Commentary
guyanacaribbeanpolitics.com

Posted May 11th. 2008 - Trinidad Express

By Selwyn Ryan

A tale of two conflicts

The conflict between Messrs Manning and Rowley has more to do with the Government's procurement policy than with Mr. Rowley's alleged misbehaviour or any perceived threat to Mr Manning's position as political leader. Rowley's behaviour may merely have provided a window of opportunity for effecting his political decapitation. Some readers of last week's column believe that I was not sufficiently critical of Mr Manning's actions and that I was moderate to a fault. I however believe that it is always wiser to hear the other side-audi alteram partem-before coming to one's own conclusion.

The conflict over the issue of procurement reminds me very much of the bitter conflict that took place in the 1970s between contractors in the constructing industry and the Williams' Government.

The Manning Government has categorised the contractors as a "cartel which is pushing up the cost and supply of building materials," and has refused their demand that he slow down the programme of mega- edifice construction to which his government is currently committed to fulfill the promises of the 2020 vision plan. Dr Williams, who was also concerned about his legacy as a nation builder, also refused the contractors' demand that he cut back on his building programme.

Williams' criticism of the local contractors was withering. As he said, "it is easy to propose that there be greater dependence on local consultants and contractors. What was not easy was to persuade these consultants to remove the rigidity that was basic to their fee structure. What was most difficult was to ensure that price fixing on contracts was not taking place and that the performance of local contractors could even approach agreed schedules". Manning's complaint is much the same.

Given public expectations for this or that service and the problems encountered with local professionals, Williams' decided to bypass them altogether and experiment with "Government to Government" agreements under an overall umbrella agreement. Manning's equivalent strategy is to rely on "Far Eastern" firms, more particularly those from China and Malaysia.

Williams choice of strategy provoked a storm of criticism. It was viewed as a de facto reversion to colonialism with all its assumptions about the incompetence of colonials. Once again, foreigners were being invited to "develop" the country instead of local expertise being asked to do so within their capabilities. To the critics, it was particularly ironic that the strategy was being articulated by someone who had come into politics to prove that indigenous professionals were every whit as competent as their metropolitan counterparts, if not more so.

Williams had anticipated these criticisms. As he told Parliament in his 1979 Budget Speech, "it is easy to suggest the debarring of foreign expertise with their new and effective systems of construction management and methods of approach which meet the needs of the client based on reward for performance and acceptance of full responsibility for a project as opposed to the traditional limiting of responsibility. What is not so easy is to understand the mentality behind the same lobby that, on the one hand, seeks to flood the market with foreign manufactured goods which local capability can produce, and on the other hand, resists the approach of obtaining needed foreign expertise under the best type of conditions, vetted and sponsored by a friendly government."

Experience with the projects however indicated that Williams was extremely naive and optimistic in terms of what he hoped to achieve. The critics pointed to the waste and displacement of money and resources involved in many of the projects, the corruption that appeared to be flourishing at several points of the project cycle. There were also many delays and cost overruns as there are now in respect to the Chinese.

As criticism mounted, the government either defended the strategy or maintained a stony silence. The contracts were "sacred cows", beyond the pale of criticism even by senior ministers, some of whom were known to have serious misgivings. Williams acknowledged that the Government was attempting to do more than its capabilities permitted, but refused to abandon long-cherished projects which he believed the public wanted and needed. There was also the problem of determining which project to cut. There was thus to be no retreat.

Review and reassessment did not come until the installation of Chambers following the general elections of 1981. Chambers's budget speech acknowledged that "the objectives of the Government-to-Government arrangements were not being fully met". A committee, which the new Prime Minister established under the chairmanship of Lennox Ballah to determine what was wrong with the projects and what should be done to set them right, also found much that was wrong.

Chambers, acting on the advice of the Committee, eventually decided to abandon the forced-pace strategy of development adopted by his predecessor. As he put it, "what emerges with utmost clarity from the experience of the 1970s and the problems arising therefrom is that development is a complex and long-term process involving, among other things, sacrifice, discipline and commitment to the national good. Believe me, there are no shortcuts."

Mr Manning has rejected Mr Chambers' wisdom. He believes that shortcuts are necessary and possible, and that with God's help, he would find a way to transform Trinidad and Tobago into a "developed society" by 2020. The JCC and others believe that what is being attempted will lead to the destruction of such local capabilities as there are and possibly the destruction of the PNM Government. As Winston Riley, President of the JCC, told a seminar last Monday, "we should not be importing resources we could develop here now we have lost the capacity to do anything." According to Riley, the issue has become a national issue in its extreme and it is not going to die." Perhaps, the time has come for another reassessment not only of UDeCOTT's modus operandi, but the development strategy itself.

Posted May 4th. 2008 - Trinidad Express

By Selwyn Ryan

Who misspoke and why?

Much has been made of the question as to whether the 60-room hotel that is to be built on the site of the Old Colonial Club was part of the original proposal for the construction of the Academy for the Performing Arts or was added surreptitiously. There has been some suggestion that Dr Rowley might have been absent from the country or playing golf when the matter came up. It is unlikely that this is what happened. It would seem that the matter was not brought to the cabinet. What is, however, clear is that persons involved in the preparation of the Vision 2020 Operational Plan 2007-2010 were aware of the plan to construct two hotels, one in Port of Spain and one in San Fernando. Both projects are listed in the Plan which, however, talks of a 59-room hotel. The proposal for the hotel was also known to UTT officials and was listed on UDeCOTT's web site. There was no approval given by Town and Country Planning or the EMA.

There has also been vexatious controversy as to whether Rowley was really fired because of "hooligan" or "wajang" behaviour, or whether there was more than one pestle in the mortar. Mr Rowley has given an impassioned and credible account of what happened on that morning, and it would seem that most of the country accepts his version. Some persons were emotionally wrought and lacrimose following his account. Some also confessed that they felt betrayed by their leadership.

What are we to make of the disparities in the two narratives? Which one was an Anancy story? Did Mr Manning misspeak deliberately or was he sadly but unintentionally misled by his Cabinet colleagues? Why did he choose to rely on hearsay evidence? What agenda was served by him doing so? Since we can't find a way to reconcile the narratives, should the Chairman of the sub-committee, who was then acting as Prime Minister, not be asked to assist the national community to come to a conclusion on this critical issue seeing that the reputations of seven ministers are on the public chopping board? It is not evident that any secret oaths would be violated if he were to do so. We applaud Mr Rowley's honourable offer to fall on his sword if it is shown by a Commission of Inquiry that he misled the public when he made certain assertions about misgovernance in UDeCOTT.

I have tried diligently to make some sense of what may have happened, and my view, as of time of writing, is that the behaviour problem is not a deliberate fabrication and that it was music to Mr Manning's receptive ear. Mr. Manning, ever the courtly mannered schoolmaster, does seem to take the need for proper form and behaviour seriously. Indeed, I have heard him on the subject before. The Prime Minister is of the view that the country, its schools and key public institutions have serious deficits in respect of behaviour, and that Cabinet and Parliament must be seen as moral exemplars. The public faces of the state must always look bright and right. I am told that there is on the books a 42- point Code of Conduct that guides behaviour in cabinet and its committees, and the allegation is that Rowley and another senior minister regularly violate the code and behave as if they were untouchable. Rowley's behaviour on the morning in question was said to be the straw that broke the camel's back. The other offending minister has been repeatedly warned.

On the question of the role of UDeCOTT, both Messrs Rowley and Manning claim to be solicitous of the public interest. Clearly, however, they understand that concept differently. Mr Manning is concerned about product while Mr Rowley is concerned about process. It is also evident that what one person regards as vigorous advocacy on behalf of the public interest, another regards as inappropriate behaviour. As post-modernists know, there is nothing like "the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

There is no objective god-ordained truth "out there" to which one could be a "stranger," or which could speak frankly to "power." Those in power try to impose their version of the truth on others, but do not always succeed. The popularly prevailing "truth" in the Rowley case is that "misbehaviour" seems to have provided the window of opportunity to pull the constitutional trigger and blow away a troublesome minister. It would, however, appear that it was a case of pyrrhic overkill and that the collateral damage was huge and disproportionate. Rowley's status has been enhanced, not diminished

It is well known that since the 1996 intra-party elections in which Rowley challenged Manning, the two men have little real love, Christian or otherwise, for each other even though both relate to each other in public with considerable circumspection. Indeed, both seemed to go out of their way to be polite and civil towards each other. As in life however, it is often easier for victims to forgive (as God does), than to forget. The gladiators were forever watchful, wily and wary, while pretending to be open and magnanimous, behaviour that was meant to disarm.

The current conflict between the two party stalwarts does not seem to be driven by echoes of that crisis. The key source of the problem is the struggle for control of the resources available from the public sector construction programme. There are many tributaries to the problem, and one has to "follow the money" to understand what is taking place. Some $10 billion are being spent on 60-odd projects by UDeCOTT, and the local private sector and the foreign sector are virtually at war over who gets what on what terms.

The "war" reminds me very much of that which was fought between the Joint Consultative Council (JCC) and the Williams' government in the 1970's and 80's. In some cases, the dramatis personae are the same. Ironically, it was Mr Manning who was appointed by Dr Williams to defend the party in Parliament which was being accused of grand corruption.

The local private sector, speaking and acting through the JCC, believes that UDecott privileges certain Chinese firms in the allocation of contracts to build the important mega projects, and that the competition for these contracts is rigged by the Manning government in favour of the Chinese.

Collusive "bid rigging" is said to be endemic, and there are allegations that bribes are being paid on shore and offshore to God knows whom to secure these projects. It is further indicated that there are no internal or external mechanisms in place to audit the books of UDecott which seems to be in a position to act with impunity, that cabinet oversight is rudimentary at best, and that the ghosts of O'Halloran, Prevatt, Williams et al have returned to haunt the country. It is said that a new strain of O'Halloranism has reinfected the PNM which is more prophylactic resistant than the old virus.The JCC also complains about the refusal to put in place the procurement regime that was promised in the 2005 White Paper that was tabled in Parliament. It likewise charges that the legislation is being blocked by powerful technocrats who have the ear of the Prime Minister. The JCC line is supported by those who believe that the building programme should be slowed down to dampen inflation as well as to adjust to the ability of the indigenous construction sector to meet the demand.

The JCC, the COP, the UNC, the print media and many other individuals and organisations are at a loss to understand why the Prime Minister seems to tolerate and even condone some of the activities of certain high flying individuals. Many openly question the Prime Minister's integrity and wonder, as they did with respect to Williams, why some people seem to be untouchable and not subject to ministerial or cabinet scrutiny? Has Prime Ministerial oversight replaced Cabinet oversight in the name of expedition? Have we not travelled down this road before?

On the question of corruption, we note that Rowley has not accused Mr Manning or any one so far. As he observed, "just because a process is faulty does not mean it is corrupt, but it warrants attention before any kind of impropriety can take root." Many are not so generous, and the Prime Minister must know that tongues are wagging. I myself recently spent two hours at a dinner party defending the Prime Minister against allegations of venality. I conceded that he was perhaps guilty of the sins of vanity and hubris, but that he was no criminal with a bulging bank account in "foreign."

The Prime Minister and some of his advisers of course see the procurement problem very differently. They describe local professionals as a "mutual enrichment society"and accuse them of being largely responsible for the huge cost overruns and completion delays on major construction projects, just as was alleged in the 70's which led the Williams government to experiment disastrously with government to government solutions as a way of bypassing the local contractor cartel. The allegation is that local architects deliberately propose designs that do not take advantage of existing cost saving technologies. It is said, for example that the bid of a local firm on the Academy of the Performing Arts project was some $300m more than that proposed by the Chinese firm which got the contract.

Mr Manning has acknowledged publicly that it was the Tarouba Stadium Complex project, which began at $200m and which has escalated to $600m, which led the Government to take a formal policy decision to privilege "Far Eastern" firms, which complete projects on time without cost overruns. This had to be done if the Government was to realise some of the key objectives of its Vision 20-20. In his view, local contractors had to be disciplined and punished for having held the country to ransom for so many years. One of Rowley's alleged sins was that he had close links with key members of the JCC, and that the relations between him and the persons involved have not always been above board. The Integrity Commission has cleared Rowley of any wrong doing and my own investigations lead me to believe that Rowley has been the unfortunate victim of a frame-up. The response of the JCC to its accusers is that Chinese firms appear to be more productive because they employ sweated labour, use sub-standard steel and other inputs, and in various ways violate local building regulations and labour codes. The JCC also argues that the cost overruns on the Scarborough Hospital project were due to poor design which was done by Canadian and not local architects, and that the local contractor chosen by UDecott on the Tarouba project lacked the competence to do the job, a fact that was known when the contract was given.

The JCC has also provided evidence that the Chinese contractors have not completed several key projects at the UTT campus and at Ajax St. on time, and that they too are demanding massive compensation for cost overruns which confront everyone.The JCC argues that there are good contractors and bad contractors among both local and the foreign firms and that there is indeed more in the mortar than the pestle. JCC spokesmen point that China is ranked high on the international bribe payers index.

What can be said by way of a summing up? Clearly, we need that independent Commission of Inquiry into the affairs of UDeCOTT that Rowley has called for. I however doubt that we will get it. We also need to put in place the procurement regime that has been promised by the Government. Above all, we need to invent a mechanism to determine once and for all, how is it that we came to have two irreconcilable stories about what happened at the meeting of the sub- committee of Cabinet. The country is owed an explanation, all in the name of "good governance." We need to walk the talk about 'good governance", both in the party and the government.

Posted April 27th. 2008 - Trinidad Express

By Selwyn Ryan

'Masquerade' vs 'Carnival': Power struggle in the streets

Two events of importance took place in the past week. One gave me a "high" while the other made me and much of the country extremely depressed and angry. I choose to devote this column to the former event, in part because it was written before the Rowley vs Manning verbal shootout took place which on the face of it seemed to have left the latter a political "lame duck' with a legitimacy deficit, but also because, nothwithstanding first impressions, one needs to assess the second issue with dispassion and objectivity. The first event to which I refer is Prof Jeff Henry's controversial book, Under the Mas: Resistance and Rebellion in the Trinidad Masquerade. Henry's book is an appropriate sequel to Errol Hills' iconic work, The Trinidad Carnival: Mandate For a National Theatre.

The title and tone of the book is deliberately polemic. As Henry explains, with some measure of testiness and aggression, "the book rebels against the superficial, empty direction in which the Trinidad Masquerade has evolved, where even those playing traditional characters have no sense of the history or evolution of their characters. It laments the replacement of "masquerade" by the artificially of "carnival", the term which the Europeans succeeded in substituting for "masquerade."Carnival comes out of Europe and France in particular; "masquerade" comes out of Africa.

As he writes, "the masquerade in Trinidad is a strategy of resistance which works against the dominant hegemonic power that society and its elite maintain over its people. The colour of the rulers might darken; the ethnicities might change, blur or merge, but the culture of the power structure remains".

The argument in respect of the centrality of Africa to Carnival is of course not new. Hollis Liverpool (Chalkdust) wrote a book about it, (The Rituals of Power and Rebellion; The Carnival Tradition in Trinidad and Tobago 1776-1962) and I myself made a reference to it in my Jhandi and the Cross, based on what I saw during street festivals in West Africa. Henry however adds much value to the claim and is convincing in much of what he tell us about the origins and cultural meaning of the various characters.

One of the very interesting things we are told, for example, is that Canboulay is an appropriation of the African word 'Kambula' meaning procession or parade, and does not come from "cannes brule". Henry, who was one of our leading dancers and a teacher of dance and theater, also has a lot to say about the spiritual meaning of the chants and costumes that are used by masqueraders, and also about their body movements.

The body movements of the stick fighters, the dragons, the imps, the fireman and the king sailors, to name but a few of characters, are described in painstaking detail, a narrative that gives the study its richness and distinctiveness.

Henry also has a great deal to say about the role of masks in the masquerade. Mask were used in rituals in Africa as they were elsewhere. Enslaved Africans were of course not allowed to wear masks in the Caribbean. Emancipation provided them with their first opportunity to wear masks as freemen. It allowed them to put on their masks and to reveal their "true selves".

In Henry's work, African refers not only to the continent, but also to the African diaspora in the Caribbean. Africa also included the spaces which Africans were forced to occupy after emancipation. As he writes, " the barrack yard, with all its disadvantages, was the place of community where many wonderful creative ideas such as the steelband and the King/Sailor/ Fireman dance form took root and flowered". Other spaces included the gayal (gayelle was French),the Shango yards and the Baptist churches, the activities of which influenced various aspects of the masquerade.

The Shango bands have long disappeared, but they left their footprints.We are told, for example, that the basic calypso dance, the "chip", came out of the Shouter Baptist rhythms as part of their physical expression and from the circular movements of the Orisha". The Jab Molassie is also a ritualised manifestation of the brutality and bondage that prevailed on the plantation. "Instead, what has unfolded over the years is the accent on the evil of an African ritual which in Christian terms is connected to the "devil in hell". On the plantation, resisting slaves were thrown into the molasses vats and also whipped.

Much of what obtained in the 19th and early 20th century has now been lost or emptied of its epistemological significance as a result of westernisation, creolisation, geography, and changing demographic realities. Some of what occurred was also the result of deliberate racism. One should perhaps not lament that so little has survived, but that so much did.

The question, however, is what do we do now that we have so much more knowledge about some aspects of ourselves? We of course cannot reinstate the past. We could however continue to excavate as much of that past that is recoverable and make it available to coming generations in virtual forms.

As Henry suggests, "resurrecting the characters and playing them in the streets in specially constructed times and places are just small parts of the objectives." Some will no doubt contest some of his claims. It is also the case that cultures are never static, and that much of what is deemed to be "traditional" are recent imaginings. Out of the clash of imaginings will however emerge new syntheses and new cultural inventions.

I am certain that come next carnival, there will be more "traditional," or better still, more neotraditional characters on the street. We must however recognise that many people of all ethnicities now play 'mas', not to make links with the past or make theatrical, political, or identity statements, but to have a good lime and a hell of a time in the world class street party that the Carnival has now become.

Posted April 13th. 2008 - Trinidad Express

By Selwyn Ryan

Continuity and change in Local Government

One of the many controversial comments which were made at the recently concluded conference held on the Mona Campus of UWI in honour of Prof Norman Girvan to which I referred in last week's column, was that the economic reconstruction of the Caribbean cannot be achieved without political unification and radical political devolution. The much applauded remark was made by Prof Havelock Brewster, author (with Prof Clive Thomas) of the iconic book, The Dynamics of West Indian Integration.

Another equally applauded and controversial comment came from Dr K'adamawe K'nife, a young Rastacentric UWI lecturer, who opined that many of the problems which bedevil the region have their roots in the manner in which the communities are organised and managed, and that the most appropriate community empowerment model for the Caribbean was to be found in the "Don" ruled garrison community of Tivoli Gardens. K' nife argued that much could be learnt from an unbiased examination of what happens in the stigmatised "badlands" of West Kingston.

Much to my surprise, the statement resonated positively with many who were present at the conclave. It was however hotly contested and dismissed by the mainstream analysts. K'nife's critics drew attention to the fact that the Don's power and influence, which was almost feudal, was sustained by the proceeds of crime and the gun. The assertions were said to be romantic, and not supported by the available evidence.

But there was widespread agreement that the existing local government model in the Caribbean was dysfunctional, and that the notion that any of it fosters democracy or community empowerment, however defined, was a myth. Winston Dookeran was in fact fundamentally correct when he noted recently that national parties in Trinidad and Tobago regard local governments as an extension of competitive politics at the national level.

What he said in respect of Trinidad is true throughout the region. To quote Dookeran, "traditionally, national governments, both PNM and UNC, have used local government as a mechanism for doling out 'contracts' so as to retain tight control over 'their' communities. Empowering communities to participate in planning and monitoring their own development priorities threatens the very basis of their ethnic power structure."

Prime Minister Manning agrees that the local government system is dysfunctional, and regards the proposed reforms as a vehicle to promote vertical power sharing. It is however difficult to regard what is being proposed as meaningful power sharing. Power is in fact being decentralised rather than being devolved. Mr Manning has made it clear that he is not about to institutionalise chaos by having 12 or 14 semi-autonomous mini-governments spread throughout the country competing with nationally controlled ministries such as obtains in Tobago. The Government's White Paper instead pledged that "by 2020, local government bodies would be the chief implementers of government policies".

Mr Manning has also proposed that local government bodies should be represented in the Senate. "In this way, regional and community -level issues will be reflected in national policies and plans". This will hold regardless of which party controls the local government bodies. My own view is that this proposal camouflages the fact that the game is rigged in favour of the central government, whoever controls it, and that the more things change, the more they will remain the same.

It should however not be assumed that a formal transfer to local bodies of the power to plan and prioritise such as obtains in Tobago will necessarily lead to genuine community empowerment. Much more will have to be changed in terms of how politics is done and decisions are made.

There are many complaints that key policy decisions are made in Tobago without reference to critical community stakeholders. The critics say that a fundamental consultation deficit obtains, and that they very rarely see their elected assemblymen. The latter, in their turn, complain that when they invite citizens to consultations or forums, few attend.

This is indeed a general problem. Few people attend consultations of any kind unless VIPs are known to be attending and refreshments are being served. This comment applies to consultations organised by civil society as well as by state or para-statal bodies. Indeed, there is good reason to question the held view that many citizens are interested in politics or want to be consulted on any but the most controversial or basic issues. They react to announced decisions rather than opt to be involved when policy is being made.

Survey data shows that only a third of the citizenry claim to have any interest in politics. Only 8 per cent say they are "very interested in politics," with 27 per cent saying they were "somewhat interested." One should thus not expect very much to change qualitatively as a result of the planned changes in the architecture of local government.

For this to happen, one would have to have a behavioural revolution at both the grassroots and the leadership level as well. In order to make judgement, one would need to employ a double accounting system to assess both the shape of the new system as well as the way in which democracy is done and who it is done for.

The audit might show that the new structures of power are indeed more democratic in a minimalist sort of way, and may even operate more efficiently, but that the broad citizenry continue to have little or no more meaningful and continuous say than they had before. What we may in fact end up with is a system in which a small group of citizens and party elements at the local level share an increased measure of influence with party elites at the national level, without there being very much widening or deepening of popular involvement and community empowerment.

Posted April 7th. 2008 - Trinidad Express

By Selwyn Ryan

America a failed state?

President Richards' inaugural address served to amplify the discourse about the nature of the failed state and the question as to whether Trinidad and Tobago could be so characterised. A number of definitional questions were also raised. The President claimed that "international pundits" had made clear distinctions as to what was a failed state. These definitions, he opined, focused on the existence of war and famine. His definition was however more nuanced, in his view, state failure could occur even when a state was not driven by war or suffering from famine.

Failure could also occur when an economically viable state did not live up to its full potential. The President was clearly making room to warn Trinidad and Tobago that it was not exempt from the maladies that disable states. As he warned, "the evidence of failure is emblazoned in the media every day. We read of institutional failure; we read of social dislocation; we read of educational malaise in which children who are not stupid, become failures and consequently increase the population of those who are considered anti-social".

The President noted that notwithstanding Trinidad's economic wealth, there was evidence of economic deprivation which could trigger state failure. Trinidad and Tobago was becoming perilously close to becoming a failed state, but neverless had the potential to be an exemplar to the world. If we are to judge by Mr Manning's address on Wednesday night, the Prime Minister clearly does not agree with the President's diagnosis of the health of the nation. He sees bright lights at the end of the tunnel.

But what is a failed state? It is not true that international pundits are all agreed on what the concept means. Like lawyers and economists, pundits thrive on being different. Prof Noam Chomsky, one of America's leading pundits, told us in his recent book, Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy, that the United States, the Soviet Union, and Nazi Germany were also failed states as were Haiti, and we might add Somalia and Zimbabwe. Chomsky complained that the concept "failed state" is "frustratingly imprecise".

Some of the primary characteristics of failure could nevertheless be identified,but others are controversial. "One is their inability or unwillingness to protect their citizens from violence and perhaps even destruction; another is their tendency to regard themselves as beyond the reach of domestic or international law and hence free to carry on aggression and violence while giving the misimpression that they are acting to save other states from injustice and authoritarian rule; and if they have democratic forms, they suffer from a serious democratic deficit that deprives their formal democratic institutions of real substance."

Chomsky told Americans that if they were to look at themselves in the mirror with any honesty, they should have little difficulty finding some of the characteristics of failed states right in their homeland. In his view, failed states are not all poor, fragile, unstable, soft, or weak as some suggest. "Germany, the United States and Stalinist Russia were hardly weak, but they also merit the designation "failed state" as fully as any in history-at least according to the norms and standards of modern-day international law."

The ethical behaviour of a state in the national or international arena is critical to Chomsky's definition. He argues that the failed state concept, like that of the "rogue state", the "outlaw state", and the "terrorist state" was deliberately invented by the hawks in Washington to fill the "power vacuum" that they believed had to be filled for purposes of national security. The concepts were not ideologically neutral. Failure could be engineered as was the case with Chile and arguably Zimbabwe. "The category "failed state" was invoked repeatedly in the course of the "normative revolution" proclaimed in the self-designated "enlightened states" in the 1990's, entitling them to resort to force with the alleged goal of protecting the population of (carefully selected) states in a manner that may be "illegal but legitimate". As the discourse shifted from "humanitarian intervention" to the redeclared "war on terror" after 9/11, the concept "failed state" was given broader scope to include states like Iraq that allegedly threatened the United States with weapons of mass destruction and international terror." America was the rogue state, claiming the right to take preemptive action, always in the name of "democracy, liberty and justice"

My own view is that we have to find a way to distinguish between rogue states and failed states. We also need to develop a way to rank states along a continuum, using a diverse bag of characteristics and behaviours, quantitative as well as qualitative. Weak or ideologically deviant states may be made to fail by hegemonic states. States may be successful doing some things and abject failures in respect to others. What should the pass mark be? Is the US really a failed state? What of Cuba? One might agree that Bush and Cheney have given a particular odor to American political behaviour, but what happens if Barack Obama becomes President?

One also has to distinguish between "regimes" which are stubborn realities, and "administrations" which are manifestations of regimes and easier to change after an election or a coup. Then too, there are questions about the relationship between state and society. The fact that a state is rotten need not mean that the underlying society is also in decay. A "better" state may simply be struggling to emerge from the womb of a pregnant society.

These are however, matters for the "pundits" to sort out. There is however, one thing that we can be certain about: The President and The Prime Minister clearly see the Trinidad and Tobago reality quite differently .The one is anxious about the future while the other is optimistic that his 20-20 train will not be derailed.

Posted March 30th. 2008 - Trinidad Express

By Selwyn Ryan

Democracy in the Caribbean: a retrospective

Independence in the Anglo-Caribbean island states was achieved against the background of what was taking place at the time in Ghana, Nigeria and Tanzania. There was then widespread concern that democracy would not survive in tropical environments. What has been the experience? The English speaking Caribbean is generally regarded as a region in which liberal democracy Westminster style has worked. It is also viewed as one where such democracy as once existed is fragile and non sustainable.

If one were to make comparisons with what is currently taking place in places like Kenya, Pakistan and indeed most of the countries in the new commonwealth, the democratic experiment in Anglo-Caribbean states would have to be adjudged a stunning success. Foreign scholars who have looked comparatively at the record have deemed it extraordinary.While these encomiums are perhaps deserved, a closer look would lead one to conclude that the basic values that kept Caribbean democracy on track are being eroded, and that the supporting institutions are at risk.

Particular attention has been directed to political parties, parliament and the justice system. One of the main challenges which Caribbean states now face is the need to source money to finance the operational as well as election related expenses of political parties at a time when public opinion is deeply distrustful and cynical about parties and their leaders. Research has shown that only a minority support state funding either fully or in part. The general feeling is that Caribbean states do not have the capacity to monitor and audit election expenditure, and that the funds, if given, would not serve to reduce election related corruption.

There is however concern that much too much money is spent on the carnival type campaigns that have become a feature of Caribbean elections, which on a per capita basis, rivals what is spent in metropolitan jurisdictions.There is also concern that small parties have no chance of getting a toe hold in parliament, given the fact elections are conducted on a first- past- the- post system.

This of course raises questions as to where the funds have come from in the past and where they will come from in the future. There is concern across the region that absent state funding, the political systems have become prisoner to political entrepreneurs, with or without narco-traffic connections, and/or governments such as Japan or Taiwan which are prepared to buy diplomatic support or deny it to others. Although it is difficult to document reports that illegal or dirty money is used to fund elections,they are not without some foundation.

The problem is compounded by the crime problem generally and the growth of gangs in particular, which threaten to subvert and overwhelm every Caribbean state. Rates of gang related homicides are unacceptably high, and crime has become one of the most important wedge issues in electoral campaigns leading to party turnover. Crime in fact destabilises the political and justice systems of many Caribbean states, and there is agonised concern at the highest levels that Caribbean states are in a state of pre-collapse.

The justice systems in some islands are in fact collapsing under the weight of runaway criminality. Criminals have taken to murdering anyone, including police officials, who dare to serve as eyewitnesses to crimes. The fact of smallness also serves to aggravate the perception that danger lurks every where. Levels of crime that are barely visible in a large state give rise to panic and fear a micro state. There is no place to hide.

The phenomenon of the "elective monarchy" which has been in evidence almost everywhere, also assumes great significance in the microstates of the Caribbean, none of which have free floating assets or the critical mass required to support institutions which could successfully challenge the executive. As one Prime Minister put it, "things fall apart: the centre is too strong." Parliamentary institutions in all the islands are weak, overburdened, and under-resourced. Given their small size, there are few government backbenchers to serve on parliamentary committee. Governments are understandably uncomfortable with committees which are chaired by opposition MPs who do not merely scrutinise policy, but regard the committees as kingdoms or powerbases for opposition politics.Civil society, like the media,which are expected to perform scrutinising functions are tribalised and partisan and not seen as legitimate sources of information.

Globalisation has likewise served to enlarge the "democratic deficit" that characterises Caribbean states. The complaint is that important agreements are often entered into without them having been vetted by the public at large or even by elected representatives. The most recent instance of this is the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) which was finalised last December between CARIFORUM and the European Union.Some citizen groups have complained that the general public was not adequately consulted on the matter. Other examples could be given.

Pessimists complain that Caribbean states are collapsing under the combined onslaught of pressures coming from the global economy, the drug trade, American generated televised popular culture, the activities deportees and home grown criminals, as well as the various other factors which have leached the stock of good social capital that was inherited at independence.

Optimists however claim that the region is in dynamic and in creative transition, and that the destruction which we are witnessing is the detritus that accompanies new birth. Others argue that if one looks at what is taking place in the realm of economic governance conjointly with what is taking place in the sphere of political governance, there is no justification whatever for optimism. All is lost. My own pessimism is not unrelieved.

Author's Note: The above was delivered on Tuesday, March 18, to a Workshop entitled, Reflections on Independence; British Policy in the Caribbean for the 21st Century, held at the Institute of Commonwealth Studies, London, UK.

Posted March 16th. 2008 - Trinidad Express

By Selwyn Ryan

Criminality and State failure

Justice Mark Mohammed warned us recently that Trinidad and Tobago faced the distinct prospect of becoming a "failed state". The learned judge solemnly observed that "the criminal justice system presently faces challenges more serious than at any other time in this country's history. The very fabric of our society is being eroded. If such challenges are left unabated, Trinidad and Tobago is on the path of becoming a failed state". Mohammed's wake up call echoed another made by Justice Carmona who advised those who had ears to hear that rank criminality had become deeply imbricated in the URP. The judge warned that "the criminal system is now under siege and the barbarians are at the gates"!

These two powerful statements from the Bench must have sent chills down many a spine. Some might argue that m'luds were somewhat alarmist and that Trinidad and Tobago is neither a "failed" or a "failing state"; nor is it likely to become one very soon. One is reminded of Sniper's 1962 Independence calypso (Portrait of Trinidad) in which he reprimanded those who bad-talked the country and its violence, "as if we were fighting war"!

Failed states are those which at a minimum cannot provide basic physical security for its citizens, a reasonable supply of potable water and the minimum calorie needs to keep the human body alive. States are also said to be failures when their judicial and administrative systems collapse, when levels of grand corruption reach chronic and unacceptable levels, when the mechanisms for collecting taxes are atrophied, when large chunks of its real estate have been captured or are under the control of insurgents and no one has a monopoly of the instruments of official violence. Failure is also indicated when the state has become a criminal enterprise and its putative leadership has lost the affect of large and strategically positioned groups.

Clearly Trinidad and Tobago does not fit the template of the failed state. It is however not without significance that the spectre of failure should have arisen at a time when others are talking about 20/20 vision and Trinidad and Tobago becoming a developed state. It also comes at a time when elites are busily putting in place conspicuous symbols of development-executive jets, glass wrapped mega complexes, diplomatic centres, and other structures considered to be indicative of modernity.

Notwithstanding the fact that Trinidad is not a failed state or even a failing state, most objective observers would agree that a viable criminal justice system is one of the essential pillars of a modern state, and that ours is wobbling perilously. The Prime Minister is himself aware that what he is trying to achieve as we sashay towards 20/20 will come to nought if we do not fix the criminal justice system. As he told an audience in Mona, Jamaica, on February 23, "failure to effectively deal with the issue of crime could stymie the economic and social development of the Caribbean". Not withstanding this awareness, the government does not seem to know how to do what it knows has to be done. If the problem is not political will, as we are assured it is not, what then is the problem? What are the constraints? Is it bureaucratic indolence? Why do we not enforce anything?

The Trinidad and Tobago Manufacturers Association (TTMA) recently brought together key officials and NGO stakeholders in January to create a road map that would help us to exit our Gethsemane. The proposed package included greater use of closed circuit cameras, more night patrols using vehicles with GPS systems, the use of video links to take evidence from vulnerable witnesses, the legalisation of wiretapping, the abolition of preliminary inquiries, scrutiny by a justice committee of laws relating to crime control which are being brought before parliament, the establishing of gun and drug courts, enhancing the witness protection system etc.

The TTMA also proposed some long term initiatives involving the creation of a justice ministry, a number of community based activities in partnership with the UNDP and the IDB etc. The TTMA's emphasis was however on control mechanisms rather than on prevention alternatives. The question, however, is whether it got the mix right for our particular set of circumstances. We shall return to this question.

In a recent report on the crime problem (February 2, 2008), the Economist noted that homicide rates across the region vary substantially. We have very high rates- 59 per 100,000, in Jamaica, 36, 33 and 32 per 100,000 respectively in St Vincent, Belize and St Kitts, 30 per 100,000 in Trinidad and Tobago, and lower rates, 25, 23, 11 per 100,000 in the Bahamas, Antigua, and Barbados respectively.

The problem is however perceived differently in each island. "In some islands, a climate of fear curtails everyday routines Crime [however] barely featured in last year's elections in The Bahamas and in Jamaica But in Trinidad and Guyana, political polarisation has brought calls for get tough policies such as "zero-tolerance", the enforcement of the death penalty, and the imposition of a state of emergency."

The Economist argues that levels of violence and public reactions to crime surges depend in part on who the victims are, and the state of the turf on which gang battles are fought. "Violence surges when gang politics are unsettled. Fights break out over turf, bad debts, or deals gone sour. Rivalries peak when supplies run dry and when arrests and deaths create a leadership vacuum."

This scenario, one in which there is no established don, and in which violence is decentralised, seems to describe our scenario. The state might have succeeded in incapacitating one element only to give birth to another. This suggests that our circumstances might well change as gang leadership resolidifies. If so, we might find that instead of state failure, we might end up not with a 20/20 creature, but with a monstrosity in which both success and failure are inextricably admixed.

To be continued

Posted March 9th. 2008 - Trinidad Express

By Selwyn Ryan

The EPA: Pandora's Box?

The Economic Partnership Agreement signed between Cariforum countries and the European Union last December continues to excite controversy. There is a strong view among the region's intellectuals that the Agreement is a virtual Pandora's Box, full of nasty surprises. The intellectuals warn that "after April 1st, Caribbean countries will be locked in for all time to the provisions of this legally binding instrument. It will be very difficult, and in all likelihood be very costly, to amend the EPA after it comes into force." The demand is that the formal signing by Caribbean Heads be deferred until such time as the Caribbean people have had an opportunity to assess the full implications of the document.

Critics of the EPA Agreement claim that the negotiations took place untransparently between unequal partners, and that the Caribbean was the victim of a fragmented negotiation machinery which effectively sidelined Caricom and allowed the Caribbean Regional Negotiating Machinery (CRNM) to be a "runaway horse", virtually doing its own thing without proper mandates from the political directorates of the region who were said to be too busy and preoccupied with national elections to pay proper attention to the abiding needs of the region. The negotiation process was seen to be a "collective governance failure." It is said that CRNM negotiators had a "mandate constraint", were often unsure of what could be put on the table, and went into the negotiations with their eyes "wide shut"

A related criticism was that the Caribbean never identified what its collective self-interest was, and that this created an ideological vacuum which the EU exploited. The latter, it was alleged, had a vision of global trade which was reflected in its negotiations, an approach which had been contested and collectively rejected by the African, Caribbean and Pacific(ACP) group when they functioned as an integrated unit. The fragmentation of the ACP was said to be the result of a divide and govern strategy that was adopted by the perfidious EU.

In terms of content, the criticism is that the EU did not take into account the level of development of the ACP countries. As such, the rights of access to the European market which the weak private sector has been given would remain paper rights, not only because they would be neutralized by non-tariff barriers which would be difficult to vault, but also because the right to trade would only be operationalised after a certain development threshold had been realised. In other words, trade follows development and not the reverse.

It was acknowledged that the EU had allocated seemingly large sums of money to help the Caribbean deal with poverty and some the problems that would arise in the period of transition, especially in the less developed states which relied on customs duties to meet their fiscal needs. It was however noted that when the fund was divided into fifteen parcels, it was not a great deal of money, and that in any event, the EU bureaucracy makes it very difficult to access and disburse the budgeted funds, most of which were consumed by European consultants.

EU spokesmen have vigorously disputed these allegations. They assert that what Europe wanted was a stable, secure and peaceful world that was free of war and poverty. Their "hidden agenda", if indeed there was one, also included good and transparent regional and national governance, and the achievement of these goals in the shortest possible time. It was further argued that much of what was inserted in the EPA was a by-product of the WTO regime to which everyone had to subscribe once one was a member of the WTO.

CRNM spokesmen basically agreed with the EU that the EPA had to be WTO compatible and that there had to be a progressive and calibrated removal of barriers to trade among the parties. Richard Bernal, the region's chief negotiator, insists that "it would be untrue to suggest that reciprocity was an issue that was sprung upon the Caribbean overnight.

It was in fact part of the commitments entered into by all our governments." Bernal also reminded Professor Clive Thomas et al,"in today's world, no country- large or small-has any choice but to integrate itself into global supply chains." It was also misleading to claim that preferences were now"history". As Junior Lodge, the CRNM's Technical Coordinator observed, "Caricom needed to bind current levels of EU preferences and immunize such preferences from WTO litigation."He is satisfied that this was achieved.

CRNM spokesmen also deny that the EPA was negotiated without advice from regional producers and governments. "Almost any product that one can think of that is of some importance to the region's producers has been completely excluded from the Agreement and will not be subject to tariff reduction. Moreover, only 8.3 per cent of imports from the EU will be liberalized by the end of 10 years." Again, it is also untrue to say that the Agreement gives the EU unrestricted access to the procurement processes of Caribbean Governments.

Bernal expressed satisfaction with the agreement which he deemed "fair and balanced, if not perfect As in any negotiation, there had to be compromises, and this took place on both sides. It contains safeguards as well as institutional mechanisms for addressing problematic issues that may arise in the course of implementation. It also contains many innovative features that are of benefit to the Caribbean, and it is up to us in the region to take full advantage of its provisions."

Jamaican Prime Minister Bruce Golding echoed Bernal:"Did we get all we asked for? No! Did we get a good deal? I say yes." So far, I am inclined to agree. Only time will tell whether the ingredient of hope that alone remained in Pandora's box after it was opened would be realised. I suspect that more would be required.