Dr Winford James
trinicenter.com

PNM country...again

By Dr. Winford James
January 23, 2005


The PNM landslide victory in the January 17 THA elections is incontestable proof that Tobago is once more PNM country. Four years ago, the PNM reclaimed Tobago by winning 8 of the 12 seats. This time, they improved their position by 3, winning 11 seats. In the process, they took the seats held by the two leading figures in the DAC-NAR, Hochoy Charles and Cecil Caruth. When you add the two parliamentary seats to the 11 THA seats, there can be no doubt that they are in command of Tobago.

It is a regained command. Before 1976, they were in control of Tobago, but they lost the island in that year when Robinson, who had left the party in disillusionment with Williams and initiated a politics of Tobagonian nationalism, won with his brand-new party, the Democratic Action Congress. Tobago then became, more clearly than before, an island composed of two constituencies - the PNM and the DAC (which from the mid-eighties relabelled itself National Alliance of Reconstruction). For most of the years between 1976 and 2001, the DAC-NAR controlled Tobago in the presence of a smaller PNM constituency. The PNM languished during those years, but they were a rock-hard constituency, sustained in no small measure by PNM success in Trinidad.

It is instructive to note that they returned to dominance in Tobago after Robinson had left party politics and was succeeded (in Tobago) by Hochoy Charles. They won the 2001 THA elections 8-4, and they won this year's elections 11-1; they also won both parliamentary seats in 2002. If it wasn't clear in 2001 or in 2002 that they had effectively regained Tobago, this year's crushing THA victory has made it abundantly clear. Times have definitely changed…again.

What's responsible for their remarkable resurgence? More particularly, what's responsible for their overwhelming political gains in 2005?

In my last column, I doubted, wrongly it turned out, that they could have such gains. I asked the following questions and observed that it would take (at least) one of the events in them to cause a sweep: Will continuing disaffection with Charles' style of leadership do it for the PNM when rising disaffection failed the last time? Will the dissolution of the NAR and the relative lack of structure of the DAC do it? Will the crappo dance of Cecil Caruth do it?

The PNM won handsomely despite disaffection in the hierarachy and despite concerns about little transformative value for the expenditure of some $4 billion. Indeed, the electorate voted as if the PNM had performed magnificently. But because critical perception disallows that their performance was anywhere near magnificence, we have to look for the reason in electorate dissatisfaction with the opposition. And there was plenty to be dissatisfied with.

Tobago had not developed enough on Robinson's long watch. Yes, it had got a deep-water harbour, an international airport, a greater measure of autonomy through the THA Act, better physical and administrative infrastructure (e.g., roads, bridges, health centres, schools, administrators, etc.), and easier access to tertiary education. But serious old problems remained. Tobago was still badly underfunded in relation to its development needs. Much more needed to be done to get its physical and administrative infrastructure in first-class condition. Many of the promises of the DAC-NAR (in, for example, the areas of interisland transport, gas ownership and exploitation, the Link Road, the Hospital) were still to be fulfilled. There was much personality but little structure in the DAC-NAR. The politics of public vehemence / confrontation did not seem to have brought the fruits expected. And, on top of those things, Charles and (some of) his Secretaries had alienated many with the ADDA adventurism and insufferable levels of self-importance and onemanship.

Was the electorate fed up of the DAC-NAR's lack of structure, especially as it manifested itself in DAC attempts at political structure, Caruth's leapfrogging, and NAR inability to field a full slate of candidates mere weeks before the elections? Did they still have a strong enough suspicion of Charles' maximum style and the ADDA misadventure? Were they sufficiently impressed with London's administration, despite the shortcomings, after a mere term in office? Was Caruth's leapfrogging, with the consequence that it denied the DAC-NAR constituency the optimism that it would have a leader more palatable than Charles, the critical variable?

One can never be sure, outside of empirical research, about the strength of variables in explaining a phenomenon. I suspect, however, that all the variables in my series of questions had a powerful influence to varying degrees on the way most of the electorate voted. I always, regardless of my own preference, respect the choice of the majority of the electorate, because I believe that there is a serviceable wisdom in majority choice. But this is not to say that minorities lack wisdom.

The PNM won the elections with 11 seats and some 12, 200 votes. The DAC lost with 1 seat and some 8,300 votes. That is, a mere 4,000 votes or so separated winner and loser. So a lot of people favoured the DAC even though, given the first-past-the-post system, they were not enough to win more than 1 seat. Further, since over 17,269 electors (out of a total of 38,076) did not vote, it means that far more people did not vote for the PNM than voted for them. If you factor in those who voted for the DAC, that means about 25,500 persons - more than twice the number that voted for the PNM.

Of course, non-voters by definition can't hold power, but the fact that they are more numerous than those who voted the PNM in should give the new London administration pause and inspire them to be humble and productive in their governance.

For the sake of all of us - non-voters, PNM, DAC, Independents, and NAR - may they govern inclusively and transformatively.



^^ Back to top