Common sense and the politics of opposition

You've no doubt heard the saying that common sense is not so common. Well in case you're wondering, it's true.

Take the politics of Trinidad and Tobago today. The common sense reality is that the nation is under siege by criminals – kidnappers, murderers, thieves and thugs. The government is bankrupt of any ideas about how to deal with the crime and its performance generally is so pathetic, people will gladly trade their government for a viable alternative.

But where is that government in waiting?

Basdeo Panday knows. And that's why he is calling for all politicians who oppose the PNM to unite to remove the Manning regime from office. It's good common sense. But Manohar Ramsaran and Sadiq Baksh and other born-again politicians dressed in the robes of “new politics” are quick off the mark to shoot down this plan.

They claim to be close to the grassroots, to be gifted with the common touch, capable to understanding what it is like to move from the ground floor up. Yet they lack the vision to see plain ol' common sense.

Panday on the other hand understands the predicament of the people today and is ready to build a coalition to achieve the primary goal: boot out the PNM. Panday’s recent judicial victory gives him more political muscle and lends credence to the UNC.

Patrick Manning commands the full resources of the state. And he has certain "community leaders" on his side who are more than willing to "lend their expertise" to ensure that Manning returns to power.

That itself puts any opposition at a monumental disadvantage. But common sense tells you that there is within the opposition enough talent and commitment to convince a confused and desperate electorate that they can change things.

Do a quick analysis and the picture gets into sharp focus. PNM and its allies are clear on their goal. And they are united. The opposition is also clear but fragmented. Each opposition group has the same primary goal, so the common sense thing to do would be to make the next election a one-on-one battle: one opposition candidate versus a PNM in each of the 41 constituencies. It's the only hope in hell that the opposition has any chance of unseating the PNM.

The obvious question is why try this approach again? Well the circumstances are quite different. This is neither 1981 nor 1986. It's close to 1995, except much worse.

In fact there is so much dejavu you have to pinch yourself to know you’re awake and it’s real.

Think of it: Manning fighting and persecuting a top (Indian) official, the courts hounding and putting Panday on trial for a charge that gets tossed out, crime on the rise, and Panday and the UNC are fighting a third force, the NAR.

Sounds familiar? Well that was 1995. In that election Panday beat the odds and put Manning out of business. Panday can do it again, but only if there is a one-on-one fight. And it’s pie-in-the-sky to think that Dookeran and his COP can do it; they missed their opportunity a long time ago and it won’t come back.

People are fed up. They want to move the PNM. They know Manning has failed them in every aspect of national life. They live in self-imposed prisons. In spite of the oil windfalls, the economy is under threat.

Although many people are seeing more money in their pockets everybody knows that this is for short-term political expediency. Keeping Manning in office is the last thing any right-thinking person wants.

But the constituency that's clamouring for change – which happens to be the majority – is confused because it has to split its loyalty among the various opposition elements.

And what makes this a truly difficult situation is that each opposition party is fishing in the same lake for the same fish. Manning on the other hand has his exclusive pond. And he keeps it like a modern-day fish farm, where more and more fish are added artificially.

And there lies a fundamental problem, but also a reason for optimism. The opposition has a lake; he has a pond. That’s not confusing as it might seem.

Remember that in each constituency, four out of every six qualified elector doesn’t vote. They are the fish that the opposition can catch this time; even two out of four will make the difference. And some of the PNM fish are ready to swim away. So why can't everybody understand that the only common-sense thing to do is sit down, work things out, collate ideas and strategies and fight one battle and win the war?

Even with a combined one-to-one effort, beating Manning will still be like climbing a greasy pole. But it's the only way. And the opposition can do it.

Here's why. For starters, the opposition has 16 seats in Parliament and ran a close second in three others. That means, in a one-on-one fight chances of winning these 19 seats are very good. In a splintered multi-party race, it's a given that Manning will run away with several of these 19 seats. But 19 is just two seats short of a majority. There are five new constituencies and a combined, responsible opposition can win those two seats from among the five.

Why isn’t everybody clutching on to this lifeline?

Simple. Politicians aren't as smart as they want us to believe. They don't have the common sense to see that's the most obvious thing to do. They prefer to be selfish and lose everything than to build a strong coalition and win the prize. I

It's true, because unfortunately, like my mother always told me, “common sense not so common.”

Jai Parasram | Toronto, May 28, 2007