In Defense of our Democracy... (Reject the Debate)

Back when he was challenging for the post of Governor of California, fans of Arnold Schwarzenegger in the United States were denied the pleasure of seeing his movies on network and cable television due to the equal time rule that was interpreted in those circumstances to mean that anytime one of his movies were aired it gave him an unfair advantage due to 'face-time' and 'mindshare' with the voters and that the networks and cable companies would then by law be obligated to give all his opponents an equal amount of time so that the system could remain fair and the playing field level. This is how things are done in a country where both the process and the voter are respected. Contrast and compare that to the Imperial United Banana Republic of Trinidad & Tobago, where a grouping of the monied class as a Chamber of Commerce could fling together an overnight Debates Commission and autocratically and undemocratically unilaterally determine who gets 'allowed' to speak to the people of Trinidad & Tobago.

It is my view that on Sunday October 6th of this year when the Congress of the People had cause to put out a release challenging the Debates Commission's refusal to allow them into the debate they had and still have a very strong case. The refusal has been based on the flimsy grounds of them being part of a coalition but that is pure hogwash and it is my view that what is taking place here is something much more sinister, an attempt to control our electoral system by persons controlled by no law.

But before we get to that let us deal with their position: A coalition is an arrangement made 'before the fact' to pool winnings but is determined by conditions after that fact. Any two parties can agree to pool their winnings to form a government, but for that to occur the winnings have to first take place, not so? So can a coalition exist between parties that have no access to the House of Representatives? On paper yes, but what would be the point?

The reality is that the Congress of the People and the National Joint Action Committee (who are equally disenfranchised by this ruling) are about to square off against opponents that are  going to afforded public fora from which to make all manner of claims and allegations that these two parties are going to be denied, creating an unfair situation and putting them at a disadvantage. Secondly (and perhaps more importantly) the Parliament itself creates its own 'coalition after the fact' as the appointment of a Prime Minister is predicated upon the member most likely to command the greatest support in the House of Representatives. For the Debates Commission to debar any candidate or party over this is to attempt to frustrate the will of the voters from 'in front' and that is something that MUST be resisted at all costs.

The fact is the EBC itself does not recognize alliances or coalitions so who is the Debates Commission to make any such determination? There are also arguments that could be made that the People's National Movement and Movement for Social Justice are themselves a coalition in the Round Table and have as much paper work between them as do the members of the Partnership, so why are they not also barred? See why this decision is fraught with positions that are easily challenged and disputed and should be vacated for the greater good?

It is my view that the Debates Commission should have one criteria for persons desirable of entering the debates and that must be 'fit and proper' recognition by the Elections & Boundaries Commission. Once properly registered as a candidate the Debates Commission should be bound to allow all parties equal time and expression otherwise this would all amount to nothing more than a controlled event based on criteria not recognized in our electoral system, stripping it of any value and turning it into cheap entertainment and a farce.

There are some who will have trouble grasping the concept and others still who will disagree out of prejudice for the parties concerned, but that is a foolish position to take. My advocacy here has nothing to do with the actual COP and the NJAC and everything to do with the dangerous precedent about to be set. There is a slippery slope to be avoided here; you ought not to encourage and should not have any group or organization outside of the electoral system making decisions on the process, even if it's something as innocuous as a debate. Precedents get set. Today the issue could be as seemingly unimportant as who is allowed to debate, tomorrow it could be who is allowed to run for elections.

It has always been my position that instead of further restricting we should be deepening our democracy and I have been an advocate for the removal of the deposit that is an obstacle and a bar to genuine independents making themselves available for elections, and for strong campaign finance legislation that puts a cap on the spend for any one constituency campaign to protect small candidates from being drowned by the deep pockets of political speculators and party financiers. money men.

If all the parties are not allowed NONE of the parties should take part. To allow this is to rip up and discard our very Constitution and hand over the determination of our government to faceless, nameless others and this needs to be challenged by every patriot, resisted by every voter and rejected by every citizen of the Republic of Trinidad & Tobago. If all parties are not afforded equal time in the debate we the people of Trinidad & Tobago are morally obligated to reject it. Boycott the debate.