’ Archives
’ The Independent
’ International
’ Caribbean News
|
A Day of Spectacles
August 7, 2001
Dear Sir/Madam,
July 31st 2001 - a day of spectacle! There was so much to leave an indelible impression on the mind, once we can get past the 9-day wonder psyche that is being imposed on us.
Firstly, there was the billowing thick black smoke over downtown Port of Spain. Fire!!! An opportunity for the mischievous among the body politic to begin hurling unsubstantiated claims that "Here it is - the start of the open hostility". It didn't matter that it turns out that a man who has his papers, as we say, started the fire. The fuelling of the tension and division suits those who have usurped power by force (the power behind-the-throne).
Then, the Court of Appeal upheld the earlier decision of Justice Archie that the matters raised by Gypsy and Chaitan were not fit for constitutional motion. Not so spectacular in itself, except that lawyers for the party-in-power seemed ever so gleeful that 1 appeal judge dissented on some points while agreeing on the two crucial issues.
Later, get past the spectacle of the AG (Respondent in the constitutional motions) on national radio arguing the case of the Applicants in the same matters. Talk about double speak!!
I suppose that would not raise so many eyebrows anymore. Recall that day when the matters were first heard, the uproar caused when the Attorney for the AG got up to present evidence that ole Bill had renounced his other citizenship. The quick reply from Bill's own lawyer was - "That is not our case!"
Or, since 9 days have past, remember, the AG in another gathering of the 'embattled' party-in-power attacking the Judge just prior to his delivering judgment in the same matters.
Then, came the most spectacular of all. The leader of the party-in-power, as expected, launching a vitriolic attack on the judiciary for delivering a decision before the end of the law term on matters that his lawyers describe as being addressed 'for the first time' and about which care needs to be taken.
What was the spectacle was his twisted logic which gets more convoluted as he tries to defend things which cannot be defended.
The judiciary is politically-biased against the government, he claims. This from the same man whose mantra has been "Take it to the Police!" (criminalizing every social and political issue for the last 5 years). If you took his advice, where would the police then take the accused. Nah, not before the same anti-government judiciary! Well, imagine that. A government demanding that the anti-government (according to them) wrongdoers be taken before an anti-government judiciary!
He continues, like the AG before him, hedging bets on the Privy Council "away from the hurly burly of the politics" pulling the chestnuts out of the fire for Billieboy and Gyps. The same Privy Council that the party-in-power has condemned as trying to make law for us on the issue of hanging and caused the party-in-power to bring constitutional amendments to get on with its hanging spree.
Then, trained actor as he is, he switches roles to show how well he has digested the contents of the book "How to Lie with Statistics". The election results were manipulated every which way to try and prove that the anti-government judiciary had joined a plot with the 'anti-democratic' PNM to remove the duly-elected government.
Well, all of this to hide from the real issue. That is, that the election laws make little or no sense since you cannot object to a candidate until they are already voted for. Simple logic would tell us that such objections ought to be able to be dealt with before voting day.
That way all the nonsense about trying to remove 2 people who the population have chosen would not be possible to hoodwink the unthinking into supporting the image of an embattled government fighting off plot after plot.
Perhaps, in their glee, the party-in-power failed to notice that the dissenting judge on whom they now pin their hopes (after all listening to them you would not think 2 others gave a decision) agreed with the others that the court has the power to rule on whether an elected person can sit in the Parliament.
If Billieboy and Gyps had been really serious politicians they would have informed themselves of what was required for them to be able to be nominated in the first place.
If the party-in-power were not a one-man show they would have had a real screening process and would have not been so eager to put up the men the maximum leader decided should run in Ortoire-Mayaro and everywhere else.
The fact that only recently they had Executive elections in which they were all bemoaning the fact that they didn't have a party all along (only a bunch of people doing his master's bidding) tells volumes about why this sordid mess came about in the first place.
Not even party members, far less the electors, have any real role in the selection of candidates for elections in what purports to be a modern democracy.
Behind these developments is the issue of the need to renew the political process, to make the electors sovereign in whose hands the selection and election of candidates resides and to whom the elected are really made accountable.
The UNC is hoping that old legal authorities based on an aristocratic election system in the old mother country which has only recently adopted legislation to codify the fundamental rights of the body politic will save the day for them.
We, the people, must not be hoodwinked by this whole affair. The inadequacy of this political process must be put squarely on the agenda and the people must demand renewal that allows them to be at the centre of politics and no longer just spectators looking on at the antics of politicians who are vying to represent the real powers behind the throne.
HOMEPAGE
Copyright © Clyde Weatherhead
Site Designed and maintained By: Trinicenter.com.
|
