​Over the years, many politicians have declared their intentions to change our political culture, to create a new politics or political culture and now even claim to be building a new society.
The rhetoric has always claimed to be for change and for the new. But our experience has been that that change has turned out to be exchange and the new to be much of the same old.
Recently, a supporter of one of the 2 “major parties” obviously concerned that his party’s rhetoric was putting that party in jeopardy of ‘not winning’ the 2020 General Elections posed the question: Who is capable of changing our political culture?
In responding to that query which must be on the minds of more electors than just this one, I offer the following for your consideration.
Unfortunately, the electoral and political processes are built on the architecture rooted in the premise of a maximum authoritarian leader in the office of the Prime Minister (Tuti capo en tuti capi, as PM Manning put it).
The holder of that office is the Leader of the political party which holds the majority of seats out of a First-Past-the-Post Electoral process which like the US system appoints a Head of Government who does not necessarily enjoy a Majority of the popular vote. 
The PM is endowed with the remnants of the privileges and prerogatives of the old English monarch. Ministers of the Executive are appointed at the pleasure of the monarchical PM.
EVERY Political Leader aspires to be the next HRH PM and political party constitutions mimic the maximum power of the PM in the powers of the PL in the party structure. The party leader is seen as a PM in waiting.
Without changing both the national governance structure and that of political parties which are in waiting or as a result of  the democratic renewal of the electoral and political processes, Nothing will change in the political culture. 
Unless the role of political parties changes from merely being defenders of the rule of the minority (the parasitic oligarchy) to ensuring the rule of the majority, there will be NO change in the political culture. 
Without the empowerment of the citizens, the electors in relation to the elected, there will be NO change in the political culture. 
The political culture is a function of the political system and who exercises political power in the society. 
Without understanding that changing the political culture is impossible without changing the electoral and political processes, all we will have is more rhetoric devoid of REAL content about New Politics, New Political Culture, New Society with all the fundamentals of the Old intact and whatever else their spin-doctors invent.
Neither of the PNM-UNC POLITICAL MONOPOLY nor many other political parties are really interested in fundamental change in the electoral and political processes from which they hope to benefit.
The so-called major parties are the gatekeepers of the status quo and are prepared to move in the direction of even more authoritarian forms of the existing electoral and political processes to protect their privileges and rule of the minority.
On many occasions in our history, members of the body politic have sought to bring about changes in favour of the majority in the colonial and Independence periods.
The demands for universal adult suffrage achieved in 1946, for more elected representation in the LegCo and the initiatives taken by citizens organised in Pegasus in 1962 – 67 to define the path of nation-building and by the People led by NJAC in 1970 to demand the fulfilment of the promise of Independence are all occasions on which the People have occupied the political centre stage. The political officeholders and parties were displaced.
Unless, We, the People, once again take the centre stage of history and politics, there will be no change in the political culture, in the electoral and political processes in the direction of Democratic Renewal and Empowerment of the Majority.
Without this, the gatekeepers will hold on to the status quo and continue to exercise their deprive the majority of decision-making power and preserve the political culture which serves them.
 
Clyde Weatherhead
A Citizen Fighting for the
Democratic Renewal of our
Society
21 August 2019

The People’s National Movement boasts that in its institution of party politics on the body politic, among its founding principles was to “subscribe to the highest standards of morality in the conduct of its public and private affairs” as reminded by then Leader Patrick Manning on the party’s 50th anniversary.
Note – highest standards in the conduct of ITS affairs.
Recent developments in which a sitting Minister is now charged for less than the highest standards of morality in public affairs follow the current PNM Leader’s recent boast that his administration was squeaky clean. Not even the fact that following-the-money has revealed that the alleged fraudulent and laundering activity continued well into the term of his administration allows reality to dawn on him.
This situation has also spawned another as the damage control exercise has once again brought into focus the prerogatives, almost royal, of the Political Leader and PM to appoint officeholders at the monarch’s pleasure.
Revelations, resignations and repeat of appointment exercises have followed.
The Leader of the other aspect of the PNM-UNC political monopoly sensing opportunity does not recognise her own duplicity as she keeps another public official charged with less than the highest standards at Local Government level.
Respect for Public Offices
These developments have foisted the question: DO POLITICIANS AND PUBLIC OFFICEHOLDERS GET TO CHOOSE WHICH OFFICE TO RESPECT?
A Senator is comfortable to sit in the Legislature- the Senate. But when he is to put in the Executive- the Government as a Minister, and his past less than highest standard is disclosed he declines and then resigns as a Senator. 
Perhaps he felt comfortable just being in the Senate because another colleague of his with the same record is allowed to or continues to sit there even after his resignation.
Or perhaps, the Legislature is seen a lesser than the Executive.
A Senator with a conviction is not allowed to hold office of Minister, but, a Minister who is charged is fired for the third time. THERE MUST BE ONE RULE FOR ALL!!
Politicians and public officeholders cannot pick and choose which office to respect and which not. They MUST RESPECT EVERY OFFICE which they hold on behalf of the people of this nation.
In the 1960s, the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago, professionals, intellectuals and ordinary folk charted their own nation-building plan under a non-governmental and non-party organisation called Pegasus. That organisation was founded in the year our independence by one Geddes Granger (later Makandal Daaga) as a people’s initiative to give direction to nation-building.
It is fortuitous that these unsavoury developments are taking place at the time of the anniversaries of Daaga’s passing and birth (8 and 13 August).
That nation-building plan under the caption POLITICS said this:
(a)   “that there should be a high degree of morality in public affairs, and that citizens in positions of authority and responsibility be an example in their public and private life, and moreso, those in public life who should be scrupulous as to their conduct, for their actions may be interpreted and accepted as the norm by the general society;
(b)   that lest confidence in political authority be undermined there be close scrutiny of candidates elected to office, and that records of their liabilities and assets and sources of investment be made public;”
We, The People, Must Set the Standards
What is needed is a clear code of ethics and disciplinary process based on broad consultation involving citizens to decide what the standard of conduct for political and public officeholders is and what the consequences of breach must be.
This is not a matter of what any individual or any political leader thinks. It is a matter of what WE, as a society, set as the norms we establish.
The question is: How are we, as a society, going to set the standards when the PNM-UNC Monopoly continues to deprive us, the majority of the body politic, of our Right to be involved in decision-making in matters that affect us and the nation and to exercise control over elected representatives??
The politicians have usurped the authority to select candidates as parties decide through a process they call screening who are to be candidates.
We are reminded by these recent developments of how poor their judgement and their processes have proven to be on too many occasions.
We, the people, must no longer be subject to the privileged position of political parties and their leaders which our electoral and political processes have entrenched.
As part of empowering the people:
ELECTORS MUST HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELECT AND ELECT CANDIDATES!!
ELECTORS MUST HAVE THE RIGHT TO RECALL FAILING OR ERRANT ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES!!!
Democratic renewal of the electoral and political processes – the system of governance – must put power in the hands of the majority – the People.
It is time that the citizens take the initiative once more to chart the course of our nation-building project and vest the sovereignty of this nation in themselves.
Clyde Weatherhead
A Citizen Fighting for
Democratic Renewal of
Our Society.
14 August 2019

The Court met today in special session to deal with the fall-out of its decision to strike out s.15 (1A) of the Legal Profession Act as being unconstitutional and discriminatory against non-nationals wanting to practice law in Trinidad and Tobago.
On July 25, Justice Vasheist Kokaram in his judgment in the case of a CARICOM citizen claiming that s.15 (1A) of the Act gave preferential treatment to TT nationals versus CARICOM nationals in being able to enter the legal profession in this country.
Section 15(1A) allows only Trinidad and Tobago nationals to apply to be admitted to pectise in TT if they have qualifications other than a Legal Education Certificate (LEC) from the Hugh Wooding Law School.
The Court while recognising that the section was introduced as an amendment of the Act to allow nationals to enter the legal profession with other non-LEC qualifications having worked with an Attorney at Law for a period of six-months and assessed as capable of entry to the profession, However, it does not allow that process for CARICOM nationals.
The Genesis of Section 15(1A)
In 1971, Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, the University of the West Indies and the University of Guyana signed an Agreement to establish the Council of Legal Education to provide training within the Caribbean for lawyers seeking to practice in the region.
The CLE was set up 1 year after the UWI Law Faculty. UWI law graduates are able to automatically to enter any of the 3 Law Schools run by the CLE. Persons holding an LLB degree from a non-UWI university are required to pass an annual entrance examination set by the CLE to enter the Law Schools. Law School graduates are awarded an LEC which qualifies them to enter the profession.
By the latter half of the 1990’s, entry to the Law Schools became increasingly difficult for non-UWI LLB holders because of the limitations of space in the context of the large number of TT students completing their Law degrees in the University of London’s External Student programme.
London’s programme was available to mature, working and part-time students while UWI did not accommodate them. By 1997-98, TT students were the highest number of students in the world in the London LLB programme.
Very few persons were able to gain entry to the Law Schools even if successful in the CLE entrance examination. Increasing numbers of persons had to repeat the entrance examination several times before being able to enter the LEC programme.
In 1998, students holding London LLB degrees formed themselves into an organisation called the External Law Students Association (ELSA). ELSA sought to have a level playing-field for external students to have an equal opportunity with UWI students to access the Law Schools.
In pursuit of that objective and given the automatic route for UWI graduates ELSA called on Government to expand the Hugh Wooding Law School or have all LLB holders (UWI and External) do the entrance exams and have an equal chance at entry to the Law Schools.
At that time, holders of UK practising qualifications were permitted entry to the profession by completing a six-month course at the Law Schools. But, that was becoming more difficult because of lack of space.
The Government of the day dis not agree with any of the proposals from ELSA. Instead, the Government decided to allow only TT holders of such UK practising qualifications (LPC) to enter the profession by completing an attachment with a legal practitioner for 6 months.
So, the Government’s response to the demands of ELSA became the introduction of section 15(1A) as an amendment to the LPA to create this new 6-month attachment route, but only for TT nationals.
The Outcome of the Change
With the amendment and the 6-month attachment route, more Trinbagonians pursued the London external LLB programme and were admitted to practice law.
In 2000, the number of Attorneys admitted to practice was just over 70. And since the new entry  route, as many as 300 new Attorneys enter the profession annually at this time.
Despite the costs of completing the LPC qualification as students are required to go to the UK for at least part of the time, the numbers of new Attorneys via this route has steadily increased.
Access to the Law Schools has also increased due to expansion of the Hugh Wooding School and access to the third Law School in the Bahamas which was introduced around 2001. Many TT citizens practice law in other Caribbean territories.
However, section 15(1A) did not make the 6-month attachment route to entry to the profession in TT available to non-TT citizens.
Therefore, the case brought by Dianne Jhamilly Hadeed, a St Lucian who had the required qualifications, but has been prevent from being admitted to practise law in TT.
While the Court saw nothing wrong with giving alternative routes for nationals to have the opportunity to advance themselves in the legal profession, it asked “What difference does it make if you are St. Lucian or Trinidadian.
By striking out the section, the scores of TT citizens who have completed their LPC qualifications have to wait till the law is amended or the ruling is overturned on Appeal to be able, like the non-TT nationals to be admitted to the profession.
The state has appealed and the Court met today to hear an application for a stay of its decision pending the appeal.
 
Clyde Weatherhead
A Founding Member of ELSA
29 July 2019