As we ap­proach the Gen­er­al Elec­tion, we are wit­ness­ing the usu­al ex­cite­ment, crit­i­cisms, memes, al­le­ga­tions, dis­ap­point­ments, and ru­mours. The sil­ly sea­son is in full swing and we should ex­pect fake news, fake emails, and AI-gen­er­at­ed videos. Smoke and mir­ror il­lu­sions are de­signed to make those who have a che­quered his­to­ry ap­pear as our sav­iours and those ‘re­spect­ed’ ones as un­ac­cept­able pari­ahs. Spin doc­tors weave sto­ries and gullible sup­port­ers of ei­ther par­ty grab on­to the nar­ra­tive they want to be­lieve.

Re­cent con­cerns about the ‘se­lec­tion’ of our new PM ini­tial­ly caused some po­lit­i­cal dis­cord amongst Pe­ple’s Na­tion­al Move­ment (PNM) mem­bers and ex­cite­ment amongst the Op­po­si­tion Unit­ed Na­tion­al Con­gress (UNC), but they have ap­par­ent­ly dis­si­pat­ed for now. It shows the cun­ning abil­i­ty of our for­mer PM to ex­ert his in­flu­ence, as well as the mind­set of PNM mem­bers who closed ranks with the view that win­ning the elec­tion is para­mount, any dis­agree­ments can come af­ter.

While the UNC’s in­ter­nal elec­tions re­sults should have been Mrs Kam­la Per­sad-Bisses­sar’s coup de grace to her in­ter­nal dis­senters, the de­feat­ed few pro­longed the an­i­mos­i­ty. But if the mem­ber­ship of their par­ty re­ject­ed them, why should the rest of the coun­try be in­clined oth­er­wise? If they paint them­selves as hon­est, de­cent, hard­work­ing mem­bers, prob­a­bly their par­ty and coun­try are not ready for such ‘hon­est politi­cians’, or may think that this oxy­moron can­not ex­ist. Stay­ing and form­ing a bloc with­in their par­ty was an op­tion (in the USA, Bernie Saun­ders’ de­mo­c­ra­t­ic so­cial­ist group ex­ists with­in the De­moc­rats par­ty). Some per­sons who felt ag­griev­ed by their par­ty would be in a per­pet­u­al state of po­lit­i­cal ta­ban­ca, some mi­grate, some be­come bit­ter crit­ics of their old gu­rus, some jump ship, some form new par­ties, while oth­ers lose them­selves in oth­er pur­suits.

The PNM has al­ways han­dled its af­fairs dis­crete­ly, two of its pro­duc­tive min­is­ters, Clarence Ramb­harat and Robert Le Hunte, were dis­placed from the po­lit­i­cal fore­front in 2015 with­out any pub­lic spat. This week, UNC’s Jayan­ti Lutc­me­di­al and Rudy In­dars­ingh both gave ma­ture re­spons­es to their non-se­lec­tion as can­di­dates. Par­ty loy­al­ty and wrest­ing pow­er from the PNM seemed more im­por­tant than per­son­al ag­gran­dis­e­ment.

Par­ties ac­cept their lead­ers based on their own val­ues, ex­ist­ing needs, and pow­er dy­nam­ics. Some lead­ers sur­round them­selves with per­sons they can con­trol. Crit­i­cism was lev­elled at the can­di­date screen­ing process in both ma­jor po­lit­i­cal par­ties. So, while some choic­es could be found want­i­ng, we need to judge who can best serve their con­stituents.

Our present PM Stu­art Young speaks about the pro­posed Min­istry of Im­ple­men­ta­tion and Ef­fi­cien­cy, sim­i­lar to the new US De­part­ment of Gov­ern­ment Ef­fi­cien­cy. Our lack­adaisi­cal work cul­ture and waste are part of our fail­ure. Those who as­pire to run our coun­try would have to mo­bilise our work­ers.

The pop­u­la­tion needs to judge who can serve us bet­ter. Some lead­ers can of­fer hope but can’t de­liv­er. In 2010, the coun­try was dis­sat­is­fied and chose the new con­glom­er­a­tion of par­ties, then, since 2015, the coun­try vot­ed for the present regime, al­beit with its pre­vi­ous leader. Some may choose to sup­port an ad­min­is­tra­tion be­cause they gain fi­nan­cial­ly, oth­ers fear the un­known and choose the dev­il they know, and some ex­hib­it par­ty and eth­nic loy­al­ty. Oth­ers see elec­tions as a ref­er­en­dum on an ad­min­is­tra­tion’s per­for­mance, oth­ers hold lead­ers ac­count­able for un­ful­filled promis­es.

Some ques­tion is­sues, such as -

Crime: Has there been a re­duc­tion in gang vi­o­lence, crime, the porous bor­ders and home in­va­sions, im­proved polic­ing and safer com­mu­ni­ties?

Econ­o­my: Has the econ­o­my di­ver­si­fied and im­proved, with a de­crease in the cost of liv­ing and un­em­ploy­ment; is forex ac­ces­si­ble?

So­cial ser­vices: Are we reach­ing the des­ti­tute with grants, de­creas­ing home­less­ness on the streets, im­prov­ing hous­ing and youth pro­grammes?

Health­care: Are wait­ing times for pro­ce­dures and tests de­creased, as well as ap­point­ments at our var­i­ous clin­ics?

Gov­er­nance: Is it eas­i­er to do busi­ness, has Gov­ern­ment been trans­par­ent and ac­count­able with whistle­blow­er pro­tec­tion, are we be­ing served bet­ter by gov­ern­ment agen­cies?

Ed­u­ca­tion: Have we ad­dressed why many are fail­ing SEA, men­tal health, and bul­ly­ing in schools?

In­fra­struc­ture: Are our roads, verges, and, drains be­ing main­tained? A re­duc­tion in traf­fic con­ges­tion?

Pub­lic util­i­ties: Is our wa­ter sup­ply, elec­tric­i­ty, and promised free Wi-Fi ac­cept­able?

We have wit­nessed many elec­tion cy­cles. This starts where promis­es bring hope which stim­u­lates a vot­ing change, fol­lowed by dis­sat­is­fac­tion, and the cy­cle restarts. It is the pop­u­la­tion who has to de­cide when to end a cy­cle and note that most of the time, the prob­lems re­main the same, on­ly the play­ers and their promis­es change. Ul­ti­mate­ly, de­mo­c­ra­t­ic process­es hinge on the ac­tive par­tic­i­pa­tion of cit­i­zens but even if your par­ty los­es, there are still ways to let democ­ra­cy pre­vail. Town hall meet­ings and so­cial me­dia post­ings can be used to let our voic­es be heard.