was completely exorbitant. But regardless of your belief as to whether the amount was fair or exorbitant the truth is that you really have no true appreciation of how much a billion dollars is. So let me help you by putting it in context for you:

If I told you that I would give you one dollar for every second that passes as from now, it would take you about ELEVEN AND A HALF years before that amount reached a million dollars. Now, if I said I would give you one dollar for every second that passes as from now, it would take a little over THIRTY ONE AND A HALF years before you collected one billion dollars!

Let me put it another way for you: if I gave you a billion dollars on the day that they crucified Jesus Christ with the proviso that you spend one thousand dollars a day every day, and you lived forever;  today you would have about a hundred and ten years to go before you ran out of money!

And that is why we find it difficult to understand news reports that say that a project cost $X billion or that the Government lost $Y billion on it.  Unfortunately, very few people in the whole world will ever amass any where close to a billion dollars either in cash or in kind and there are fewer still who really understand or appreciate how much one billion dollars really is. Oh! We know that it is a lot, but we have no real idea as to how much it is.

Perhaps it is time that we pay attention to Government spending and ask ourselves whether or not we are getting value for money or is there too much waste?

THE ESEQUIBO: WHOSE CLAIM IS BETTER?

 

The dispute between Guyana and Venezuela over the ownership of the Esequibo region has its origins in the distant past. In 1899 after an international arbitration the ownership of the region was confirmed to what was then known as British Guyana (the former name of the now independent country of Guyana).

The problem was that at the time of the award Britain was one of the most powerful countries in the world (if not the most powerful). Most Venezuelans believed then as well as now that the award was flawed and that Venezuela's claim was never properly or (more importantly) fairly adjudicated with the concept that 'might is right' dominating the decision. Certainly, there is a lot of justification for this belief that Venezuela's claim was  unfairly dealt with. Guyana has now said let the International Court of Justice deal with it. Venezuela has responded  with a simple 'why should we?'

It is fairly obvious that President Maburro (and yes, the misspelling is deliberate) is trying to resurrect this dispute as a way to garner support both locally and (more importantly for him) in Latin America where the distrust of the European powers has never gone away. 

So the question really is, does Venezuela really have a good claim to this very rich (in oil and gas) region, or is Maburro simply 'trying a thing'?

Except for the names and a few other obvious changes this story is rather similar to the current war raging between Israel and Hamas. Basically, the Israelis claim that they have a right to the lands that they occupy because they were forced out of there some 2000 years ago. Hamas claims that the Palestinians were always there but were basically forced out by the Americans and the Europeans some 70 or so years ago.  Now there is vicious killing (on both sides) especially of women and children.

All this goes to prove the simple truth that 'might is right' (even when it is wrong).

But going back to the Venezuela/Guyana dispute it is now almost impossible to say who has the better claim. It would be very easy to argue for or against either side. And either argument would be as right as it could be wrong. Certainly, my Venezuelan wife believes strongly in the justice of Venezuela's cause and my sister equally believes in the justice of that of Guyana. Me? I really don't know where the justice lies or who has the better claim, but I want to sleep in my own bed tonight so I'll side with Venezuela.

PERCEPTION vs. REALITY

 

Something that I read somewhere once, has remained with me forever. It is that there is only ONE reason for politics - only ONE reason for Government, and that is to make life better for the people! Full stop! Punto finale! There is no other reason.

So, with this injunction in mind I have engaged myself in looking at all the major (and minor) national political parties in Trinidad & Tobago. I have left out Dr. Farley and his team from this exercise because they are not national in their aspirations, but are only concerned with Tobago.

  Looking at the ruling Party first, I have rather reluctantly come to the conclusion that it has failed the country miserably. Take the number one issue, for example, on everybody's mind right now: crime. My (very, very unofficial) survey tells me that we have reached a stage where everybody knows personally somebody who has been affected one way or another by this terrible scourge that is plaguing our beautiful country The next stage after that is when everybody has a family member who has been touched by this scourge in one way or another. Unfortunately, we don't seem to be very far away from that. It would be very nice to be wrong on this point, but I don't think that I am.

The PNM also has problems with its cadre of leaders. As a Prime Minister Dr. Rowley has failed to gather around him persons of demonstrable competence in their various Ministries. Take, for example, the disastrous performance of the current Minister of National Security. The lousy performance of the Minister of Health has been pushed out of the headlines by the crime situation, but the Health sector is still an absolute disaster. The clear message is: don't get sick in T&T! And so it goes on; the roads are a mess, the education system is failing and in a country which has plenty of rain there is a sizable proportion of the population that can't get a regular supply of water.

With Dr. Rowley and Co. failing so obviously then it would only be natural to assume that the opposition UNC would be an overwhelming favourite to win the next elections. But this is clearly not so. Even the most die hard supporters of the UNC are privately admitting that "things look tight". For better or worse, this is obviously a fault of the current leadership. Mrs. Persad Bissessar has failed in her bid to present herself as a credible alternative Prime Minister. Part of the reason why this is so is because she has failed to gather around her credible, strong and demonstrably competent people. Indeed, the perception is that anybody who MIGHT be able to present him/herself as a credible leader is unceremoniously booted out of the Party or "killed" politically. Unfortunately, in politics perception is reality, so it really doesn't matter whether this is true or not. What is true is that such a perception exists. And this perception reinforces the negative opinion that people have of Mrs. Persad Bissessar.

Then we have the two "hopefuls": Phillip Alexander and Gary Griffith. Again, unfortunately, neither of these two gentleman seem to have been able to garner support from strong and competent persons. To be fair, both of them have made some excellent points as to how they think the country should be run and how they would do it if given the chance. Their problem is that they are perceived (that word again) to be 'one man shows' and without any kind of party political infrastructure.

So we come back to the beginning of this post and the question that ought to be in the forefront of everyone's mind: are YOU better off today than you were 8 years ago when Dr. Rowley and his team came to power? If you are, then it is clear who you should vote for. But if you aren't better off then the question as to what you should do is still (rather surprisingly) up in the air.

TYHE ISRAELI/PALESTINIAN DISPUTE - CARICOM SHOULD STEP IN

 A long career in law (more than 50 years) has taught me a few things: the first is that a bad settlement is always better than a good judgement. If the argument (to use an admittedly silly example) is about who owns a dog then it is better to reach a compromise of sorts rather than go through the time and expense of a major trial that could end up costing more than the dog is worth. Of course there will be an argument that X loves the dog too much to allow Y to have it (or vice versa) and the solution of King Solomon to cut the dog in half is clearly unacceptable. A compromise in this situation could range from one paying to the other the price of the dog or some portion of its value.  That there could be other solutions to this otherwise intractable problem is obvious. The point here is that both X and Y have equal but different claims to the dog and some sort of compromise is obviously essential.

The next thing that was drilled into me as a young lawyer is that if you ever want to understand a problem go back to basics, Without an understanding of the basics of the problem a solution will always elude you.

With these two self imposed injunctions on me I have found myself looking at the latest events in the long running Israeli/Palestinian dispute with a great deal of dismay. Clearly, given the whole history of this matter starting with 2,000 years ago and coming up to date it is clear that BOTH sides have rights and that neither side is innocent of wrong doing. I'm not going to get into the argument as to who is more to blame or who did what first. At the end of it all there is a serious dispute that requires  compromises from BOTH sides before there can be any resolution. 

Now, a compromise is just that: a compromise! In a compromise neither side will get what they want, but the basic question would be 'is this the best solution for everybody?' And such a settlement could be achievable if only there could be some sort of dialogue. "Jaw-Jaw" is always better than "War-War". And that is the third thing that I learned.

I hesitate to give my own ideas of what a compromise solution might look like. For one thing, this is not the purpose of this particular post. But I do have some ideas.

The purpose of this post is to criticize the leaders in Caricom for their failure to come forward and try to insert themselves  as a neutral third party to try and achieve a settlement. People (on both sides) are dying and obviously calmer heads are needed to try and bring some sort of resolution to this conflict. We (i.e., the citizens of Caricom) have nothing really to gain from trying to help but then, people are dying! If that alone was not a good reason to try and help stop the carnage then nothing is. There could even be some side benefits to us mounting  (or at least trying to) mount the world stage, but our basic aim should be to try and prevent more people who could be alive next week staying alive if they weren't killed today. The problem with dying is that if you are dead it will be for a lllooonngg time!

OF POLITICS, PRIME MINISTERS AND DECISIONS

There are a lot of people, it seems, that don't really understand the TT Constitution nor how much power  a Prime Minister wields under our system of Government - the Westminster system. Most people think, for example, that an American type President is more powerful than a TT Prime Minister.

And they are both right and wrong at the same time.

An American President is obviously a million times more powerful than a TT Prime Minister because he is the head of the most powerful country in the world. However, the constitutional checks and balances in the American system severely constrain him in a way that a TT Prime Minister isn't. He needs to get Congressional approval for just about every thing he does, and even when his Party controls one or both Houses of Congress an American President cannot be guaranteed that he will get his way. Powerful and influential Senators can (and often do) oppose a sitting President from their own Party. Of course, the President is there for a fixed term and cannot lose his job simply because he loses a vote either in the Senate or in the House of Representatives, or both.

Compare a TT Prime Minister:

In theory he and his Government are subject to the control of Parliament.  But, (and it is a big "but") Parliament can only really control the Prime Minister by passing a vote of no confidence in him. If that happens then the Prime Minister falls. But the Prime Minister has a seven day grace period in which he can call new elections. If he does that then you'd better believe that none of those who combined with the Opposition to boot him out will ever be chosen as their Party's candidate for a particular seat as the Prime Minister is always the leader of the political Party that garnered the most votes in the last election (or at least, in the President's opinion can command a majority of votes in TT's Lower House). He (or she) who controls the Party controls everything.

But there has never been any Government M.P.'s in this country in the past willing to bring down their Government and face the polls. It just ain't gonna happen - ever!

So, the reality is that once a person becomes Prime Minister the only check on his power is the court of public opinion. Prime Ministers will bend when it becomes clear to them that a proposed course of action is opposed by a sizable and/or influential (read "money") majority in the country.

Even then, a lot depends on when the particular controversial proposal is brought up. If the proposal comes early in the term a Prime Minister might be tempted to ignore public opinion and ride the storm of protest out. If it comes late in the term then he is more susceptible to pressure. A classic example of this was the controversy over (the infamous) clause 33 and Mrs. Persad Bissessar backing down and withdrawing it. Too much political capital was being lost and there are many who felt that that particular issue was a major reason for her Party's defeat in 2015

  

But Mrs. Persad Bissessar is not the only Prime Minister who has backed down on a controversial issue, or who can be accused of acting autocratically. The same can be said of each and every one of her predecessors and of her successor, Dr. Rowley. The system creates and allows it. Winston Churchill once defined  a Westminster type democracy (which is what we have here) as "a dictatorship punctuated by 3 weeks of democracy every 5 years."

That is why our general elections are much more "Presidential" than they might seem at first blush. Whoever we elect as Prime Minister in the next general election is going to have almost complete

power - no different from what now exists, but it is important to understand this. Further, for the second time in our history we will be dealing with 2 known entities: Mrs. Persad Bissessar and Dr. Rowley. (The first time was Messrs. Manning and Panday in 2007). Mrs. Persad Bissessar has been Prime Minister once before. We have her track record to look at and we know exactly how she she is going to behave and act.  Those who think we will get something different are indulging in wishful thinking. And as for Dr. Rowley, because he is of "more recent vintage" it would be absolutely mind boggling to believe that this particular "leopard" will "change his spots".

So, in the upcoming elections (which are constitutionally 2 years away) as the dust of battle begins to settle, we will know exactly what to expect from whichever side wins. Think about it!

DEALING WITH RISING PRICES

 If you ever want to understand a problem go back to basics. With this in mind I have been wondering why prices seem to be rising so quickly. Finally, a business friend explained it to me in simple terms. He said let's take dog food for example. You are selling 10 packs of dog food a week for $10 per pack. At the end of the week you therefore have an income of $100. However, you want to cut costs so you lay off 2 workers and save $1 per worker (i.e., $2 as the salary of each worker is $1 a week.) But it takes 7 workers to make 10 bags of dog food and now you are 2 down from the 7 that you had. So? What to do? You want to still make the $100 a week and 5 workers can only produce 7 bags a week. There will be an obvious shortfall.

So you raise the price of the dog food to $15 a pack. The 5 remaining workers are able to produce 7 packs a week. As it is, 3 buyers will not be able to afford the increased price so you will now be selling 7 bags a week at $15 a pack instead of 10 packs at $10 each. But when you were producing the 10 packs your gross income was then $100 a week. Now you are producing 7 packs but your gross income is now $105 a week So you are now $5 a week better off. 

But it doesn't stop there. Because you laid off 2 workers you are now $2 a week better off by saving on the salaries. And this has to be added on to the extra $5 a week that you are making from the price hike.

It is admittedly a little confusing, but if you do the maths from this very, very simple example, you will get the point.

Putting it simply, we are clearly being ripped off by highly unethical business practises and by the Government aiding and abetting them by not doing anything and allowing the argument that the inflation that we are all seeing is imported and therefore there is nothing that can be done about it. Like all arguments this has a little bit of truth in it. Frankly, this is happening not just here but around the world. But that doesn't mean that we can't do anything or shouldn't even try to do something about it.