PORT OF SPAIN, Trinidad — An open letter submitted for publication alleges PNM Constitutional Fraud, arguing that the People’s National Movement’s stated constitutional principles of equality, non-discrimination, and national integration were not realized in practice over decades in office.
The following is the full text of the open letter by Curtis Anthony OBRADY, whose earlier commentary, CMO drug permit authority questioned in Trinidad and Tobago, addressed another issue of public accountability in Trinidad and Tobago.
Full text of the open letter
Dear Editor,
The People’s National Movement wrote a Constitution that reads like a democratic charter. Equality of opportunity. Elimination of discrimination. National integration. Those are not slogans. In political science, those are core indicators of a functioning meritocracy and an inclusive state.
Now test those claims against performance from 1956 to its last day in office. The result is not mixed. It is failure by definition.
Equality of opportunity requires open access to state resources based on competence. That is the baseline of a meritocratic system. Scholars define it as allocation by ability, not affiliation. Yet in practice, access to contracts, senior public positions, and state influence tracked political alignment. That is textbook patron-client behavior. It replaces merit with loyalty. It distorts incentives. It produces inefficiency and entrenches inequality. Once that system takes hold, talent exits or disengages. The country pays the price in lost productivity and weak institutions.
Objective number 10 promises elimination of all forms of discrimination in public life. In political science, discrimination is measured through outcomes, not speeches. If entire communities consistently experience lower access to state benefits, slower development, or weaker representation, that is structural discrimination. It does not need to be written into policy. It is revealed in distribution patterns. Over decades, the evidence showed uneven development, uneven access, and persistent claims of exclusion. A government committed to non discrimination would correct those imbalances with transparent allocation rules. That did not happen at the scale required.
Objective number 11 speaks about integration. Integration is not a slogan. It is a policy outcome. It requires cross ethnic trust, equal treatment, and shared national identity reinforced by fair institutions. When politics becomes polarized along ethnic lines, that is not integration. That is ethnic outbidding. Leaders appeal to base identities to secure votes. The literature is clear. Ethnic outbidding weakens national cohesion, reduces policy quality, and increases long-term instability. Trinidad and Tobago saw repeated cycles of that behavior. The result was a fragmented political culture, not a cohesive one.
Look at the institutional consequences. A state that operates through patronage weakens its own capacity. Decision-making becomes politicized. Oversight becomes selective. Accountability declines. This is how you get governance drift. Policies exist on paper but are not enforced consistently. Citizens lose trust because rules appear flexible depending on who you are. Trust is not abstract. It is the foundation of compliance, investment, and social order. When trust declines, crime rises, tax compliance falls, and public cooperation weakens.
Consider economic outcomes. A meritocratic system maximizes human capital. A patronage system misallocates it. When skilled individuals are bypassed, projects underperform. Public spending yields lower returns. Over time, growth slows relative to potential. That is not theory. It is observed across multiple states with similar governance patterns.
The invocation of Eric Williams is often used as cover. His framing of the historically dispossessed was a call for inclusive development. It was not a justification for selective governance. A serious reading of that doctrine demands equal elevation of all citizens through fair access to education, employment, and state support. Any deviation from that standard is a breach of the founding principle.
The PNM’s Constitution set measurable objectives. Equality of opportunity can be tracked through hiring data and contract awards. Non-discrimination can be assessed through distribution of public goods. Integration can be measured through social cohesion indicators and voting patterns. On each of these metrics, the gap between promise and outcome persisted across administrations.
This is not a matter of rhetoric. It is a matter of institutional design and empirical results. A party that proclaims meritocracy but practices patronage is not inconsistent. It is operating a dual system. One for public consumption, one for internal control. That is how political machines sustain themselves while avoiding full accountability.
Citizens should judge governance the way scholars do. Define the objective. Measure the outcome. Compare the two. When the gap is wide and persistent, the conclusion is direct. The system did not deliver what it promised.
From 1956 to its final day in office, the PNM failed to institutionalize equality of opportunity, failed to eliminate discrimination in practice, and failed to build sustained national integration. The Constitution remains a document of intent. The record stands as evidence of non-compliance.
Curtis Anthony OBRADY
