Mother Trinidad and Tobago

By Dr. Selwyn R. Cudjoe

A few days after Kamla Persad Bissessar became the Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago she dropped in at the headquarters of the Maha Sabha and announced blithely that the nation will adopt a multicultural rather than a transcendent cultural policy that served our nation well during its first fifty years of its existence. Such an announcement constituted a repudiation or reversal of Dr. Eric Williams’s vision that was contained in his “Mother Trinidad and Tobago Speech” that emphasized our commonalities rather than our differences. Dr. Williams envisioned a nation in which we should consider ourselves Trinidadians and Tobagonians first, anything after that.

In his “Mother Trinidad and Tobago Speech” Dr. Williams intimated that we owe our primary allegiance to T&T rather than the various countries from which our ancestors came. In 2010, angered by the seemingly preferential treatment that Africans enjoyed under the People’s National Movement, the People’s Partnership (PP) decided to emphasize our difference rather than our commonalities thereby tearing away at the common cultural bond that holds us together as a nation.

The implications of these two approaches to nation building strike me forcible as I observe the turmoil taking place in Cote d’Ivoire, a neighbor of Ghana, where I have been renewing acquaintances with my mother land (sounds contradictory, doesn’t it) for the past three weeks. Looking at the events in Cote d’Ivoire no one would deny that its cultural policy or its managing its various ethnic groups has been responsible for the deep mess in which it finds itself. On the contrary, Ghana’s cultural policy has contributed immensely to its economic prosperity and political stability.

Ghana and Cote d’Ivorie began their national journeys in 1957 and 1960 respectively under the leadership of two strong-willed leaders: Kwame Nkrumah and Felix Houphouet-Boigny. While Ghana was subjected to British colonialism; Cote d’Ivoire was incorporated into the French system of paternalism and assimilation. Ghana embarked upon a socialist path of development that empowered the poor but proved disastrous for big businesses and foreign investors. Nkrumah was overthrown by the USA in 1966.

Cote d’Ivorie set out on a capitalist path. In the first twenty years after independence its economy grew at about 8 per cent per annum and was described as the “Ivorian miracle.” While the Ivorian economy kept growing, the Ghana economy fell into desperate straits and did not recover until the early1980s. During that period it performed poorly and experienced minus growth rates.

By the early eighties the world recession took its toll on the Ivorian economy. By 1990 Ivorian prosperity began to decline. After Houphnet-Boigny died in 1993, Henri Konan Bedie, the new president, emphasized the concept of “Ivority” that favored indigenous Ivorians, excluded immigrants who formed one third of the populace and targeted Muslims. Although Houghnet Boigny made Alassane Quattara his Prime Minister, President Bedie prevented him from running for the presidency in the 1990s because his parents were not born in the Cote d’Ivorie. In 1999 a military coup sent Bebie into exile in France.

Ivority had disastrous consequences for ethnic relations which explain many of the problems that exist in Cote d’Ivoire today. Gbagbo, the former President, who was defeated by Quattara in the November 28 election, refuses to give up the presidency. Two of defeated candidates (Quattara, a Mossi and Bedie, a Baoule, who received 32 and 22 per cent of the votes respectively in the run-up elections) came together under Quattara to defeat Gbagbo.

Ghana on the other hand used culture as a bedrock value and anchored its development upon bringing its fifty ethnic groups together, a major policy initiative of Nkrumah. This policy, very much like Dr. Williams’ transcendent cultural policy, explains much of Ghana’s recent prosperity which has made it a beacon of stability in Africa. An updated cultural policy, adopted in 2004, reinforced Nkrumah’s initiative. In his foreword to the latter document, John Kufuor, Ghana’s former president, wrote: “One fascinating attribute of our culture is the strength and unity we derive from our diverse cultural backgrounds.”

In 2007 South Africa awarded Dr. Williams its most prestigious national award posthumously. In making the award, Thambo Mbeki, former President of South Africa, declared that “The vision during our struggle for liberation was strikingly similar to the vision of the great West Indian historian and prime minister who directly addressed the great diversity of his country in the cause of national unity…This is the wisdom that we, too, apply for a single South Africa.” It is no coincidence that President Mbeki was one of the first African leaders to go to Cote d’Ivoire to try to settle the conflict there.

Persad-Bissessar has every right to modify our cultural policy-preferable after national debate-although such a policy should not advantage one group over another. And it cannot only be concerned with how much money each group gets from the national treasury. The trenchant observations of Martin Daly’s “Equal to Pythagoras” and Lenny Grant’s “Knife-Folk: Dining in Golden Memories” (in Sunday Express, January 16) demonstrate PP’s animosity towards the national instrument, the purveyors of that form and its calamitous approach to culture. When will they learn that culture cannot be quantified and/or reduced to how much money each form receives?

The proponents of Ghana’s cultural policy argue that its culture “is established by our concepts of Sankofa, which establishes linkages with the positive aspects of our past and the present. It therefore embodies the attitude of our people to the interaction between traditional values and the demands of modern technology within the contemporary international cultural milieu.” This suggests that in constructing national policy one cannot be unmindful of the relative value of each cultural input in the making of a nation’s culture.

Multiculturalism cannot be successful if it does not inculcate the positive aspects of our past, wield them into a usable whole; and use them as a foundation that brings the nation together. Nor can it privilege one culture over another. Thoughtful consideration must be given to incorporating the Williams model into a new multiculturalism policy giving the relative weight and value to each strand of our cultural patrimony.

If Dr. Williams’s approach to national culture is good enough for Ghana and South Africa, it should be good for T&T. It has prevented us from succumbing to the fate that now befalls Cote d’Ivoire. It is a necessary point of departure for any new formulation of our national culture policy.

Professor Cudjoe’s email address is

source

The Indo-Afro Political Dynamic

Jack Warner and Kamla Persad-Bissessar at the People’s
Partnership New Day, New Way Forward Rally – May 22, 2010

THE EDITOR: Many Africans, especially those who have traditionally supported the PNM, are concerned about a possible racist, Indian backlash from this People’s Partnership government. In examining these concerns we also have to understand the difference in the dynamics of racial politics today. We have to examine the significance of Jack Warner as chairman of the UNC (an Indian-based political party) and Cabinet minister in the People’s Partnership government. We also have to look at the shortcomings of the PNM as it pertains to race relations.

When supporters and members of political parties say, ‘we in power’ or ‘we lost power’ we have to be reminded that they are emotionally tied to these political parties. They share a communal sense of well-being. As with all political parties, the supporters also live vicariously through their party’s oligarchy. Most grassroots supporters in Trinidad and Tobago are comforted with a sense of inclusion through seeing their racial kind in leadership.

Many Africans remember the “Is We Turn Now” language and conduct from many Indians when the Panday-led UNC was in government during the period 1995 to 2001. Having seen political power for the first time many Indians in their exuberance were openly spewing their racial dislike for Africans. One must also remember that Basdeo Panday solidified himself as the political leader of Indians by appealing to them on a racial level at every turn. He convinced many Indians that they were under a constant racial assault from the PNM. So in many respects, Africans do have reason to be distrustful of Indians in leadership.

This People’s Partnership government is somewhat different, besides the obvious fact that it is led by an Indian woman who has broad appeal across racial lines. At this point in time, this government does not have the appearance of being an extremely elitist, Indian-controlled coalition. The UNC and the People’s Partnership coalition both have a better image today and this is largely due to the presence of one man: Jack Warner. He is the only African in a leadership position in the alliance, who, by virtue of being relatively financially independent and powerful in his own right, will not be seen as a stooge of the Indian elite or anyone else. Without Warner, all the other Africans in the coalition could be considered subordinates to Indian elites.

If Warner is ever forced out of that party or demoted in government then the People’s Partnership would be led by several elitist-type Indians who were staunch defenders of Basdeo Panday’s failed leadership. They did not take a stand with Warner in calling for UNC’s internal party elections which eventually ended Panday’s political control and which made the UNC attractive to the wider populace for a chance in government.

It is in this light that Kamla Persad-Bissessar, who herself did not take an early stand to remove Panday, must unequivocally defend Jack Warner except if he flagrantly breaks the law.

Many Africans, who are supportive of this partnership, for now, are cautiously keeping an eye on how they deal with Jack Warner and how they control Indian racism.

Of course, because of how Jack Warner invested in Chaguanas and other parts of Trinidad, many poor Indians and Africans are grateful to him and defend him as their representative. This is a welcoming sign because poor Indians are usually the force behind the Indian elites, and with their support behind Jack Warner, he cannot be easily discarded.

Having said this, I am personally not too bothered by some of the racist comments that I hear from some Indians. I am sure that there are racist Indians in the People’s Partnership government. But many Indians, including the ones who spew racial venom, are quite aware that this People’s Partnership victory was dependent on several African factors – Jack Warner’s leadership and finance, and the increased support from Africans on the ground. For this government to survive they will need the ongoing support of Africans in and out of government.

I have also long heard many Africans utter racist comments about Indians.

Christian-Africans through the PNM have dominated political power in this country for a long time and have even marginalized other Africans who promote African awareness. Many Christian-Africans consider any indigenous form of worship to be evil, so their prejudice is not only towards Indians but even other Africans who engage traditional African religious practices. They, like ex-PM Manning, consider the wearing of traditional African clothes on a regular basis to be backward (they make a costumed allowance for the Emancipation celebrations). This Christianized-African PNM dominance has also contributed to Indians holding firm to what they perceived as their only political vehicle, the UNC and its earlier manifestations. It is no surprise that even when Indians were disappointed in Basdeo Panday, they did not throw their support behind the PNM. PNM represented a dominant African-based political force over them.

African PNM supporters should not be in the position they are today of feeling threatened by racist Indians. PNM has been in political power the longest and if they were unable to make their support base feel better about themselves and to be in a position to challenge and defeat any racist group in Trinidad and Tobago, it is their fault. If the PNM government did not allow the education system to comprehensively address racism, then guess who is to blame? It is foolhardy for PNM members to feel that maintaining PNM in power at any cost is about resistance to Indian racism. Their complacency in the PNM is why the party always played down the concerns of African activists who sought to engender African consciousness. PNM’s inability to consider African-centred folks to be worthy of promotion in the political landscape is partly responsible for their party members’ low self-image.

There is a history of PNM disrespecting and disregarding African activists even while facilitating Indian culture in the state media in an attempt to woo Indian voters. This foolish policy that denied Africans and allowed Indians to use the state media, inadvertently allowed Indian activists to use the same state media to consolidate their political forces against the dominant PNM. PNM members were never interested in what was being presented under the guise of Indian cultural programs. They smugly thought that PNM would be in power forever.

While Indian activists stepped up their campaign of building political awareness and started challenging the status quo in the early 90′s, Christianized PNM supporters were caught unaware. They could not decipher which Indian concerns were legitimate and which were illegitimate. The presence of Dr. Cudjoe only helped a little except that Africans who gravitated to him were mostly interested in rivaling Sat Maharaj and other Indians. This is not sufficient to raise the consciousness of Africans so they could liberate themselves while preparing them to guard against both external and internal threats.

Africans who feel threatened this time around can use this time to learn the many lessons that they have traditionally neglected – especially African history – to first raise their awareness to become more creative and more astute financially and politically. If they do this while aligning themselves with other progressive Africans they would never have to feel threatened by anyone.

PNM members (most of whom are Christians) have to be a lot more honest and stop only looking at racism in the context of what some Indians spew and do, but also look at themselves and see how they are racist towards Indians too. They also have to examine their prejudices toward other Africans who adhere to African traditions.

HERU

source

The National Anthem of Trinidad and Tobago

The National Anthem was written to celebrate Trinidad and Tobago’s independence from Great Britain on August 31, 1962. A nation-wide contest was held in search of the best anthem to accompany this momentous occasion. The winner of the contest was Patrick Stanisclaus Castagne. Apart from composing our national anthem, Castagne wrote other songs like “Kiss Me for Christmas,” “The Iceman” (a popular Road March hit in 1960), “Nimble like Kimble” and “Hyarima: A Caribbean Rhapsody”. Castagne has held several posts in the government of Trinidad and Tobago. He is also the holder of a Chaconia medal and the British MBE.

Patrick S. Castagne

Download Real Player to listen to the National Anthem

Steel Orchestra

Choir with Police Band

Conventional Orchestra

source

Trinidad as a ‘Contact Society’

By Derren Joseph

There has been much discussion around the AG’s recent appointment of a five member legal and forensic audit team to investigate certain state enterprises and the call for information from whistleblowers. It recognizes the importance placed on addressing alleged corruption. After all, one can argue that perceived government corruption was at least partly responsible for our last two changes in government. But what exactly is corruption?

Much of our focus as a nation tends to be around public sector procurement. This focus makes sense given that a privately held company is not generally accountable to the wider public for its decisions. At the same time however, public sector corruption can hardly take place without private sector assistance. So the focus needs to be on both the state entities and the members of the private sector who play a facilitating role.

Some argue that we are a “contact society”. They go on to say that in Trinidad, everything is about who you know. Personally, my choice of bank branch is driven by who I know working in that branch to help minimize my waiting time. Even my choice of carnival band is influenced by any familiarity we may have with the band’s Committee Members. But is this notion of a “contact society” at the heart of corruption?

From my undergraduate days at UWI, I remember having to read Geert Hofstede who contributed much to our understanding of how cultures differ. But it was another, less famous Dutchman, Fons Trompenaars who opened my eyes to this notion of a “contact society”. Among the dimensions of culture which he identified to assist us in conceptualizing how cultures differ – one stood out for me. The scale of Universalism vs. Particularism explores the degree to which people believe that various ideas and practices can be effective in all circumstances. So on one hand, societies that are high in universalism believe they can develop rules and standards that can be reasonably applied to everyone in every situation and they rely heavily on contracts, formal systems, and procedures to convey what they expect from others.

On the other hand, societies which are low in universalism or high in particularism develop their expectations of others based on their personal relationships and their trust in relationships rather than on rules. So the theory says that when negotiating deals, people from highly particularistic cultures will want to develop a relationship with the other party before getting down to business. While those from highly universalistic cultures prefer to get down to business quicker, and they expect to document their agreement with an enforceable contract. Trompenaars’ studies suggest that the US, Australia, Germany and Switzerland are examples of countries high in universalism. Venezuela, the former Soviet Union’s countries, Indonesia and China are examples of nations high in particularism. I suspect that most would agree that generally speaking, Trinidad would score higher in particularism than universalism.

One approach may not be better than another. They are simply different. Two other countries that score high in particularism and low in universalism are Japan and South Korea. As we know, Japan’s post war economic expansion was driven by the various Keiretsu. The keiretsu are groups of associated companies usually centered around one bank, which lent money to the keiretsu’s member companies and held equity positions in the companies. Wikipedia explains that there are apparently two types of keiretsu – vertical and horizontal. Although the divisions between them have blurred in recent years, there are six major postwar keiretsu: such as the Tokai or Toyota group which is built around the Tokai Bank

In South Korea, the equivalent would be the Chaebols and include well-known international brand names, such as Samsung, Hyundai and LG. So is a contact society or a society that scores high in particularism more “corrupt”? Some would vociferously argue that this is the case and that to completely root out corruption, particularism itself needs to be rooted out.

To be honest, I can see both sides of view. That is, those who want to root it out and those who think it just needs to be controlled. While this debate rages, the definition of corruption that works best for me is the one used by the Trinidad and Tobago Transparency Institute (TTTI) – the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. Let us support the TTTI in making our country better. For more details please visit www.transparency.org.tt

My name is Derren Joseph and I love my country. As always, I end by saying that despite our challenges, we are so blessed to live in this beautiful land. Let us continue to have the audacity of hope in our country, as we embark upon the next chapter in our nation’s history.

source

Williams, Daaga and Black Power

Dr Eric Williams, Trinidad and Tobago’s first Prime Minister and acclaimed “Father of the Nation”, was an apostle of the ideals of Black Power.

Williams spoke and wrote liberally on the subject before and after he imposed a State of Emergency on Monday April 20, 1970, and snuffed out the Makandal Daaga-led uprising. The issue has returned to relevance in light of Daaga’s election candidacy and, especially, Prime Minister Patrick Manning’s stout criticism of the alleged desecration of the Cathedral of Immaculate Conception in Port- of- Spain by Black Power protestors. The Black Power Movement “enlisted the sympathy of a number of people, especially young people, who bitterly resented discrimination against black people, both here and abroad,” Williams told the nation in a television and radio address on May 3, 1970. He added: “This is a legitimate grievance and I would have been no party to any attempt to repress it.”

But he voiced concern that the Black Power slogan “degenerated into race hatred and even attacks on black business in Tobago and Point Fortin.” Daaga and his cronies led public marches for weeks across the country and Williams said he decided to act “when the total breakdown of the trade union movement was imminent.” In a speech on March 23, 1970 —before his State of Emergency crackdown—Williams also upheld the pillars of the Black Power cause. The fundamental feature of the demonstrations, he said, “was the insistence on black dignity, the manifestation of black consciousness and the demand for black economic power.” He surmised: “The entire population must understand that these are perfectly legitimate and are entirely in the interest of the community as a whole.” If that is Black Power, “then I’m all for Black Power,” Williams said. He had made similar points in an earlier article in the PNM’s Nation newspaper.

Daaga’s campaign was prompted by various international protests against deprivation and injustices against Africans and Afro-Americans. In T&T, unemployment among youths and alleged racial discrimination facing job hunters sparked the protests and eventual turmoil. While Manning has cited an invasion of the cathedral, he has not spoken of the “Africans and Indians Unite” demonstrations, including a march from Laventille to Caroni. For his part, Williams acknowledged the ideal of the Black Power advocates. He told the nation: “Our goal has always been Afro-Asian unity.” That harmony, he stressed, “is the only way to achieve the genuine national integration to which many of us are dedicated.” He also said: “We have consciously sought to promote black economic power.” The assertion was a reference to Daaga’s call for the working masses to enjoy greater economic power.

Williams argued that his administration had created 1,523 black small farmers, had encouraged small businesses in manufacturing and tourism and had boosted free education and training. He insisted: “We have unceasingly sought to control or at least alleviate the unemployment which we inherited…” Still, the issue was larger than that: It was about greater people participation in the critical economic sectors. Interestingly, in the decade after the Black Power flare-up, Williams launched initiatives for localisation of the oil industry, a thrust partly prompted by trade unionist George Weekes’ “Texaco Must Go” campaign. Even earlier than that—on July 1, 1970, to be exact—Williams localised the Bank of London and Montreal, which he turned into the National Commercial Bank, a forerunner to the current First Citizens’ Bank.

Williams also boosted the cooperative sector, and, before long, outlined a five-year plan aimed at giving nationals a larger piece of the national pie. That, of course, had been a rallying call of Daaga’s Black Power revolution. Williams termed his agenda “national reconstruction”. He defined it as “increasing the degree of national control over the national economy.” Diversification of the economy and full employment were other hallmarks of the Williams post-Black Power programme. “Workers would be encouraged to play a more positive role in the economy of the country,” he vowed. He was adamant that “the claims of black people to social justice, economic dignity and a fuller life would be unequivocally supported and encouraged by my Government.” Forty years later, Daaga has stated this dreams and aspirations were now being fulfilled. Manning, Williams’ successor, has plucked an incident of the heady Black Power days to tar Daaga, in the latter’s makeover as electoral foe of the PNM. In all of this, truth is becoming a major casualty.