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. 

IS THERE A FOREIGN EXCHANGE PROBLEM?

 I was so glad to read that Conrad Ennil, a former finance minister in Patrick Manning's cabinet and now holding a big time chairmanship in one of the country's most important financial institutions,  has stated quite publicly that there is no shortage of foreign currency in the country. And because neither Mr. Ennil (nor indeed any PNM finance minister) ever lies then it must be true: there is no foreign currency shortage or crisis in T&T!  Full stop!

My only problem is that nobody seems to have told any of the banks who continue to limit the amount of foreign currency available to citizens. For example, Republic Bank just put out a notice to its credit card holders that the available amount in US dollars available to their card holders in any one billing cycle has been reduced from $10,000 to $5,000. But there is no foreign exchange shortage so clearly the bank has to be syphoning off all the available foreign currency for it's own nefarious needs. And when my bank (not Republic) says that I have to get special approval (which normally takes about three days) to send money for my son's education and living expenses, it is lying to me. Of course, this statement would be highly defamatory if there was really a shortage of foreign currency, but because Mr. Ennil et al never lie, we know that this could not be true.

But there could be another explanation: Mr. Ennil et al simply don't know what they are talking about when they say that the foreign currency situation is only in people's minds. In other words, the alleged shortage is simply a fiction of those persons who are just looking for something to criticize the Government and the Prime Minister for. Yep! That's probably it! Somebody somewhere is just completely incompetent! 

What do you think? Because something is dreadfully wrong here and we are not being told the truth by somebody! Who do you think is lying?

THE VERY DEFINITION OF HYPOCRISY

 

It was with great surprise that I saw in the news this morning that Cuba, a 64 year old dictatorship, has . announced its candidacy to join the UN Human Rights Council for the period 2024 to 2026.  The election will take place in October. Really? And what countries exactly will vote for Cuba? Will Trinidad & Tobago vote for this brutal, dictatorial regime which currently has more than 1,000 political prisoners and routinely murders (literally) anybody stupid enough to oppose it? If T&T supports this what will that say about  the current T&T regime?

Cuba is, along with Nicaragua, the two places in the region where religious freedoms are brutally curtailed. And don't forget that at the beginning of this awful regime it promised a workers paradise! The only paradise in Cuba is enjoyed by those at the top. Everybody else can literally go to hell as far as the regime is concerned. Certainly, this "workers' paradise" is anything but, and is a place where nobody in their right mind would want to live.  PRISONERS DEFENDERS, a human rights organization based in Spain has catalogued practices by this terrible regime of prison torture, deprivation of medical attention, forced labour, solitary confinement, intentional disorientation as well as many other actions that any right thinking person would consider to be crimes. 

But then, this is Cuba, so I guess that makes it all right! Cuba gets rid of anyone who is an independent activist either by locking them up and throwing away the key or by murdering them. Ask Oswaldo Paya or Harold Cepero. Oh! You can't ask them because they are dead - murdered by the Cuban regime. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) is my authority for saying this. Those two guys were killed in a car crash which the IACHR says was caused by Cuban State agents because they were highly critical of the brutal dictatorship.

I could go on. I could talk about the issue of modern day slavery in Cuba which sends its doctors overseas only to seize 80% of their salaries and prevent them from leaving wherever they are sent to by threatening to kill the families of the doctors. 

And the United Nations is seriously going to allow Cuba to put forward its candidacy to join the Human Rights Council? What is the definition of hypocrisy again?

And why is this not news in T&T? What is our Government's position on this? When are we going to stand up and be counted against brutal dictatorships?

PNM v UNC

 

The PNM has been able to put itself in the minds of the electorate as the "go to" or "default" political party in Trinidad & Tobago. This fact gives it a big advantage over every other political party and gives the PNM in the minds even of truly independent voters that the old mantra of "better to live with the devil you know than the devil you don't" is probably correct. The UNC in the meantime has failed signally to capitalize on the thousand and one screw-ups that the Rowley regime has burdened the population with, so much so, that what should be a runaway victory at the polls is now a dead heat between the two dominant parties with the PNM having the advantage of incumbency.

For the UNC to have a chance at the polls in any meaningful way it needs to present itself, not only as a credible alternative to the PNM, but also as a political party that has the solutions to the million and one problems plaguing the nation. And it needs to do this now -over and over again. It doesn't matter that the PNM might listen to the proposed solutions, like them and then implement them. What would happen is that the country would see that the UNC really cares about the ordinary man and is prepared to put country first whether or not it means depriving themselves of power. Because, for example, do you really care who fixes the crime situation, or do you basically care about getting it fixed?

On this particular issue (crime) I note with considerable alarm the fact that nobody on either side of the political divide is putting forward any real and workable solutions - except to say that the Minister of National Security and the Commissioner of Police are both grossly incompetent. While this is probably true it doesn't really give any solace to a beleaguered population that is desperately looking for relief to this multi-faceted problem.

There are two new political parties on the scene - one led by Phillip Alexander who has managed to use social media to his great advantage by highlighting the problems that plague us, and the other led by Gary Griffith whose basic claim to fame is that he was a very good Commissioner of Police which is evidence of his ability to lead.

For better or worse neither of these two parties have got any traction with the electorate and the race at the moment is a straight dog fight between the two major parties - the PNM and the UNC. Of course, there is a legitimate fear on both sides that either or both of these minor parties could cause a loss or a victory in highly marginal areas but at the end of the day this particular possibility, while being a legitimate cause for concern for both sides, really is not motivating either of the two main protagonists to change their modus operandi in any meaningful way.

A demonstrably new way of thinking is now more than ever necessary. Unfortunately, the country's past experience with third parties (e.g., the NAR) has been such that the electorate is understandably reluctant to take a chance with an unproven entity. So we are back with "the devil you know ..." syndrome.

What can break this static state of affairs? Probably we could start with a change of leadership on both sides. This is more likely to happen with the party not in power (UNC) but there are some rumours floating around that Dr. Rowley plans to retire before the next elections due in 2025. Depending on who the PNM chooses to lead it then (assuming that this happens) PNM will probably win. There is a rumour that Stuart Young, Dr. Rowley's "Mr. fix-it", will be the replacement. If this were to be true then the situation will be back to square one. Mr. Young does not enjoy widespread popularity and is too closely associated with Dr, Rowley.  If there is an acceptable (to the electorate) change of leadership on either side and that change happens soon, then the party that enacts the leadership change will stand a better chance than the one that doesn't. But I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. Politicians rarely act in what is the best interests of the country unless those interests happen to coincide. Put another way, meaningful change on either side remains most unlikely.

FIXING CRIME

 UNC politicians tend to treat it as an established fact: when PNM is in power crime rises; when UNC is in power crime falls, But party rule does not drive crime. Crime tends to rise when the economy is doing badly and falls when it is doing well.

This doesn't mean that PNM leadership drives crime per se nor does it necessarily lead to more crime. To put it another way, UNC politicians are misrepresenting our country's crime problem. That also doesn't mean that they are entirely wrong in what they are saying. It just means that focusing on crime by itself is showing a fundamental misunderstanding of the basic problem. And, I'll say it again, the basic problem is that the country's economy has tanked. Almost (but not quite) everybody is worse off today than they were at the beginning of the Rowley regime. 

The truth is that there are a few (very few) people who are better off today than they were eight years ago. The truth also is that crime worldwide tends to be higher in urban areas than in country areas and in the cities and towns there tends to be a greater African population than in Indian areas which are largely in the country areas. That is why the general perception that most of the criminal element is largely African rather than Indian. But that is not the whole story.

Poverty and race play a major part in crime. But also affecting the problem is access to guns - which, apparently, is very easy. I am aware that  not a few UNC supporters will read this post and think that I am making excuses for the PNM. Far from it. Crime is a complicated issue driven by the economy, social issues, personal disputes, drugs and almost every other issue. And while a few issues can make a big difference partisanship is not one of them, I believe that fixing the economy is THE major issue, just not the only one.

No. A journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step, and the first step here is to define ALL of the problems and to put down clearly and succinctly the solutions to each one. If this has ever been done, I am unaware of it. Remember always: there is only one reason for politics - only one reason for Government: to make life better for the people! Full stop! There is no other reason.

P.S. Happy Independence Day

THE DUTIES OF NEWSPAPERS

 It is striking, to say the least, how the three daily newspapers are failing to describe to their readers - who count on them and often pay them - in clear eyed terms what is going on in the country and fail completely to remind their readers about what ought to be important to our democracy. Take, for example, what can loosely be described as the Brent Thomas affair.

The reported facts are that Mr. Thomas had been charged with dealing in arms and ammunition illegally. Now these are serious charges, especially given the high incidence of violent crime. However, there seems to have been no restriction on Mr. Thomas who was out on bail. Now, bail is a common law right based on the principle that unless and until a man is found guilty of a crime his freedom cannot or ought not to be restricted.

Mr. Thomas, however, was arrested in Barbados by a combination of Trinidadian and Barbadian police and brought back to Trinidad. The problem here is that there was no warrant of extradition and the Trinidadian police had obviously gone to great lengths to bring Mr. Thomas back. They had even commandeered a special plane owned by the State for this purpose. 

This raises the rather obvious question as to who made this order to have Mr. Thomas arrested and brought back and why were the proper channels (such as obtaining an extradition warrant) not complied with? The erstwhile Commissioner of Police promised that there would be an investigation into what happened and why and that a report would be made in two weeks. This promise was made on the 17th May - more than three months ago! And yet, there hasn't been a single solitary peep out of the media! Nada! Nothing! Its as though it never happened and that page has passed. And meanwhile?

And yet it did happen! Why is this important? Because the facts - which are probably very uncomfortable- need to be spelled out and exposed. Who ordered this illegal action? Who got the Barbadian authorities to comply? Who in Barbados participated in this illegal act? Is any politician involved either here, or in Barbados, or both? If so, who? Why has no report ever been made? Why has the media seemingly dropped this matter? Why can't we (the general public) know what happened here.

Either the country's media lack the understanding of how serious this matter is or they lack the spine to investigate this properly, or both. Neither of these options is particularly comforting given the current state of this country's politics. Ignoring uncomfortable truths affect our democracy  in all sorts of terrible ways. Put another way, the country is not being served very well by its media and our very democracy is at risk as a result. Unfortunately, there are many other examples of the newspapers not doing their job.

Perhaps the best way to describe the duties of a newspaper was written by a man called C.P. Scott who published the following in the Manchester Guardian on theb6th May, 19328:

           "The newspaper is of necessity something of a monopoly and its first duty is to shun the                 temptations of monopoly. Its primary office is the gathering of news. At the peril of its soul it must see that the supply is not tainted. Neither in what it gives, nor in what it does not give, nor in the mode of presentation, must the unclouded face of truth suffer wrong. Comment is free but facts are sacred."