Who's in control?
Let's start at the top. It's apparent to most observers that the Prime Minister in not even in control of himself. Admittedly, his mouth gets away from him less than it used to, but let's look closer. Here's a man who wears a bit of artificial tubing in his chest because the veins from his heart gave out. From all accounts, he still drinks. That doesn't to me suggest a person in control of himself. Whether somebody who isn't in control of himself can control a country of one-plus million (or even a roomful of ten) is a question for a psychiatrist. Let's just say, the PM is not in total control.
How about the petty potentates of Parliament? Well they seem to think the Prime Minister is in control, which doesn't recommend them to me. To all appearances, they are content to do whatever it takes to get their hands on public money, and be given the nod in the Acting-PM-of-the-week sweepstakes. No matter what ideals or idealism brought them where they are, they are now controlled by someone else's ability to dole out the money and prestige that is so irresistible to most of us.
So other than the head of the ruling party and his addictions, who controls the legislators and disbursers of public funds? The organizations, lobbyists and interest groups that act as though they can save the nation?
Those people are, with few exceptions, driven by a simple old pre-psychological force: self-indulgence. What else explains the conviction of the NCC that their bailiwick is the most crucial in forging our future? What else could drive a flock of the educated middle-class to protest the legitimate development of a couple yards of mangrove? What else could account for women who have failed to secure themselves a political job now pushing for female representation in Parliament? No, they're not in control either; their motivation is anything other than what they say, and politicians only mind them because that's what politicians do.
Who's in control then? Business people? Maybe.
Professional politics has as its aim the winning of elections. That takes major money. Those who have it are usually clever enough to finance both sides, so they always win. Lucky for them, there are only two real choices. So during the term of whoever they've bought, major money enjoys the (unfair) concessions, (overpriced) jobs, and - of course - the prestige.
What controls them?
If we are to believe street talk, the Drug Enforcement Administration. Much big money in T&T is believed to come from drug production and shipping. And since I'm certain that common knowledge on Frederick Street is not a mystery in Washington DC, there must be a level of apparent righteousness for Trinbagonian drug interests to meet in order to stay in business. One imagines that they pay - some way - for Uncle Sam's grace or ignorance. And that means that the supper rich in T&T are not in control.
Then it must be Uncle Sam!
As if Uncle Sam is really interested. As if Uncle Sam doesn't already have over one billion consumers in China to think about. As if Uncle Sam doesn't only look at the Caribbean in order to see Cuba. As if Uncle Sam isn't currently deciding to wear a red or a blue hat for the next five years! Yes, the United States exerts a tremendous influence here, but let's put ourselves in context. You can be sure, for instance, that any US diplomat posted here is either being sent to pasture, or is a trainee. Our nation, big as it seems to us, is smaller than some US neighbourhoods. Our financial importance to America is that of a plume on a feather on a bird on a elephant. If the US is really in control here, then we are truly out of control.
The word "empowerment" has enjoyed years of hard use by politicians too lazy to think, and activists too lazy to work. "We will empower," they say, "the poor, the youth, or the women," as though poor folks, young people or women - or, God help you, poor young women - are some kind of exotic animal. Empowering talk is really just a cheap special effect; people who use it don't know how it works, and frankly, it doesn't always. Does anybody know what they mean? Do the users?
So we can vote. Do we want to? So we have a democracy. Is anybody willing or able to make our lives as good any better? Are empowers going to plug us in to something that makes us informed voters and honest politicians? Yeah right. What they're going to do is give themselves a platform, a fat salary and the same old excuses for doing nothing. This idea of empowering people could lead us to follow the example of Yugoslavian folks and get on bad: make noise, light fires and pronounce demands. The problem is, even when we do that, it kind of blows over, and things return to pretty much the way they were: nobody in control.
No wonder people like me need to believe in a benevolent God. In a world where everybody sees what's wrong, nobody does anything about it. In a world where all you can do is tend your own garden, people want to take your garden away. And, in a world where we all know what to say, none of us knows what to do. Faith in a universal creative will is one of only a few blocks against depression and suicide. That, and loving life.
To make things better, maybe the least we can do is pen a page, let people know we think the same, and see what happens.
Archives | Trinicenter Home
