Every 5 years, state enterprises are torn apart, diplomatic missions are populated with neophytes and the financiers pull out a different company tailored to the new party which forms the government. The losers continue to be all of us who cannot pay for private medical attention, cannot send our children to private or prestige schools, who have to wake up at 3:00 am to avoid the traffic, who cannot afford personal body guards etc, etc, etc. The citizenry continues to be abused by our politicians who quickly lose touch as they zoom around with police escorts, move into living accommodation they could not afford just 25 months before or as we saw recently, are given special privilege to bypass sticky immigration lines.

Our dilemma is that both political parties as currently configured are unsuited and inadequate to provide us with any leadership to attract our attention or in particular, the attention of the 18-45’s who will make the difference in the next elections.

As we approach the halfway mark for both political parties, the population awaits some concrete signal that either of the dominant political parties has a transformation strategy which will be rolled out. The PNM could have appointed a new General Secretary to tackle the transformation of Balisier House into that hub of excitement which is generated at any functioning “party headquarters” while the UNC could just have a “kuchoor free” approach to staging their internal elections.

The dominant political parties continue to offer us the equivalent of exhumed corpses with moribund ideas and expect the population to follow along in docile compliance. As time passes, the next General Elections will see us move deeper into traditional voting patterns as the legacy voters (i.e. the over 50s) dig their heels in and support the red or yellow stains.

Both parties are aware that constitutional reform is needed, though while in office have not found the time to address this fundamental issue. They continue to pay lip service to the notions of Accountability, Collaboration and Transparency (ACT).

I keep scanning the horizon for the emergence of a third force which will be the game changer that this country needs. Yes, the situation was different to when the NAR trounced the PNM 33/3 in 1986 but a landslide victory is what is needed to transform Trinidad and Tobago.  Based on past performance, the new Seepersad-Bachan led Congress of the people (COP) has a lot of rebuilding to do to regain any traction.

We continue to make the same mistakes over and over, hoping for a different result. What we are in fact doing is assuring that Trinidad & Tobago will continue to head to backwardness and self destruction as we continue on this path of winner-take-all and reap political reward.  

Here are some things a courageous leader could do:

1. Engage talent from wherever it lies even it is across party lines.
2. Rationalize the existence of State Enterprises.
3. Establish a system where appointments to state boards are based on applications to an independent Authority.
4. AND PLEASE ADD TO THIS LIST OF ACTIONS A COURAGEOUS LEADER COULD TAKE!

Was it maliciousness or just haplessness at the root of the recent bungling of the appointment of Makeda Antoine to the post of Ambassador to the United Nations Office in Geneva?  From the article in the recent Sunday Express, the young lady appears to have the potential to do a fantastic job, but unfortunately she will be remembered by the Express Headline: “Anxiety as rookie appointed ambassador to UN.” Heaven forbid that she has any diplomatic missteps!

The main reason this has become a news headline is that her line Minister, the Ministry of Foreign and CARICOM Affairs refused to confirm her appointment when asked by a reporter.  Had he confirmed her appointment, it would have taken the sting out of the news story but instead it gave Sheila Rampersad the opportunity to dig in and create a Sunday Express story which was published on November 12, 2017.

What befuddles me is that for a government being led by a politician of more than 30 years standing, they continue to make basic errors.  This could have gone so well if only the Minister had handled the announcement in the same way he did in March of 2016, when he presented instruments to 4 persons.  At that time the instruments were presented  to His Excellency Fitzgerald Jeffrey as High Commissioner for the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago to Jamaica; His Excellency Dr Amery Browne as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to the Federative Republic of Brazil; Her Excellency Pennelope Beckles as the Permanent Representative of Trinidad and Tobago to the United Nations, in New York and His Excellency Dr. Lancelot Cowie as the Ambassador of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago to Cuba.

Is it that Minister Moses was unaware of the appointment or did he not agree? Whatever the reasons, the Minister and the Prime Minister appear to differ on this appointment.  Looking at the track record of “maybe Ambassador Antoine”, it could have provided an opportunity to woo the 18-45 age group whose vote has a great potential to determine the future leadership of our country.

Having made this foul–up, I expect the Prime Minister himself to welcome Ambassador Antoine and signal his high expectations for youth leadership in our country.  He still has an opportunity to clear the path for a positive tenure even though he missed a great opportunity to comment and clear the air at yesterday’s PNM convention.

In every aspect of our national development, what I see is missed opportunities.  This country is crying out for leadership that is sensitive, logical and structured.  Meanwhile, best wishes to Makeda Antoine, Ambassador Designate to the United Nations Office in Geneva.  

What do Mario Sabga and Colonel (Ret) Dave Williams have in common?

An assumption that they know their businesses so well that they can handle media exposure without the necessary training or preparation.  Mario Sabga made an unfortunate reference to 1% being the most powerful in T&T and Colonel (Ret) Dave Williams said small thing in reference to the flooding situation. These statements forced apologies out of these otherwise successful professionals.

Despite previous success, level of confidence, or where you are located on the hierarchy of power, only a naïve person faces the media without a plan.  That plan must place the audience and media at the centre and ask the question: What is the outcome I expect?  If you don’t have a clear understanding of the outcome you expect or even the angle you want the media to take, then someone else will make that decision for you and ultimately make a decision which you don’t like.

Crying that Anthony Bourdain or Khejan Haynes quoted you out of context is after the “horse has bolted”.  You should have been on top of your game and tempered that urge to be quick, witty, or whatever else you want to call it.  Had both gentlemen sat in a moment of  sober reflection with communications professionals, they would have understood the “no-go” zones.  In an age of “Live Tweets” and instant communications we need to understand the power of 140 characters and frame our messages to suit.
If you are going into an interview which is controversial, take the lead on the difficult questions and put the information out so you lead the issue.

Oftentimes, leaders believe that they can suppress information but in this era, nothing is a secret, it is just a matter of time before it becomes known to the public.  It would be better for you to lead the conversation and provide the information.  In instances where there is data to support your statement, your credibility suddenly shoots up.  But please ensure that the statistics are simple and that you have the right interpretation – I am reminded of the statement about the “decreasing increase in crime”.

While the media has a tremendous responsibility to provide fair and balanced coverage, experience has shown that we cannot rely on this. Journalists and news agencies will do what is in their interest first, last and always.

There is always “a line in the sand”.  I draw that line at protesting in front of an MP’s private residence. Just as I would defend your right to protest, I defend the politician’s right to enjoyment of his/her property. We must continue to respect the sanctity of a person’s home and in this case, the Minister of Finance.

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the actions taken by the protestors representing “the gaming industry”, I am simply saying that everyone needs their private space and that must be respected. In addition, one must always weigh up whether the action will hinder or help their cause. Here’s an example from Sesame Street which talks about weighing your options.
In this case, the objective was to get a meeting with the Minister in an attempt to change his position with regard to the new taxes. Disturbing his family routine would not have helped their cause, and in fact may have angered him in immeasurable ways. The issue, while framed as personal, is in fact an issue to be addressed by the Office of the Minister of Finance, not the private citizen who happens to hold the position himself. Every effort should be made to protect the privacy of his wife and family.

So, I have learned the following lessons:

Firstly, there must always be goal clarity. Once the goal is clear and unambiguous, it is easier to have a laser-like focus on achieving that goal. It also makes it easy to interrogate any proposed actions and question what would be the likely impact of that action. Anything that distracts from the main goal should not be done.

Secondly, protesting in front of the Minister’s private residence had absolutely no impact on the state. So once the media moved onto another story, the protest moved off of the front page and can only be renewed by additional action. Protesters must therefore consider what the ultimate impact of their action will be. For example, in a recent protest in which a road was destroyed, there has been no consequence for the protesters who destroyed the road. The inconvenience will be experienced for some time to come and the burden for that repair will ultimately fall to the citizens.

Thirdly, keep the momentum going or you will lose. This is precisely what has happened; the protesters got a meeting with the Minister in the Ministry, received no assurances and the Minister of Finance continues as usual.

He may have won this round, but until we change the approach from the dictatorial stance to a collaborative one, we will all continue to be losers in this game of politics. Meanwhile, protest if you wish but spare a thought for the families of our politicians and keep them out of the mix.

1. • This post by Randolph Mapp has not been edited and is in response to an earlier blog titled “Strike 3 against Prime Minister Dr. Rowley”.

     Randolph Mapp

     Read Dr Rowley’s autobiography and you wouldn’t talk such siht about him being a shameful example for the youths of the nation. Shame on your for buying into fecal talk from Demming, Womantra,PLOTT and the UNC women’s group who claim Dr Rowley disrepected woman. You ever see the human nastiness women turn themselves into at Carnival?
     Demming and those clowns always turn a blind eye to the disrespecful beings women become at Carnival. And Ivor , Dr Rowley is not an expatriate like you hustling to survive in USA. He’s a home-grown boy committed to making here better for jokers like you and Demming to run your mouths.

     Permalink, Reply, Edit

     Here’s my response to Mr. Mapp:

     October 19, 2017 6:57 pm

     Dear Mr. Mapp
     I am surprised that a person with the patience to have read Dr Rowley’s autobiography will so quickly descend into name calling and attempts at insults. Your description of what women turn themselves into at Carnival seems to be at odds with what Dr. Rowley enjoys.

     

     If you choose to engage this discussion, I would really appreciate a more substantial response rather than the name calling.

     Permalink, Edit

     October 21, 2017 5:59 pm

The Prime Minister’s recent “grooming” statement did not surprise me.  Indeed it was at least the 3rd occasion in which his reference to women has been unfortunate.  What has left me stunned is the image of 2 female Members of Parliament sitting behind him who obviously enjoyed the insult and verbal abuse.   Even the Minister of National Security exhibited his total enjoyment of this unfortunate statement.  How can I feel safe when the Prime Minister, the Minister of National Security, the Minister of Community Development, Culture and the Arts and the Minister of State in the Office of the Prime Minister, holding the portfolios of Gender and Child Affairs, Ecclesiastical Affairs and Central Administration Services, Tobago all publicly demonstrate their support for this unfortunate characterization?

When the women’s movement fought for women’s representation in government, we did not expect that female MPs would participate in such negative portrayals of women.  We expected you to be shocked, or at the very least you would remain expressionless in the face of such abuse but instead you enjoyed the boy’s room expression and by your behaviour, gave it your unspoken approval. We did not expect you to publicly support such anti-woman banter. Did you even recognise it as anti-woman?

I wonder how you explained to your daughters what the Prime Minister meant by “grooming” or by “it turns into pasture”.  I wonder how you explained the delight on your face and the face of your leader to your mother or sister or elder in church.  Are you and your female colleagues on the government bench still rolling over with laughter?  I am reminded of a statement by Albert Einstein: … the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it.”

The women of this country expect you and every woman in Parliament to clearly and firmly object to negative characterizations of women every time that it occurs, because words are powerful and what is said reveals inner thoughts and views about the subject. Words like these also send powerful cues to other men about the lack of esteem that women are given so each woman in Parliament has a responsibility to ensure that our male MPs honour women through their expressions.

The women of this country expect you to uphold the dignity of all women, because our country will only thrive when we dignify each other, and the leadership has a huge role to play in demonstrating that capacity to lead with dignity.

The women of this country also expect you to call out our leaders when they fall below expectations because that is how we will collectively improve.  If this was the first unfortunate statement, it might be forgivable, but there is a consistent denigration of women by our Prime Minister. If you called him out in private, then please receive my private commendation, but publicly, my expectation is for us to speak well, do well and treat each other with kindness.

We owe it to ourselves and the children of our future.