The obsolescence of our electoral system

23 Oct, 2000
Main themes of previous column:
· key institution to emerge from political struggle of the 70s was "people's parliament"
· people convened it, then sent for NJAC leadership
· other "parliaments" were also convened in many areas and representatives sent to Woodford Square
· after demise of the rebellion, community groups expressed intention to maintain autonomy
· efforts at small, self-sustaining ventures stymied by police leading to forceful action by rebels in defense of themselves and against the State which led to deaths of some idealistic youths
· level of political consciousness within east-west corridor and urban areas since then has never been the same

One expects, after each social explosion, the first prerequisite is for political analysts to be honest about what in fact occurred and what the masses implied by their actions. In the aftermath of 1970, the radical leaders were calling for constitutional reform primarily of relationship between various arms of the State ­ Judicial, Legislative and Executive.

This was to be achieved, hopefully, via a constituent assembly comprising all interest groups. Elections were due in 1971 and a boycott was threatened if reduction of the voting age to18 and the return to ballot boxes (from the discredited voting machines) were not implemented.

Despite the numerical strength of the youth who had rebelled, the PNM government of the day refused to acquiesce since it was not in its interest to do so. The end-result was a successful no-vote campaign in the 1971 elections, supported by popular sentiment throughout the country.

Sadly, but not unexpectedly, none of the established opposition nor radical leaders sought to recognise or to politicise the institutionalisation of the new forms of people's power, ie the People's Parliaments, that had emerged in the course of the 1970 struggles. The day they buried Basil Davis there existed in T&T a virtual case of dual power, ie (1) the regime and (2) the People's Parliament but no one articulated this then.

It was left to a handful of young professionals, artists and students to advance the view that what the masses were signalling then was a new form of governance based on community empowerment. Democracy, it was felt, went above and beyond the mere inking of the index finger once every five years to select representatives who so quickly after elevation become alienated from their communities.

This very handful of activists, during the course of the 1971 campaign and in the years following, advocated assemblies of the people, organised on the basis of where people lived and worked (democracy within the production process) as a new system of government.

Two community assemblies were actually convened at Tabaquite and Rio Claro and the view was expressed that, for the first time, emphasis was being placed on what rather than who we go put. Workers at WASA, Cannings and Trinidata began considering a new concept termed "no-nonsense bargaining". In the process, they sought to stymie the representative system in favour of direct democracy in which everone had to be involved.

The intention here is not to give the impression that these activities had nationwide, earth-shattering effects on what obtained as the norm in the society. On the contrary, these were mere teasing, baby steps of people still largely insecure and unsure about themselves, but fired by their natural democratic instincts. Particularly so, since the system seem continuously to co-opt and corrupt their representatives.

When the mass movement of the people next coalesced and took centre-stage in 1975, the impetus came out of the major industrial areas based in the south and central regions, rather than urban communities as was the case in 1970. It meant oil and sugar workers, rather than students and the unemployed, were now assuming the mantle of vanguard social leadership.

It is important to establish linkages so as to reveal the historical coherency, logic and continuity of the activity and struggle of the people from stage to stage. The Conference of Shop Stewards and Branch Officers (COSSABO), of all the major unions, came together to co-ordinate their struggles in the course of negotiations with the State for better terms and conditions.

The COSSABOs, as they were called, were to the workers and farmers of 1975-76 exactly what the "people's parliament" of1970 were to the urban unemployed and students. It was the COSSABOs of all the major industrial unions (OWTU, All Trinidad, TIWU, ICFTU, etc) who demanded the formation of the ULF party. The moment it was structured and launched, the COSSABOs ceased to be of any importance in the eyes of the leadership.

Only a few of us agitated and demanded that the experience of the COSSABOs be broadened to involve people in their communities throughout the length and breadth of the country. Take the COSSABOs to the east-west corridor, we kept saying. We advocated the instituting of an eventual government of COSSABOs and people's assemblies as a form of direct democracy and the only alternative to the present system. The radical leaders (alas!) never grasped the logic.

Today, Tobago has its own development plan; the people of Toco have assembled and are at present developing their own; the people of Bamboo No 3 are calling for a "vision" for their community and threatening to trade their votes for this. People are beginning to stand up in their community groups to demand amenities, sustainable development and, most of all, to demand their own representatives.

Why are they so vociferous today in their questioning of central power? What does it all mean?