Ryan Hadeed
Having had six years of tertiary education, my knowledge base puts me somewhere between “knowing a little bit about a lot of things” and “knowing a lot about a few things”. Admittedly, one thing I know next to nothing about...is economics. I can recite a few textbook definitions and theories, but when it comes to an understanding of the subject, I'm as clueless as Rohan Sinanan on the shortage of motor vehicle inspection stickers. Personally, I try to adhere to one maxim when it comes to financial matters, and that's simply not to spend money that I don't have. At face value, it sounds like simple common sense. However, as is typical in T&T, common sense isn't so common, especially amongst our political class.
Much has already been said about the prime minister's recent two-part address; there were analyses galore from experts and just as many criticisms from the Opposition. While the debate continues as to the validity of the assertions that he made and the interpretation of the supplied facts and figures, perhaps the most important questions that have yet to be asked are “what prompted Dr Rowley to give that address” and “did he honestly think it was going to be well-received”?
From the get-go, it was evident that Dr Rowley was attempting to create a certain forum in the hopes of connecting with the audience, those in attendance and everyone else viewing from home. His choice of attire—the sport coat sans necktie—conveyed a casual style that was similar to the “conversations” meetings that he started during the first year of his term.
Unfortunately for him (and for us, quite frankly), his appearance was probably the only aspect of the event that hit the right note because everything else…just fell flat.
If one considers that the medium can sometimes matter just as much as the message itself, then Dr Rowley was a horrible messenger. When compared to his predecessors, ole Keithos just doesn't have the charisma and likeability of Patos and Uncle Bas. In contrast, he has become famously known for his gruff, boorish demeanour, both inside and outside of the Parliament. This was the persona that stood before the national community to speak on the important issue of the state of the economy. And while he might have said a lot of interesting things, the only moment that really stood out in my mind was his shrill repetition of, “…the ferry, the ferry, the ferry”. It sounded like he was throwing a tantrum; hardly appropriate behaviour for a prime minister. Added to that, his constant refrain of “mind your business” was awkwardly executed and came off sounding condescending instead of clever. In my opinion, Dr Rowley is not someone who inspires confidence and leadership. In fact, every time he is expected to address the country, I would advise him to conveniently develop a case of laryngitis and have his multi-minister extraordinaire Stuart Young read from a prepared statement. (Not that I care much for his arrogance either.)
'A protracted blaming session'
Delivery aside, the contents of the address were sorely lacking as well. Taking every opportunity to pat himself on the back, the cornerstone of Dr Rowley's thesis was that his administration was able to “do more with less”. But the constant comparison to the previous UNC-led government turned the event into a protracted blaming session. Whether he's right or not, the irony is that Dr Rowley is guilty of doing the same thing he once so famously railed against ie, blaming the Opposition. This, of course, refers to a comment he made in April, 2013, bemoaning the constant criticism being levelled against the PNM following their loss in 2010. In fairness to him, he wasn't the party's political leader back then. However, resorting to that oh-so-familiar tactic seemed to smack of desperation. And one can't help but conclude that the entire event was a campaign rally masquerading as an address to the nation. I half expected the televised event to end with the slogan, “Vote PNM 2020—We're red and ready…this time we mean it.”
I suspect that a lot of Trinbagonians who watched the address felt it was a complete waste of their time. Which is ironic because it was probably also a waste of their tax dollars. But I don't think it was because they, like yours truly, lack an understanding of fiscal matters. The prime minister said absolutely nothing of substance; it was more of the same ole political rhetoric with no worthwhile ideas on how his government intends to strengthen our economy.
In a discussion hosted by CNC3 following the second half of the presentation, Nirad Tewarie, chief executive officer at the American Chamber of Commerce of T&T, commented that our country stands at a crossroad against the backdrop of a world in the midst of a major upheaval. And I think he made a valid observation. T&T has been caught flat-footed, both economically and diplomatically. Not only is there a global trend to cut back on the use of fossil fuels, but the dominance of the West is being challenged by the rise of new powers, China especially. New security alliances and trade agreements are being made while old ones are being discarded or redefined. Our political class is more concerned with grasping and holding on to power than they are with formulating a concerted plan to adapt and (hopefully) thrive in this emerging world order; the petty discourse between the PNM and the UNC shows us where their priorities lie. And perhaps therein lies the greatest irony of all. For just as our dependence on petroleum has resulted in our economic downfall, our continued reliance on the current political class, with its retrogressive thinking, will ultimately lead to our country's downfall as well.