The PM in his Republic Day message called on all citizens “to take stock of what is going on in parliamentary sittings” and pay attention “specifically to the way this representation is exercised in the Parliament “.
The basis for the PM’s appeal is that “A Republican form of Government is a system whereby citizens rule through their elected representatives.”. Based on this premise, he continued, “We cannot hold our leaders to account if we are ignorant to the quality of their representation”.
Our experience, as citizens, of Parliament and of Parliamentary Representatives since Independence and Republican status 14 years later, calls into question the whole argument advanced by the PM in his message.
Questions to be Answered
Reality imposes some questions which we must answer: Do Citizens Rule? Do MP’s Represent Citizens (Electors)?
Since the 1990’s when candidate walkabouts were becoming fashionable, I have asked every candidate 2 questions:

1. If you are elected, how will you know what we are thinking about the things you debate in Parliament?
2. If we are not satisfied with what you are saying or doing as MP, what can we do about you?

Here are some answers I got:
1996:  Those are party matters.  2001:   You can come to the (party) office and discuss them.
Well, in 5 years, not much improved, and it hasn’t since. At least the second candidate contemplated the possibility of discussing my concerns. But, at his convenience and at his party’s office.
In all my life, I have never encountered a Parliamentary Representative calling a meeting of electors (whom he is supposed to represent) to discuss any piece of legislation that his/her party was taking to Parliament.
 Some Opposition MP’s have had meetings with constituents about Government legislation which they oppose. But, that is not very often.
Generally, Parliamentarians do NOT represent citizens. They represent their parties in Parliament. What they put on the Order Paper is decided by their party and what they say is decided by their party caucus. How they vote is directed by their party whip and their Political Leader.
What Parliamentarians say in Parliament, as a rule, is not based on any discussion with or decision by citizens.
Nor is it a regular feature of political life that an MP reports to or renders any account for what he/she does in any forum of the electors of the constituency of which he/she is Parliamentary Representative.
There is no requirement for either consultation or reporting in the provisions of the Constitution. None existed before 1976 and none have been included since.
Even Local Government representatives tell burgesses that they can attend statutory meetings which are generally at an inconvenient time and even if a citizen goes, they are merely spectators.
The “Conversations with the Prime Minister” conducted by this PM or street political party meetings to “account to the people” organised by his predecessor, Manning, do not amount to either genuine consultations or accounting between Elected Parliamentarians and Electors.
In my experience, I know of few Local Government Councilors who held regular meetings with their burgesses.
In my constituency, my last Opposition MP for Arouca Maloney held some meetings with constituents mainly to oppose projects proposed by the Government.
I share this example. The Government proposed to locate a Family Court in our community in an area with mostly commercial properties located nearby. The MP mounted a campaign to oppose such a Court arguing that it would lower residents’ property values and that criminals would be in our community.
 What the MP did not say was that the Family Court in Port of Spain is located on Cipriani Boulevard and property values in that area have neve fallen, nor are criminals roaming that neighbourhood.
The end result is that with her party now in Government, the site for the Family Court is now the location for the construction of a second major mall in the Trincity area.
So, as it turns out, the MP’s ‘representation’ was for the interests of the owners of the new mall who do not even belong to the constituency and not for the interests of the citizens she was elected to represent.
When the PM says that “A Republican form of Government is a system whereby citizens rule through their elected representatives” the basis of his position is completely false.
Political parties represent interests, but, those are the interests of the propertied and moneyed minority and not the citizens of the constituencies.
NO Control by Electors
No matter how much attention we pay to Parliamentary proceedings, what is said there does not come from us and if we are dissatisfied with what our so-called representatives say or how they vote, there is NOTHING we can do about it.
Wait till the next election and vote them out that is what they will tell us and that is all our Constitution permits.
We have no control, as Electors over Elected Representatives at national or local levels.
In 2014, in the first major attempt to amend our Republican Constitution, after a very well-attended consultative process, a Bill to amend the Constitution went to Parliament. Included in that Bill was a provision to introduce the Right of Recall of Elected Representatives by Electors.
That was the first attempt to begin to give Electors some level of control over the Elected.
Sadly, that Bill was rejected by 41 MPs whether they were for or against voted based on their party or individual positions because NOT A SINGLE ONE of the ever discussed the contents of that important Bill with their constituents.
The Opposition voted Against. Some Government MPs voted Against or Abstained because they did not agree with a Run-Off clause that was included by the UNC because they feared Jack Warner’s ILP.
The bottom line is that, without a single MP, acting based on the opinion of his/her constituents (citizens), the citizens were denied the Right of Recall and any measure of control over the very same Parliamentary Representatives.
So, when the PM in his Republic Day message says that “We cannot hold our leaders to account if we are ignorant to the quality of their representation” (by paying attention to what they say or do in Parliament), he is being less than faithful as a representative.
He knows full well that there is no mechanism for holding our representative to account. He and his party voted introducing even the Right of Recall in 2015.
No Role in Decision-making
The PM concluded his message with this statement:” A truly Republican state requires the involvement of all us working together to protect and maintain the fundamental human rights and freedoms that have been entrenched in the Constitution”.
What he did not say is that our Republican Constitution does NOT give the majority of the society, its citizens, any role or involvement in decision-making about all matters that affect their lives and that affect their Rights and Freedoms entrenched in the Constitution.
Parliamentarians and Local Government Representatives are not required to represent the views of those they are supposed to represent; nor are they accountable to them.
By his statement about a ‘truly Republican state’, the PM has unwittingly confirmed that apart from removing the Queen as Head of State and having a ceremonial President with ‘powers you think I have, I don’t’, our Republican Constitution has not vested sovereignty in the citizens of this country, but in the Cabinet and Parliament.
The parties in the Parliament and their MPs do NOT represent the citizens but represent their parties and the interests they do serve.
What this, and our experience, tells us is that after 56 years of Independence and 42 years of Republican status, our Constitution still does not vest sovereignty or decision-making power in the people of Trinidad and Tobago.
Our project Independence and nation-building project has a lot to do to put sovereign control of our affairs in the hands of the people.
We must strive even harder to create a Constitution based on 21st century definitions of Rights, of sovereignty, of power and accountability if we are to accomplish the goals of 1962 and create a “truly Republican state” as described by the PM in his Republic Day message.
 
Clyde Weatherhead
A Citizen Fighting for
Democratic Renewal of
Our Society
24 September 2018
 

​Reflecting but Not Resting
-Lessons of 9/07
Today, a poll was published in a daily newspaper confirming the anxiety among the population about the provision and quality of basic needs and about their safety as well as concerns about governance in the society.
But, it appears that on Friday, the day designated by the trade unions as a day of protest on the very issues the population is concerned about, there was not the kind of support for the call to action as on other occasions in the past.
Since early Friday morning, the battle of claims of ‘success’ and ‘victory’ and ‘who win’ between the government and the organisers of the day of protest has been raging.
It is the battle for ‘hearts and minds’ that has accompanied national protest actions since the 1980’s including the Day of Resistance in 1989. On that occasion, the fact that the workers, maxi operators and other elements of the people had overwhelmingly supported the call to action to protest government’s policies could not be disputed by the spokespersons for the state. Nothing moved that day. This time was different.
Though signaled nearly 2½ months ago, it was apparent that September 7, 2018 was nothing approaching the Day of Resistance in terms of the support for the call to action. Nor was it the total failure which this Government hoped for when it launched its unprecedented campaign of intimidation for a full week in advance.
The desperation to claim ‘victory’ was probably best articulated by the Education Minister’s statement that ‘on any school day teacher turnout of 70-75% is normal, so if you extrapolate the 52% turnout, you will see that it was not supported.”. Even if one were to accept that 25-30% absenteeism is normal (sic) then a further 25% absenteeism must mean that there was a significant increase. One can only hope that that is not the logic that our chief educator is inculcating in our schools.
The union leaders countered claiming a 68% success, citing a 90% absenteeism at Petrotrin as its only specifically quantified measure.
What do we learn from all of this?
Times and conditions change and so do the strengths of the social forces engaged in continuous conflict to decide the fate of the society. The situation in 1980’s is not the same as in 2018 though the issues about which there is anxiety closely resemble, except perhaps for the pervasive crime situation.
How, then, can the difference in outcome be accounted for?
One prominent labour figure said today, the problem is ‘apathy’. Is it? How can a population be overwhelmingly be concerned about issues affecting their lives and not respond to a call to action?
Perhaps one answer may be found in the state of the trade union movement and the quality of its organizational work.
The trade union movement was in 1989 moving toward another unification under a single umbrella which was achieved 2 years later. Today, “The on-again-off-again unity of the trade union movement has led to the situation in recent years of the existence of not 2, but, 3 trade union ‘centres’ – NATUC, FITUN and JTUM.”. This coupled with the declining levels of organizing within individual unions provide some explanation for a mobilisation campaign that has not ‘rallied the troops’.
Workers are not unthinking beings and to act decisively they must be convinced of the justness of their cause and be confident in the strength their unity brings even to deal with any threatened retaliation. This requires identification of the issues and statement of the demands for addressing them.
The trade union must determine if they did clearly identify the issues and state their positions.
There is a constant and unceasing battle for hearts and minds. In this battle, no side is idle.
For months, the government has executed a constant ‘air war’ of messaging conjuring up the IMF bogey and attempting to convince the workers that they were doing ‘everything’ to keep them in jobs, even ‘borrowing to pay salaries’.
On the specific issue of the planned closure of the refinery, Government has executed a well-organised propaganda strategy – blaming everyone and everything for the disaster in Petrotrin and painting themselves and the PM as the ‘courageous, strong saviours of the nation’ from the plague of Petrotrin.
They have largely disguised their own role in the failed and costly projects and related debts that saddled the company with “massive debt and loss-making” that the PM denounced. They hid the fact that those projects, ‘subject of massive cost overruns and lengthy delays’, as the PM put it, were approved by the Cabinet which this PM and several current Ministers were a part.
Add to this barrage of obfuscating propaganda, a week of threats to jail and fine and cut pay and sue workers in their personal capacity led by the PM and 4 Ministers and to further disarm their party faithful remind them that the day of Rest and Reflection was also the 3rd anniversary of this ‘saviour’ party that had warded off the IMF bogey.
Herman Goering must be applauding the government’s propaganda blitz, so well following his directions which he stated during his trial at Nuremberg: “…. the people can always be brought to the bidding of their leaders; that is easy. All you have to do is tell them that they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”.
Substitute the descriptions of the “anyone who opposes the government” for ‘pacifists’ in Goering’s advisory and this could be Public Administration or Education Minister, the AG or PM speaking last week.
The union’s, on the other hand, did not grasp the effectiveness of the government’s ‘air war’ and failed to conduct the ‘ground war’ necessary to combat its influence on their troops.
So disorganized were the unions that on Friday, unlike on the Day of Resistance and other national days of action, they could not gather or provide clear figures to demonstrate the level of support shown in various workplaces.
Even the information skirmish on the day, they lost to their opponents.
One must never take one’s own ‘soldiers’ for granted.
Friday demonstrated the weakness of the ideological state of the workers movement.
Those who are anxious and concerned to the extent that the people of this country are will awaken to the need to act in their own interest if they are to have any solution to those issues causing the anxiety and concern they feel.
What is required is clear, conscious and organised leadership.
That is the ingredient that was present in 1989 and that is diminished in 2018.
All is not lost, though.
 
Clyde Weatherhead
A Worker Who Refuses to
Abandon the Mission of 1937
9 September 2018

Government on Campaign of Intimidation That Will Cost Them
The Government has embarked on a campaign of intimidation against Public Officers (Civil Servants, Teachers, Police, Fire and Prison Officers) in an attempt to head off a national day of protest against itself on Friday,
Recently, the Public Administration Minister warned public officers that they can be ‘fined $500 and jailed for three months if they stay away from work on Friday”.
Today, the Education Minister (a former President of TTUTA) claimed that legal advice from his Ministry’s lawyers and the Attorney General was that Teachers staying away from work ‘in solidarity’ with other workers ‘would amount to industrial action’.
He went on claiming that if teachers were absent from work, without authorization, on Friday they could be ‘jailed or fined on summary conviction’. Alternatively, Mr. Garcia suggested that such teachers would be guilty of misconduct.
He then announced that any teacher absent from work without authorization on Friday ‘WILL NOT BE PAID’.
A word of warning to these Ministers and their Government:
Neither the Government nor any Minister or any administrator directed by a Minister can legally deduct a cent from any Public Officer or Contract Employee in the public service without due process.
Only a Court of Law can fine or jail anyone, including a worker or public officer.
Even, if the Government succeeds in getting police to charge workers or other public officers for illegal industrial action, they will have to prove that each and every worker or public officer DID IN FACT engage in industrial action with proper evidence.
If Government somehow succeeds in convicting a public officer of illegal industrial action, then based on a Constitution amendment passed by the Government of Basdeo Panday, that public officer will also automatically be guilty of misconduct and tell their Service Commission why they should not be dismissed.
Further, only as a result of disciplinary action can any penalty including deduction from their pay be imposed on any public officer by a Service Commission as a result of disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the Public Service Commission’s Regulations.
NO PUBLIC OFFICER CAN LEGALLY SUFFER ANY DEDUCTION FROM THEIR PAY WITHOUT A DISCIPLINARY PROCESS.
These threats of No Pay to public officers are illegal.
They amount to a terror campaign of intimidation by the Government against it own Employees.
These threats by a parade of Government Ministers will even if carried out will only succeed in costing the Government large sums in compensation to the same public employees who will surely take legal action against Government for their attacks against them.
This state terror campaign against its employees and workers generally is only aimed at trying to avoid the exposure of their anti-worker and anti-democratic character that will come from those whom they were hugging up and supporting in similar actions when another administration was in office up to September 2015.
 
Clyde Weatherhead
A Citizen Fighting for
Democratic Renewal of
Our Society
4 September 2018