On the evening of Divali, the PDP of Tobago launched its marathon campaign for GE 2020 and THAE 2021.
In promoting the event, PDP Political Leader, Watson Duke, enticed the media with promises of ‘bombs’ to be dropped. On Sunday evening, he said “I know the media come here listening for bombshell …bomb. I pass dem stage. PDP pass dem stage…. We ain’t about bacchanal and dem ting.”.
But the media was not disappointed. Duke dropped a political ‘bomb’ of a different explosive power, a virtual megaton nuclear warhead.
Duke said, “I want to draw the line today in the sand …. When we get those 2 seats in the East and the West and in 6 months’ time you will have full internal self-government. Now let me explain what that means… If it wasn’t clear to you, let me tell you this. What I’m asking for is secession. We need to move away from Trinidad. But, but, the but is this, we will remain united with Trinidad just as the European Union…. all the nations are independent…”.
 Well, that was like a hurricane of a category much higher than Flora ever unleashed in Tobago.
Amid PNM’s new-found infatuation with internal self-government and self-determination after vehemently denouncing Robinson for demanding the same in the Parliament, another Tobago politician dares to use the S-word Secession and demand a New Union with Trinidad.
Duke is not the first. A P T ‘Fargo’ James Tobago’s lone representative in the LegCo 1946-1961 held the conviction ‘that the island should become a separate political unit independent of Trinidad... Until the end of his career and life he maintained the view that Tobago should secede from Trinidad.”. (Luke, Learie B.. Identity and Secession in the Caribbean: Tobago versus Trinidad, 1889-1980).
Dr. Winston Murray, Tobago Parliamentarian 1976-1981, advocated an independent Tobago with its own flag and anthem. He dramatically hoisted his Tobago flag in Scarborough and displayed it on his desk in the Parliament.
There have existed for a long time 2 political lines on how to resolve the historical hurt felt in Tobago when the colonial power, for their own purposes and reasons, decided to form an administrative union between Tobago and Trinidad making Tobago a Ward of the new unitary state.
One line supported the maintenance of the unitary state with decentralisation of state power to an institution in Tobago. The other held that Tobago should be an independent state. Some form of new union would then follow.
The fundamental problem is that Forced and Unequal union created by the British colonial power must be replaced by a Free and Equal union between the nations of Tobago and Trinidad.
Some have argued for ‘more autonomy’ or ‘internal self-government’ in the hands of the THA. Others have called for a Federal arrangement. Still others have suggested the St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla model in which each was guaranteed the right to self-determination within the Constitution with the Right to Secede formally recognised.
The current Constitution Amendment (Tobago Self-Government) Bill 2018 before a JSC of Parliament proposes a pseudo-federal structure with a bi-cameral Tobago Legislature, Executive Council, Public Service and Service Commission with powers to borrow from international sources.
The Rowley administration forcefully rejects the inclusion of the Right to Secede as a Constitutional guarantee of the right to self-determination for either Tobago or Trinidad.
Duke’s clear statement on full internal self-government and what it means – secession and a new and different union on a new basis is a continuation of the Fargo James-Winston Murray line in the politics of Tobago and its fight for a Free and Equal Union with Trinidad.
His bold assertion has already drawn the fire of the PNM which only in recent years has claimed that it is the champion of internal self-government for Tobago which it denounced since Robinson moved the motion in the 1980’s.
The PNM sees Duke and the PDP as a threat to its control of the THA and its continuation as the Party-in-Power in the central Government. It is also aware of the widespread dissatisfaction among Tobagonians with Kelvin Charles as Chief Secretary and taking steps to replace him.
They have been spending huge amounts on projects in Tobago to try and preserve their political control on the island and in Government and they will spend even more in the next year.  
No doubt, they will launch their own bombshells to try and counter this very bold move by Duke and the PDP and their clear objective of wresting both Tobago seats in Parliament as well as the THA from the PNM.
All of this makes for a torrid marathon campaign by both parties in Tobago.
While the parties wrestle over their self-serving interests for seats and political office, the people of Tobago, and Trinidad, must fight to ensure that their interests and those of the country are not crushed like the grass under the feet of battling elephants.
As a concerned citizen, I have made a submission to the JSC on the Tobago Self-Government Bill - http://clydeweatherheadsite.net/cw-submissions-to-jlsc.html. We all need to pay close attention to this Bill and the issue of the union between Tobago and Trinidad and not get caught up in the platform talk.

 Clyde Weatherhead
A Citizen Fighting for
Democratic Renewal of
Our Society and Empowerment of
the People.
October 29, 2019
 
 

De bell ring! De bell ring!
In the middle of the Opposition Leader’s reply to the Budget Speech, the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Party-in-Power, took to his Facebook account to “announce” the date of the Local Government Elections 2019.
The PM exercised that remnant of prerogative power of the Monarch preserved via the English Parliamentary system and imposed on this longest-lasting Crown Colony in the Caribbean region of the English Empire and lodged in that office of power.
The fact that the PM did not only pull the date ‘out of his back pocket’ using the usurpation (prerogative) of the power to decide election dates was compounded by the way it was done on this occasion.
This social media announcement and the timing evoked loud shrieks of ‘disrespect’ among other politicians aspiring to the very office of PM for the most part. Most of the electorate already badgered by the impositions from the highest elected office were no more offended by the means used in this instance.
The context in which this social media announcement appeared also generated some verbal joisting between the principal combatants in the impending electoral battle each side accusing of using the Budget as an instrument of electioneering.
The yellow band branded the Budget Speech with its sprinkling of promised pay increases and other ‘benefits’ most conveniently timetabled for the day just prior to the announced election date as an ‘Election Budget’.  The red band accused the Leader of the yellow of electioneering because her Budget reply consisted largely of an alternative economic ‘manifesto’ 2020-2025.
One posse’s election budget is another’s electioneering apparently,
The platforms were mounted right there in the Parliament and the respective Budget presentations were the opening salvo in Platform Talk LGE 2019-GE 2020 in the extended triple election season running 2020-2021 of LGE-GE-THAE.
For the red all-ah-we-in-dis-together posse, the platform talk shifted to Piggott’s Corner and Arima Town Hall within 48 hours labelled ‘post budget discussions’. But the reality of LGE campaign kick-off was glaring.  
With the loudspeakers operating at full blast, it was time to jump up high and jump down low and shake yuh manifesto because it’s party time as Bally put it in his classic “Party Time Again”. (https://youtu.be/AkxvpJJ3wJs).
And true to form ‘dirty tricks just to tie up me and you’ were in full effect.
Barbs of allegation were flying left and right. Everything from murder conspiracies to death threats to fraudulent tampering with WASA ‘bills’ were launched from the lobster claw Heliconia podium instigated by no lesser than the DJ himself.
From political opponent to ordinary citizen, none was spared. Accusations abounded with no evidence or cogent explanation even without the cover of Parliamentary privilege.
So, what is this all about again?
As one radio ad reminds us, it is time to elect your Local Government Representatives.
But the platform antics tell another story. It is time to demonise your opponents or anyone perceived as one; to launch all manner of bombastic propaganda; to sully characters even of simple citizens and “promises of utopia and song… just to get yuh vote”.
There is no reference to the fact that Local Government Reform promised last ‘party time’ in 2016 and about which DJ Keith told us that last election was a ‘referendum’, has not happened in the full 3-year term (reminiscent of similar failed promises by DJ Patrick before him).
Transparency and accountability remain buzzwords devoid of content.
Instead, we are asked to put a party in ‘control’ of our 14 Regional Corporations with absolutely nothing new to offer burgesses by way of representation, a real say in decision-making that affects their living conditions at fundamental levels or otherwise.
Some have suggested that this cycle of ‘party time’ is another referendum – this time on the performance of the ruling party in the seat of national Government. Others claim it is a test of popularity which will be used by DJ Keith to decide if to proceed urgently to round 2 – GE 2020 early in the new year.
Whatever their motives, this LGE ‘party time’ has nothing to do with securing or improving the empowerment of the burgesses in Local or Community Governance.
So, on we go with the platform talk with a foreboding of a new depth of decadence in its content camouflaged with talk of ‘new society’ but, really all for the purpose of preserving the status quo of the archaic electoral-political process of party politics and medieval privilege.
Hopefully, the light of this Divali will allow us to see the way out of this darkness.
 
Clyde Weatherhead
A Citizen Fighting for
Democratic Renewal of
Our Society and Empowerment of
the People.
October 27, 2019

The Royal Prerogative has been defined as ‘The special rights, powers, and immunities to which the Crown alone is entitled under the common law.’.
In the development of the British political system, there has been a pull and tug battle over the power exercised by the Monarch and that of the Parliament which came into being when the capitalist manufacturing class became the dominant power in the economic order.
The Parliament and ‘Representative’ democracy replaced the rule of the Monarch which existed under the medieval power of the feudal lords.
In the 1606 Case of Impositions the power of the king to impose duty on imported goods was challenged, but upheld by the Court. Parliament then passed a law, the Petition of Rights, so that taxes could only be imposed by Parliamentary decision.
While Parliament prevailed to the extent that laws made by it (Acts) cannot be altered using prerogative powers, most of the residue of the powers of the monarch are now exercised by the Prime Minister and the Executive.
In T&T, the survivals of the Monarchs powers have been shared between the President and Prime Minister under our Constitution, with some controls by Parliament.
The summoning and proroguing of Parliament have fallen into the PM’s hands and has led to the Head of Government having election dates “in their back, side or other pockets”. The PM has exclusive power to appoint or fire Ministers and generally because of the majority in the Parliament, also controls the law-making agenda of Parliament.
The President retains the assent to Bills and formally has power over the armed forces and declaration of states of emergency and even in granting of national awards. But, in most of the President’s functions, the decisions are really made by the Cabinet directed by the PM.
So, the Prime Minister as Head of Government has inherited most of the powers that once belonged to the Monarch and determines the actions of the Parliament using his elected majority.
The President, as Head of State, has been left with almost none of the powers which the Monarch possessed as Head of State of the old colonial power.
Control of PrerogatIve Power in our ConsitUtion
In the run-up to Independence in 1962, just one year after a very divisive election which involved violence and a state of emergency, the most consequential battle over the content of the Constitution ensued.
While this involved a serious and contentious struggle over the limiting of the remnants of prerogative power in the hands of the Prime Minister, it has been presented in the narrative of our history as a battle of the races with the PNM and DLP, as ruling party and Opposition involved.
The Constitution was drafted by the government unilaterally without consultation with the Opposition, and even the conduct of the Queen’s Hall conference was chaired by the PM in such a way as to keep the Opposition from meaningful contribution.
The Opposition, and others in the society made an effort to place checks on the powers of the Prime Minister, to make the EBC more independent and to limit the monarchical prerogative power over the Public Service of the PM and Government through the Service Commissions, to have the Senate more independent and to increase the special majority for amendment of some parts of the Constitution 3/4 instead of 2/3.
This was a constructive and legitimate fight for limiting the residual powers of the monarch in the hands of an all-powerful Prime Minister.
It was only at the last minute, at the Marlborough House talks in London and with tensions in the country almost at boiling point that Williams relented and accepted many of the major points that the Opposition had been calling for.
The concerns for limiting the power of the PM and Cabinet were presented in divisive racist terms to hide the real content of the struggle over the Constitutional provisions.
What emerged was an arrangement with checks on the power to declare and continue States of Emergency, on the control over the electoral process, the Public Service and other aspects of prerogative powers in the hands of the PM and Cabinet.
The Executive has never given up its desire and drive for more power since 1962.
The Ministers have fought long and hard to wrench the power to hire and fire from the Service Commissions, demanding their abolition and undermining them with as much as 75% of the employees in Ministries and Agencies being now contract employees, not appointed by any Commission.
The proposals for an Executive President which have surfaced on several occasions are aimed largely at consolidating all remaining prerogative power in a single office.
The recent episodes of the Cabinet usurping of the procurement processes from the Port Authority Board and the HDC-CGGC contract fiasco are also elements of that yearning.
The desire and machinations to consolidate the old monarchical powers in the single hand of an unrestricted political figure has been and remains a dangerous aspect of the development of our governance in the hope of returning to a medieval construct.
This retrograde anti-democratic tendency toward autocratic rule must be resisted at all costs.

Clyde Weatherhead
A Citizen Fighting for
Democratic Renewal of
Our Society.
5 October 2019