Leadership in a Plural Society Part 2 - The Plural Population

By: Terri Ann  Ragoonanan

In Part One, the spectrum of what may constitute leadership was outlined. Aspects of plural societies were touched on but the general characteristics and histories of such societies were not fully discussed. Before I elaborate on these, it may be important to draw a clear distinction between a plural society and a pluralist society since some confusion may arise with the terminologies. A pluralist society has a similar range of ethnic diversities as a plural society yet is differentiated by the presence of a unifying bond or common objective between the disparate groups. This facet of pluralist societies may manifest itself as a strong show of solidarity and patriotism towards the particular nation as seen in countries such as the United States of America. Whereas, the discordant populaces in plural societies typically compete with each other for economic and political footholds whilst maintaining barriers based on race, religion, social class, and cultural traditions - patriotism is not entirely deficient; however it may be nebulous and more distinctly associated with individual and familial bonds rather than a national consciousness.

In Trinidad and Tobago, we see a society that for the most part may be defined as plural and not pluralist. This is clearly highlighted in our partisan politics. Certain constituencies predominantly populated by specific ethnic groups are known for their loyalties to particular political groups which are also almost entirely made up of persons of the same ethnicity. A natural assumption from the aforementioned point would be that the members of these political groups only cater to their loyal supporters from these specific locations. The economic and social statuses of these regions appear to be fixed due to geographic and humanitarian factors. For example, Port of Spain is the coastal capital and thus the centre of government and commerce on the island. Its political leanings, as evidenced by cumulative years of decisive election results, may be as a result of its ethnic makeup. Crime is a major issue in the area and not one that seems on course for a rapid resolution. The Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago and her cabinet are not members of the political group that presently possesses administrative control over the city of Port of Spain. Therefore, who are the leaders who may be better able to tackle the problems of the capital?

Further south on the island, the regional corporations of Penal/Debe and Siparia are also controlled by the political group that mostly consists of members who are of a certain ethnicity that also happens to be the main ethnicity inhabiting that expanse. So what does this mean for the leadership roles? Ideally it should not matter, since all leaders are supposed to oversee everyone under their respective purviews, regardless of race or political affiliation. However, there may be a disconnect between the objectives of the local government administrative personnel and the overall governing body. Leaders on the national level tend to espouse platitudes and embark on large scale projects geared towards garnering votes. Sometimes these projects do benefit the majority while inconveniencing or upsetting a vocal minority. Ministers have to make decisions that pander to the majority; this is how they amass support for their party and ensure they stay in power. Local government officers, such as mayors, aldermen, and councillors, are committed to

the management of smaller areas and thus their policies affect fewer people. Consequently, they do not face the same measure of censure as leaders higher up the political ladder and do not have to consider pandering to any one faction within their sectors.

People’s expectations of their leaders may also demonstrate the incongruent divisions and unifications that persist within society. When provincial issues arise such as flooding, lack of utilities, or bad transport systems, the residents of that particular area stand together and stage protests demanding that the relevant authorities pay attention to their plight and expeditiously work towards its termination. The citizens here are not concerned with race or social differences between themselves, rather their shared grievances unite them to take action as cohesive unit. The government then comes under fire, regardless of its ethnic components or historical treatment of persons residing in the affected area. Leaders then are forced to act, or at least appear to act. Sometimes, depending on the constituents, their response might be vague, placating, and decidedly ineffectual.

The plural population is demanding and does not take allegations of corruption and misconduct lightly from its leaders. The spirit of the last general election in Trinidad and Tobago, where citizens were clamouring to vote out the previous leadership in order to restore transparency and legitimacy to the government attests to the nation’s nearly collective abhorrence of perverse leadership despite the abundance of political diehards and party stalwarts. Next year’s general elections seem to be headed for the same outcome, judging by the apparent overwhelming consensus that the present government needs to vacate its position. This shows that leaders may have power but in a democracy it is not absolute. However, there is no guarantee that changing those in power will lead to better outcomes for society since that is what was expected after the results of the previous election in 2010.

Citizens harmonize and disagree continuously; it is up to the respective leaders to take up the mantle of fairness and responsibility and govern everyone. Plurality should not be a factor that makes leadership more difficult, since people are, for the most, vocal about their needs and wants. Leaders just have to listen. It really should be that simple.