By Arthur Dash
THE EDITOR: In recent weeks, TT has witnessed a series of decisions that have left thousands reeling 鈥 CEPEP contracts abruptly ended, high-level dismissals and the revocation of the Central Bank governor鈥檚 appointment.
While some defend these as reforms, many see political motive. For those who remember the TSTT retrenchments or Petrotrin鈥檚 mass lay-offs, the optics are familiar, and the d茅j脿 vu is hard to ignore.
Another chapter in this troubling pattern unfolded in 2017 when the Tourism Development Company (TDC) was shut down under the PNM administration. Over 100 workers were sent home and while the government cited strategic restructuring, the suddenness of the move 鈥 and allegations of favouritism in related contracts 鈥 left many questioning the true motives behind the decision.
What lingers, even more than the decisions, is the silence that follows. Too often those who cry foul in opposition grow quiet once in power. Outrage fades, explanations multiply and the public 鈥 especially the unaffiliated 鈥 must weather shifting standards and broken promises.
Where is the outrage when the same actions come from familiar faces? Why is justice only urgent when politically convenient?
This double standard corrodes trust. It deepens division and reduces democracy to a cynical game.
When party loyalty eclipses truth, accountability vanishes.
This isn鈥檛 a moment for partisan glee. It鈥檚 a call for national reflection.
What kind of society are we building when the working class is always first to feel the axe? When institutions are reshaped in silence? When accountability is demanded only of 鈥渢he other side?鈥
The recent wave of board appointments only adds to the unease. While every administration has the right to instal leadership aligned with its vision, the optics often suggest loyalty outweighs merit. When boards are reshuffled without clear criteria or public explanation, it reinforces the belief that governance is less about service and more about serving political ends and securing political advantage.
The pattern is clear: both major parties, at different times, have wielded power in ways that disillusion the citizenry. Promises of transformation give way to retribution. And always, it鈥檚 the most vulnerable who are left to pick up the pieces.
Perhaps it鈥檚 time to introduce defined terms for state-appointed positions and contracts. Tying them to the administration鈥檚 five-year term could bring clarity and reduce the shock felt with each governmental shift. It won鈥檛 erase political discretion, but it would provide clarity on tenure, temper disruption and ease the ripple effects that sweep through ordinary communities. This would signal that while leadership may shift, people鈥檚 livelihoods should not be subject to abrupt disruption or partisan retaliation.
So where do we go from here?
We go forward by demanding better 鈥 not just from those in charge, but from ourselves. We must reject the idea that governance is a game of musical chairs where only the faces change. We must insist on fairness, transparency and a politics that puts people before party.
Let鈥檚 move beyond red and yellow 鈥 and focus on the breadline, the school fees, the dignity of work, and the right of every citizen to be treated with respect 鈥 regardless of politics.
This should not be about what was done before. It鈥檚 about doing what鈥檚 right, now. Leadership should not be measured by who it punishes, but by how it governs 鈥 with integrity, transparency and a commitment to the common good.
BRYAN ST LOUIS