The National Government Is A Foreign Hostile Entity

This is not a statement about the intentions of any particular prime minister or party. It is a statement about the nature of the institution itself.

The Colonial Architecture of National Power

Trinidad and Tobago's governance structure was never designed by its people. It was imposed. The Westminster model that we inherited from Britain was a gift, but like many gifts from colonial powers, it came with strings attached. As one commentator put it, the Constitution is "so biased in terms of who it favours and who it does not that those who had no say in its construction—the poor, the blacks, the indentured, and women—were neglected by the powers that held us in low esteem" . The framework treats citizens not as participants in governance but as subjects.

The Architecture of Control

Trinidad and Tobago is a unitary republic with two levels of government: central and local . But this is a unity that resembles a top-down command structure more than a partnership. The 14 municipal corporations in Trinidad and the Tobago House of Assembly are creatures of central government, not independent sovereigns. The Minister of Local Government can issue "general or specific directions to municipal councils in relation to government policy on any matter" . The constitution makes no provision for local government in Trinidad at all. It is a legislative creation, not a constitutional right. The Tobago House of Assembly, in contrast, does have constitutional protection under Chapter 11A, but even this is a grudging concession rather than a recognition of inherent sovereignty.

The imbalance is dramatic. Local governments in Trinidad receive transfers from central government, which forms their principal income. Tobago cannot collect or raise taxes except on behalf of the central government . The central government holds the purse strings and therefore holds the power. The municipal corporations in Trinidad, despite the 2019 Local Government Reform Bill, remain beholden to the Minister for their policy direction. This is not a collaborative arrangement. It is a coercive one.

The Erosion of Local Autonomy

The historical union of Trinidad and Tobago was never a marriage of equals. When the colony was created, the two islands were brought together without any mechanism to facilitate integration . The Tobago sugar industry had collapsed in the 1880s. The island's treasury could not meet its administrative costs. The imperial government, ever concerned with profits over people, refused to take on colonial financial burdens. Instead, they mandated cost-cutting measures that included demoting Tobago's chief administrator from governor to warden/magistrate. The island was administered as "a ward of Trinidad," and this perception of dependency became a knot in the relationship that persists to this day .

The arrangement was absurd on its face. The warden/magistrate served as administrator, magistrate, inspector of schools, commissioner of the Supreme Court, commissioner of affidavits, and sub-registrar. He had only one clerk to assist . The people of Tobago were treated as an afterthought. Decision-makers in Trinidad did not see a need for any special provisions for the island. It was viewed like any other ward in the colony. This was not governance. It was neglect.

The response from the administration to calls for decentralization was to change the job title to commissioner and warden, but the functions remained the same. Outsiders continued to be appointed to the position. The problems festered into the second half of the twentieth century. The belief that Tobago's problems would be best handled by Tobagonians became a tight knot ingrained in the population's psyche .

This is the pattern of colonial rule: the center imposes its will on the periphery, treats the periphery as subordinate, and resists any meaningful devolution of power. The architecture of the national government in Trinidad and Tobago, like the federal structure in the United States, has evolved toward centralization and control.

The Logic of a Hostile Foreign Entity

To understand how the national government functions as a hostile entity, one must abandon the distinction between foreign and domestic policy. It is a continuum of control. The same tools used to manage hostile foreign populations are increasingly applied to the domestic population.

Sovereignty as a Shield and a Weapon

The concept of sovereignty is central to understanding the relationship between the citizen and the state. Sovereignty is "the power of a country to control its own government," but the meaning is more profound than that. For nations like ours that have suffered "consistent extraction of resources, imposed racial discord and attacks on our cultural expressions, this power must ultimately expand to focus on protection" .

Yet sovereignty can be used as a weapon against the people it is supposed to protect. When the government invokes sovereignty to resist accountability, to dismiss legitimate grievances, or to consolidate power, it transforms a shield into a sword. The debate over CARICOM's role in Trinidad and Tobago's foreign policy is instructive. Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar asserted that Trinidad and Tobago "will put its national interest first" and that "CARICOM will not determine the country's future" . On its face, this sounds like a defense of sovereignty. But what does "national interest" mean when the nation is divided, when the government's own actions subvert the well-being of its citizens?

The Fragmentation of the Caribbean

CARICOM was established under the Treaty of Chaguaramas, signed in 1973 by Barbados, Guyana, Jamaica, and Trinidad and Tobago . The Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas was signed in 2001, establishing the CARICOM Single Market and Economy . The treaty creates a legal framework, but it does not mandate "a singular foreign policy or a supranational authority" . CARICOM is a community of sovereign states, and this has always been its weakness .

The divisions within CARICOM have been exposed by geopolitical pressure. In late 2025 and early 2026, the United States increased military pressure on Venezuela, eventually resulting in the ouster of Nicolas Maduro . Trinidad and Tobago supported the military action. Barbados and other member states held firm to the bloc's traditional ethos of non-interference and maintaining the region's stance as a zone of peace . This public split has led many to believe the bloc's "collective voice" is cracking .

But the cracks have been there all along. The concept of national interest influences the degree to which a country is willing to sacrifice its sovereignty in favor of wider regional interests . Caribbean leaders have always been nationalists first and regionalists second . This is not a flaw in the individuals. It is a feature of the system.

The problem is that small states cannot endure as isolated fragments. As Sir Ronald Sanders, the ambassador of Antigua and Barbuda, put it: "When the small divide, the strong decide. And, if the Caribbean cannot speak with one voice in defence of law, others will speak for it in the language of might" . The warning is clear: fragmentation invites domination.

The Subversion of the Constitution

The national government's own actions and rulings have subverted the constitutional framework that was meant to check its power. The Westminster model, with its focus on parliamentary supremacy, creates a system where the executive dominates the legislature. The prime minister appoints the cabinet from both houses, and the government controls the legislative agenda. This is not a separation of powers. It is a concentration of power.

The complaint is not new. The ordinary people of Trinidad and Tobago went about their lives from the pre-independence era through the republican state "without improving the living conditions that politicians guaranteed" . The promise of independence was that the people would make their own history, that they would be "active and no longer passive" . Yet the structure of governance has remained remarkably similar to the colonial model. The president is a figurehead, just as the governor-general and the queen were before . The prime minister's function never changed through all the constructs.

This is the subversion of the constitution: the form of democracy without the substance. The institutions are in place, but they serve the interests of the powerful rather than the people.

A Clear Warning

This is not a call to arms. It is a warning. The theater of political drama obscures the reality of institutional consolidation. The story is not the personal feud or the scandal of the day. The story is the structural transformation of the relationship between the citizen and the state. The national government, in its current form, has become an entity that is increasingly alien to the principles it purports to represent. It is an entity that sees the local governments, the Tobago House of Assembly, and the people not as partners, but as obstacles to be managed.

Against Genocide

The warning from history is clear. When a government begins to classify segments of its population as enemies or aliens, it is on a dangerous path. The dehumanization that precedes genocide often begins with legalistic distinctions, with the classification of people as threats to the state. The brutal campaign in Gaza, with over 47,000 Palestinians killed, is a stark reminder . The governments of Barbados and other CARICOM states expressed horror at the images of dead children . The international community must not look away.

The Caribbean states must resist any effort to normalize violence against civilians, whether in Palestine, Ukraine, or anywhere else. The principle of international law must be upheld. Might does not make right. The small states must insist on this principle, even when the powerful ignore it.

Against Coups

The subversion of a constitution does not always come with tanks. It can come through the slow erosion of checks and balances, through the reinterpretation of texts, through the quiet centralization of state powers. When the lines between sovereigns are blurred, the way is paved for authoritarianism. The "quiet coup" is not by a particular faction, but by the logic of power itself.

The fragmentation of CARICOM is a warning. When small states divide, the strong decide. The real work of Caribbean integration today is existential. It is about ensuring that sovereignty is strengthened by community. If the Caribbean states can "stand together—on principle, on dignity, and on the sovereign equality promised in the UN Charter—then even in a world of rising geopolitical storms, the Caribbean will not merely endure. It will shape its own course" .

The Warning

The warning is to look past the theater of political drama. The real story is not the personal feud or the scandal of the day. The real story is the structural transformation of the relationship between the citizen and the state. The national government, in its current form, has become an entity that is increasingly alien to the principles it purports to represent. It is an entity that sees the local governments, the Tobago House of Assembly, and the people not as partners, but as obstacles to be managed.

The Constitution was not designed for this. But the Constitution does not enforce itself. The citizens must be the guardians of their own sovereignty, else they will find themselves subjects of a power they once thought they controlled.

Legacy of Resistance

Amidst the noise of political drama and the perversion of truth for state ends, a different narrative of power emerges—one rooted in resistance, in cultural expression, and in the unwavering belief that the people can shape their own destiny.

The steelband movement grew side by side with the decolonization movement. Prof Hollis Liverpool points out that in "terms of nationalism and political freedom, the steelband movement grew side by side with the decolonisation movement of the early 1950s and the rising nationalism of the late 1950s and early 1960s" . The resistance to colonial rule was not just political. It was cultural. It was the assertion of identity in the face of erasure.

The struggle continues. The colonizing powers, they are still circling. The work is not done. The healing of our families, establishing better relations between the islands, and treating artists respectfully are critical places to start . We fought for independence because we wanted to be a sovereign nation. Sixty-three years later it still feels like we are engaged in an unending battle for survival.

The warning is to recognize that the battle is not just against external forces. It is against the internal structures that perpetuate the colonial mindset. The national government, in its current form, is one of those structures. It is a hostile foreign entity, not because of any particular leader's intentions, but because of the architecture of power itself.

The citizens must be the guardians of their own sovereignty. If they are not, they will find themselves subjects of a power they once thought they controlled.

My Thoughts On A Solution Below