THE RE-election of a People’s National Movement (PNM) government and the ousting of the People’s Partnership after one term in office in the September 7 general election in Trinidad and Tobago confirms the general anti-incumbency mood of the Caribbean, which has been evident since the turn of the century, more specifically around 2006.
In a recent paper accepted by an international journal, I have provided evidence to show that the general recent response of Caribbean voters, with one or two exceptions, is to either reject incumbent governments or to re-elect them with very narrow margins (narrow escapes).
Whilst the individual story of each Caribbean election may throw up specific local idiosyncrasies explaining the outcome of their separate elections, the general tendency towards one-term governments, rejection of incumbents, small majorities, near-misses and narrow escapes requires analytical explanation.
What has happened that has made the Caribbean voter less loyal to parties and less willing to vote governments for two or three terms? Why are Caribbean voters less willing to entrust a single leader with prime ministerial power for three terms while in the past, there was almost a messianic attachment to the early post-colonial leaders, with some countries like Antigua, Trinidad and St Lucia witnessing the reign of one party or leader for sometimes two decades and others like Barbados and Jamaica having guaranteed two terms for the respective parties?
One possible explanation which I have been offering is the reality of the collapse of the social democratic order and the refusal by the voter to give electoral consent to the neo-liberal turn which is now being championed by intellectually bankrupt governments and their technocratic advisors. Thus, whilst the early post-colonial leaders might have been plagued with many weaknesses, particularly their undemocratic and authoritarian tendencies, their commitment to the social democratic expansion of health care, education, housing and other social amenities were rewarded with re-election as part of the broad post-colonial social contract.
Among the arguments of the current champions of neo-liberalism is that whilst governments should de-emphasise social-democratic economic and social interventions on behalf of the poor, they should seek to ensure “good governance” broadly interpreted as the expansion of individual rights and the introduction of measures to curtail the authoritarian excesses of governments. Thus, the introduction of term limits, the right to recall, and the introduction of integrity legislation are offered by neo-liberals as liberal, technical substitutes to the traditional social-democratic interventions by the state.
What is interesting about the Trinidad and Tobago case is that this was precisely the agenda of Kamla Persad-Bissessar and the People’s Partnership. Its rejection by the voters after one term is yet another reminder to those willing to listen, that social democracy remains the principal basis upon which the legitimacy of the Caribbean post-colonial order can be assured. Forward Ever!
• Tennyson Joseph is a political scientist at the University of the West Indies, Cave Hill Campus, specialising in regional affairs. Email [email protected].
