So what now, people?

February 19, 2001

President Robinson, being of the view that the issue has been sufficiently aired, has opted to act on the advice of the Prime Minister and appoint the seven losers to the Senate.

A great many of our renowned political pundits and analysts, who had made much ado about the impasse between the two key office-holders in this land, and who, in their new-found excitement, had even gone on to describe the impasse as a constitutional crisis rather than a mere symptom of the ongoing, enduring crisis, are now left to wonder with egg all over their faces.

Others, bent on holding on to the coattails of a politically activated President, are even expressing a sense of betrayal. It seems the "inveterate blunderer", who previously was seen as extremely stubborn and someone who never "backs down", has now supposedly abandoned his natural stance and, worse yet, has even become a "lame duck", "discredited" activist.

It seems everybody wished the President to fight the battle of their dreams, for if he regally fought the battle on their behalf, then there would be no need for them to orchestrate and fight for themselves.

We need clearly to disabuse ourselves of such a view. People acting on their own behalf is the only basis of new politics. The intervention of the people through various structures must become habitual.

The development of personal conflicts over questions of governance and the resolution of any such impasse between executives and big jefes usually end up being meaningless if the people are not brought, or do not come, into the picture to formulate new policy for the betterment of civilisation.

In our scheme of things it matters not, or it is of no import, whether the people intervene by accident of fate or by way of contrivance. History works that out. According to the Rastas, "Something have to happen for something to happen."

There are burning questions with which people have to fearlessly concerned themselves. We have been saying all along that all the fundamental relationships that comprise our society have broken down because all our social structures and institutions have become outdated.

UNC's excesses and refusal to accede to accepted behaviour and convention have only served to escalate and expose the breakdown.

Whether the PM and the President appoint the seven losers is not in itself fundamental. What is important is what is to be the required relationship for the moment between MPs and the people whom they were elected to represent.

How are these representatives to function when the very function of "representing" is being questioned? And in the context of this required relationship between MP and people, what happens or what is to be worked out at community level when a "loser" comes back to the constituency to rain on the parade of the legitimate MP?

What shall the communities have to say for themselves in this regard. And what is to be the relationship between Central Government itself and the communities? Finally, and most important, how are these very burning questions to be addressed and how are the people to be organised to let their voices and opinions be heard and be acted upon?

Then there are of course all those questions that have arisen since the last election. Election petitions have been filed over the issue of voter padding. The legitimacy of two sitting MPs has also been placed before the courts, and the integrity of the EBC itself is being constantly questioned.

How are these issues to be resolved? Can the courts really resolve them? At this point it is difficult to say, anyone's guess may be good. But should all these political issues be merely left up to the members of the Judiciary, are they independent and fearless enough to really adjudicate or will their adjudication merely lead to even further antagonisms?

The real big problem is that there are not many tried and tested leaders, whether in or out of office, who have the moral authority and legitimacy to rally the whole people, to summon the people regardless of race, class and geography to constitute themselves to act on their own behalf and empower themselves to determine the new relationships that are essential at all levels if we are to move beyond the present morass. Are we people who have suddenly lost the will to act? And where are the new leaders that must emerge to ring the bell?