JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Monday, March 17, 2025

A failure of leadership

by

Curtis Williams
1250 days ago
20211014

Carl Schmitt, one of the fore­most Ger­man in­tel­lec­tu­al right-wing thinkers, ar­gued that the in­tel­lec­tu­al foun­da­tion of Par­lia­ment lies not in their rep­re­sen­ta­tive na­ture but their com­mit­ment to “a process of con­fronta­tion of dif­fer­ences and opin­ions” out of which a po­lit­i­cal will is es­tab­lished.

He de­fined Par­lia­men­tary de­bate as “an ex­change of opin­ion that is gov­erned by the pur­pose of per­suad­ing one’s op­po­nent through ar­gu­ment of the truth or jus­tice of some­thing, or al­low­ing one­self to be per­suad­ed of some­thing as true and just.”

For him, Par­lia­men­tary de­ci­sions should be made on the ba­sis of a clash of opin­ions rather than of in­ter­ests, and de­bate re­quires “in­de­pen­dence from par­ty ties and free­dom from self­ish in­ter­est; pub­lic de­bate and pub­lic dis­cus­sion, par­ley.”

He ar­gued that mass democ­ra­cy par­ties rep­re­sent eco­nom­ic and so­cial in­ter­ests, and win as­sent for their au­thor­i­ty through pro­pa­gan­da and ap­peals to the pas­sions.

“Par­lia­ment thus no longer has an in­tel­lec­tu­al foun­da­tion or mean­ing. Pop­u­lar rep­re­sen­ta­tion has up­set the bal­ance of pow­er and de­bates are now a façade. All pub­lic busi­ness has be­come an ob­ject of spoils and com­pro­mise,” he ar­gued.

For Schmitt, Par­lia­ment is “like a su­per­flu­ous dec­o­ra­tion, use­less and even em­bar­rass­ing as though some­one had paint­ed the ra­di­a­tor of a mod­ern cen­tral heat­ing sys­tem with red flames in or­der to give the ap­pear­ance of a blaz­ing fire.”

While I do not share most of Schmitt’s views, he would have been proud when he looked at what hap­pened in the T&T Par­lia­ment and what passed as a Bud­get de­bate. Schmitt would not have had to con­vince many that in this case his views have been proven cor­rect.

It is a dis­grace that the Op­po­si­tion Unit­ed Na­tion­al Con­gress (UNC) failed to do its du­ty as the loy­al op­po­si­tion and ques­tion, chal­lenge, of­fer al­ter­na­tive views and im­por­tant­ly raise the con­cerns of the thou­sands of peo­ple who vot­ed for them in the elec­tions, held a mere year ago.

The fail­ure of al­most half the UNC MPs to speak in the Low­er House on an im­por­tant de­bate like the Bud­get is a dere­lic­tion of du­ty and the par­ty’s re­liance on the me­dia to do its job is un­be­com­ing.

Join­ing il­le­gal protests to burn tyres dur­ing a pan­dem­ic does no one any good, and is a weak at­tempt to save face.

As for the gov­ern­ment which con­trols the spend­ing and has pro­posed to in­crease the size of the Bud­get by $3 bil­lion there­by ef­fec­tive­ly spend­ing every cent it an­tic­i­pates to get from the en­er­gy wind­fall in the next 12 months, is equal­ly dis­grace­ful.

To think that the Bud­get has been in­creased by $3 bil­lion and the gov­ern­ment is spend­ing every cent it is ex­pect­ing to get from the in­creased en­er­gy sec­tor rev­enue and there is not a word from the Op­po­si­tion UNC, nor an ex­pla­na­tion from the gov­ern­ment why it needs to spend the ad­di­tion­al rev­enue in its en­tire­ty.

In what passed for the Bud­get de­bate in the Low­er House there was not an ex­pla­na­tion of why $52 bil­lion, and whether that is a one-off in­crease in ex­pen­di­ture, or if it is be­ing done to fa­cil­i­tate a stim­u­lus in the econ­o­my?

We had no de­bate on if this is a re­turn to high­er lev­els of spend­ing, if the strat­e­gy of re­duc­ing gov­ern­ment spend is now out of the win­dow, if this is the re­al cost of run­ning the coun­try and was be­ing masked in the past by the gov­ern­ment tak­ing an un­of­fi­cial loan from the pri­vate sec­tor by not pay­ing VAT re­funds in a time­ly fash­ion or its bills be­ing car­ried for­ward?

If there is no de­bate how do we get an­swers to these ques­tions?

We are in the mid­dle of a pan­dem­ic but the Min­is­ter of Health does not tell us how he plans to spend the bil­lions he has been al­lo­cat­ed. We do not hear of a plan of how we can look at to­tal spend in the Health sec­tor which we learn from to­day’s Busi­ness Guardian is ac­tu­al­ly clos­er to $12 bil­lion an­nu­al­ly.

We are spend­ing close to twice what is the av­er­age spend in the re­gion in health­care and most peo­ple will ad­mit they are not sat­is­fied with the qual­i­ty of health­care. You ei­ther feel that the pub­lic health­care sys­tem is like­ly to fail you or you feel that you are be­ing made to pay through your nose in the pri­vate health­care sys­tem.

The Bud­get de­bate should have start­ed to ad­dress the plans for health­care, how can we as a so­ci­ety en­sure we get val­ue for mon­ey. Is the gov­ern­ment fool­ing it­self with this health sur­charge and should we not move to a health­care sys­tem that in­sists on health in­sur­ance ei­ther in the pri­vate sec­tor or util­is­ing a pri­vate, pub­lic part­ner­ship, not in the sense of the PPP but in a hy­brid ap­proach that en­sures the gov­ern­ment picks up in­sur­ance for those who can least af­ford or those on gov­ern­ment pen­sion.

We must dis­cuss whether in bud­get­ing for the health sec­tor the present sys­tem where con­sul­tants are hard­ly ever at the hos­pi­tals as are reg­is­trars and the bur­den of the health­care sys­tem re­sides on the House Of­fi­cers and In­terns who are op­er­at­ing with lim­it­ed su­per­vi­sion is what we as­pire to. We know it to be true and we know it leads to un­ac­cept­able out­comes and we know we should be get­ting bet­ter val­ue for mon­ey but we choose to leave it alone be­cause the med­ical lob­by is so pow­er­ful.

Why did we not hear from the Min­is­ter of Health or the Op­po­si­tion on whether in spend­ing $6 bil­lion the con­stant prob­lems of di­ag­nos­tic equip­ment break­ing down or hours of wait for a bed when you are at your most vul­ner­a­ble or the doc­tors who seem to give their best in their pri­vate of­fices rather than at the hos­pi­tal and in some un­seem­ly cas­es try to push their pa­tients to­wards their pri­vate prac­tice? Would this be ad­dressed?

What of your con­stituents? At least the peo­ple of Ma­yaro could say they heard from their MP, I live in Diego Mar­tin West and my MP who hap­pens to be Prime Min­is­ter was silent. He nev­er told us how this Bud­get will make the lives of his con­stituents bet­ter, how will we utilise Ch­aguara­mas to build out tourism? How will he lift some of the peo­ple of Care­nage out of pover­ty?

The fail­ure of the Bud­get de­bate is an­oth­er ex­am­ple of the fail­ure of lead­er­ship.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored