In 1966 a new political party made a bold attempt to achieve a breakthrough in Trinidad & Tobago's polarised ethnic politics. It failed. The country was still divided between supporters of the People's National Movement (PNM) and the Democratic Labour party (DLP), the two major parties in the country.
The Workers and Farmers Party (WFP) believed that the country had enough of racial politics and entered the political area on the premise that it could change that and convince people to vote for principles that were above the narrow ethnic divide.
For example, Panday's non-Indian candidates Errol Mc Leod (Oropouche) and Paul Harrison (Caroni East) won easily in traditional DLP (Indian) constituencies, demonstrating allegiance to a leader.
Other ULF candidates like David Abdullah (Tunapuna) and John Abrahams (Pointe-a-Pierre), both respected OWTU members, were defeated by the PNM because oil workers did not see Weekes as the ULF leader.
Labour might have fared better in a more focused campaign but Williams and the PNM were on a high and won a clear majority of 24 seats; the ULF won 10 and for the first time the PNM lost the two Tobago seats, which went to ANR Robinson and Dr Winston Murray of the Democratic Action Congress (DAC).
In 1976, Labour's message was also muffled in the political din with at least 12 parties fighting for a share of the pie.
Today, Labour is again agitating for recognition. It claims that it represents the largest constituency in Trinidad & Tobago. There is no doubt that the majority of the electorate are "workers". The question is whether these voters are prepared to risk their future and the country's future by electing trade unionists to government.
It's not that there is anything fundamentally wrong with electing a trade union leader. After all Panday led one of the better governments in Trinidad & Tobago.
The Workers and Farmers Party (WFP) believed that the country had enough of racial politics and entered the political area on the premise that it could change that and convince people to vote for principles that were above the narrow ethnic divide.
Among the people in that movement were Basdeo Panday, a young lawyer, and George Weekes, the respected leader of the powerful Oilfield Workers Trade Union (OWTU).
The experiment failed miserably. The electorate rejected the idea and the party. All its candidates lost their deposits, including Panday and Weekes. They regrouped later after Panday had taken control of the sugar union, hoping to realise the same dream of a party of ideas, involving anyone who shared the vision regardless of race, religion or social standing.
Panday spoke about it in an interview with People magazine, which is quoted in the book, CRISIS, edited by Owen Baptiste (Inprint 1976).
"By the end of September 1974, I had won the struggle for guaranteed work and I felt I had the loyalty of the workers. I went to George Weekes...and I told him that the time had come to continue the job we stated in 1966. We had to unite the workers in such a way as to get rid of the racial antagonisms that prevailed. We proposed a rally in December 1974 but because of some internal problems in the OWU we postponed it to February 18".
The venue was Skinner Park. Twenty-five thousand people - workers and non-workers - attended the launch of the United Labour Front (ULF) and heard speeches from Panday, Weekes and Raffique Shah, who was the leader of the country's cane farmers.
Journalist Raoul Pantin called it "the biggest labour rally ever held" and described the ULF as a serious force to be reckoned with.
In the Sunday Express of February 23, 1975 he wrote: "Here was a clear demonstration of joint action by the two biggest sectors of the labour force.
"And the fact that one section was rural and Indian and the other was urban and black only heightened the occasion. So whatever the government or anybody else might think the fact is that on Tuesday the workers in oil and sugar showed they could stand united around a common cause."
The motive of the new labour body was clear. Shah had told the crowd, "We must now consolidate and institutionalise the power which we now have to get control of the state."
That never happened. In fact it was journalist Jeff Hackett who touched on what was perhaps the most significant issue of the day.
Writing in the Express, Hackett wondered if Panday had become "the fair, fearless prince who would lead his people out of the wilderness".
The experiment failed miserably. The electorate rejected the idea and the party. All its candidates lost their deposits, including Panday and Weekes. They regrouped later after Panday had taken control of the sugar union, hoping to realise the same dream of a party of ideas, involving anyone who shared the vision regardless of race, religion or social standing.
Panday spoke about it in an interview with People magazine, which is quoted in the book, CRISIS, edited by Owen Baptiste (Inprint 1976).
"By the end of September 1974, I had won the struggle for guaranteed work and I felt I had the loyalty of the workers. I went to George Weekes...and I told him that the time had come to continue the job we stated in 1966. We had to unite the workers in such a way as to get rid of the racial antagonisms that prevailed. We proposed a rally in December 1974 but because of some internal problems in the OWU we postponed it to February 18".
The venue was Skinner Park. Twenty-five thousand people - workers and non-workers - attended the launch of the United Labour Front (ULF) and heard speeches from Panday, Weekes and Raffique Shah, who was the leader of the country's cane farmers.
Journalist Raoul Pantin called it "the biggest labour rally ever held" and described the ULF as a serious force to be reckoned with.
In the Sunday Express of February 23, 1975 he wrote: "Here was a clear demonstration of joint action by the two biggest sectors of the labour force.
"And the fact that one section was rural and Indian and the other was urban and black only heightened the occasion. So whatever the government or anybody else might think the fact is that on Tuesday the workers in oil and sugar showed they could stand united around a common cause."
The motive of the new labour body was clear. Shah had told the crowd, "We must now consolidate and institutionalise the power which we now have to get control of the state."
That never happened. In fact it was journalist Jeff Hackett who touched on what was perhaps the most significant issue of the day.
Writing in the Express, Hackett wondered if Panday had become "the fair, fearless prince who would lead his people out of the wilderness".
He suggested that Panday might be the natural successor to the "broken Democratic Labour Party (DLP) dream" and become the new "Baba" in the sugar belt, a reference to Bhadase Maraj who had been a champion of the Indian working class and also a political arch rival of Dr Eric Williams and the governing PNM.
While the rally stunned the nation the events that followed failed to materialise into political power.
Labour had united the races under a common banner of "bread, peace and justice" but the people refused to be seduced by the slogan, "let those who labour hold the reins". And ethnicity proved to be a more powerful motivator than labour unity.
In the General election of 1976 the PNM was returned to power. And Hackett's speculation turned out to be right. Panday had indeed become the new messiah on the plains of Caroni.
The man who had hoped to end racial politics soon discovered that despite his efforts he had not succeeded in creating a winning labour party; all he had done was to replace the DLP as another Indian party.
The ULF failed to attract any significant support among voters in the non-traditional DLP areas where people saw Panday as the leader of the party.
While the rally stunned the nation the events that followed failed to materialise into political power.
Labour had united the races under a common banner of "bread, peace and justice" but the people refused to be seduced by the slogan, "let those who labour hold the reins". And ethnicity proved to be a more powerful motivator than labour unity.
In the General election of 1976 the PNM was returned to power. And Hackett's speculation turned out to be right. Panday had indeed become the new messiah on the plains of Caroni.
The man who had hoped to end racial politics soon discovered that despite his efforts he had not succeeded in creating a winning labour party; all he had done was to replace the DLP as another Indian party.
The ULF failed to attract any significant support among voters in the non-traditional DLP areas where people saw Panday as the leader of the party.
For example, Panday's non-Indian candidates Errol Mc Leod (Oropouche) and Paul Harrison (Caroni East) won easily in traditional DLP (Indian) constituencies, demonstrating allegiance to a leader.
Other ULF candidates like David Abdullah (Tunapuna) and John Abrahams (Pointe-a-Pierre), both respected OWTU members, were defeated by the PNM because oil workers did not see Weekes as the ULF leader.
Labour might have fared better in a more focused campaign but Williams and the PNM were on a high and won a clear majority of 24 seats; the ULF won 10 and for the first time the PNM lost the two Tobago seats, which went to ANR Robinson and Dr Winston Murray of the Democratic Action Congress (DAC).
In 1976, Labour's message was also muffled in the political din with at least 12 parties fighting for a share of the pie.
Today, Labour is again agitating for recognition. It claims that it represents the largest constituency in Trinidad & Tobago. There is no doubt that the majority of the electorate are "workers". The question is whether these voters are prepared to risk their future and the country's future by electing trade unionists to government.
It's not that there is anything fundamentally wrong with electing a trade union leader. After all Panday led one of the better governments in Trinidad & Tobago.
However his United National Congress (UNC) was not a LABOUR party. And once in government Panday realised that he had work closely with the "parasitic oligarchy" that he had denounced in his years fighting for the cause of workers.
The reality is that effective governance requires more than desk thumping trade union negotiators. Yes, labour parties have governed in many countries including Great Britain. However they were much more than a group of trade union activists.
The reality is that effective governance requires more than desk thumping trade union negotiators. Yes, labour parties have governed in many countries including Great Britain. However they were much more than a group of trade union activists.
If Labour is serious about getting organised into a political movement that expects to win power it must first rebrand itself as a responsible organisation that can see beyond the short sighted needs of the worker. To run a country requires a commitment to everyone, not just one group or tribe.
No comments:
Post a Comment