Mick­ela Pan­day

Democ­ra­cy does not re­quire cit­i­zens to agree with their Gov­ern­ment. It re­quires Gov­ern­ments to an­swer to their cit­i­zens.

That sim­ple prin­ci­ple sep­a­rates a democ­ra­cy from any sys­tem where pow­er ex­pects si­lence. Cit­i­zens are not sub­jects. They are not spec­ta­tors. They are not ex­pect­ed to sit qui­et­ly while de­ci­sions are made on their be­half. They have a right to ask ques­tions, de­mand an­swers and hold au­thor­i­ty ac­count­able.

Yet in­creas­ing­ly, there is a wor­ry­ing ten­den­cy in pub­lic life to treat le­git­i­mate ques­tions as acts of dis­loy­al­ty.

Ask ques­tions about crime pol­i­cy and you are ac­cused of un­der­min­ing those in charge. Ask ques­tions about emer­gency pow­ers and you are por­trayed as op­pos­ing pub­lic safe­ty. Ask ques­tions about pub­lic projects, pro­cure­ment de­ci­sions or state re­sources and you are ac­cused of op­pos­ing de­vel­op­ment. Ask ques­tions about ar­rests, in­ves­ti­ga­tions or al­le­ga­tions against in­di­vid­u­als and you are ac­cused of de­fend­ing wrong­do­ing.

That is a dan­ger­ous way to think about democ­ra­cy.

Re­spect­ing the law does not mean aban­don­ing the prin­ci­ples that make the law worth re­spect­ing. Want­i­ng de­vel­op­ment does not mean ac­cept­ing se­cre­cy. Trust in pub­lic in­sti­tu­tions is not built by de­mand­ing si­lence. It is built through open­ness, trans­paren­cy and ac­count­abil­i­ty.

Over the past sev­er­al weeks, Trinidad and To­ba­go has been en­gaged in heat­ed na­tion­al de­bates about crime, emer­gency pow­ers, pro­cure­ment con­cerns and pub­lic of­fi­cials. At first glance, these may ap­pear sep­a­rate. In re­al­i­ty, they re­volve around the same ques­tion: What is the re­la­tion­ship be­tween the cit­i­zen and the State?

In a healthy democ­ra­cy, that re­la­tion­ship is not based on blind trust. Gov­ern­ments are en­trust­ed with au­thor­i­ty, but they are ex­pect­ed to ex­plain how that au­thor­i­ty is used. Cit­i­zens have a right to ask how pub­lic mon­ey is be­ing spent, how pub­lic re­sources are be­ing man­aged, whether poli­cies are work­ing and whether promis­es are be­ing kept.

That is es­pe­cial­ly true when pub­lic as­sets, state lands, ma­jor con­tracts and large-scale de­vel­op­ment projects are in­volved. Cit­i­zens are not an­ti-de­vel­op­ment be­cause they ask ques­tions about pro­cure­ment process­es, project costs, own­er­ship arrange­ments or the use of pub­lic re­sources. Gov­ern­ments do not own these as­sets. They man­age them on be­half of the peo­ple. Trans­paren­cy is not an ob­sta­cle to de­vel­op­ment. It is a safe­guard that pro­tects the pub­lic in­ter­est.

Trinidad and To­ba­go has paid a heavy price for se­cre­cy, waste, cor­rup­tion and mis­man­age­ment. Cit­i­zens have seen too many projects run over bud­get, too many promis­es go un­de­liv­ered and too many ques­tions go unan­swered. That his­to­ry is why scruti­ny mat­ters. Ac­count­abil­i­ty is not a lux­u­ry to be tol­er­at­ed when con­ve­nient. It is a ne­ces­si­ty if pub­lic trust is to sur­vive.

Those rights do not dis­ap­pear be­cause a Gov­ern­ment has won an elec­tion. Nor do they dis­ap­pear dur­ing dif­fi­cult times.

Pe­ri­ods of un­cer­tain­ty are of­ten when ac­count­abil­i­ty mat­ters most. When crime is high, cit­i­zens have a right to ask whether the mea­sures be­ing im­ple­ment­ed are ef­fec­tive. When ex­tra­or­di­nary pow­ers are in­tro­duced, cit­i­zens have a right to ask how those pow­ers are be­ing used, whether they are achiev­ing their in­tend­ed pur­pose and what safe­guards ex­ist to pre­vent abuse. Pub­lic safe­ty and pub­lic ac­count­abil­i­ty are not com­pet­ing goals.

The pre­sump­tion of in­no­cence is one of the most im­por­tant pro­tec­tions in any free so­ci­ety. It does not ex­ist to pro­tect crim­i­nals. It ex­ists to pro­tect cit­i­zens. It recog­nis­es that al­le­ga­tions are not ev­i­dence and ac­cu­sa­tions are not proof of guilt. A so­ci­ety that aban­dons due process when it is in­con­ve­nient even­tu­al­ly dis­cov­ers that it has weak­ened pro­tec­tions for every­one.

Cit­i­zens should nev­er be made to feel that ques­tion­ing those in au­thor­i­ty is some­how un­pa­tri­ot­ic. Pa­tri­o­tism is mea­sured not by loy­al­ty to those in pow­er, but by a com­mit­ment to the prin­ci­ples and in­sti­tu­tions that serve the na­tion.

Through­out our his­to­ry, progress has of­ten been dri­ven by peo­ple who asked un­com­fort­able ques­tions about fair­ness, jus­tice, trans­paren­cy and whether those in pow­er were act­ing in the pub­lic in­ter­est. Those ques­tions did not weak­en Trinidad and To­ba­go. They helped strength­en it.

Gov­ern­ments come and go. Po­lit­i­cal par­ties rise and fall. Min­is­ters change. Ad­min­is­tra­tions change. What must en­dure are the de­mo­c­ra­t­ic prin­ci­ples that pro­tect cit­i­zens re­gard­less of who oc­cu­pies pub­lic of­fice.

That is why ac­count­abil­i­ty should nev­er be viewed as a par­ti­san is­sue. The stan­dards we de­mand to­day should be the stan­dards we de­mand to­mor­row. The ques­tions we ask of one Gov­ern­ment should be the ques­tions we are pre­pared to ask of the next.

A ma­ture democ­ra­cy does not fear scruti­ny. It wel­comes it. Good gov­ern­ments should an­swer ques­tions hon­est­ly and open­ly. If a pol­i­cy is sound, it can with­stand ex­am­i­na­tion. If a de­ci­sion is in the pub­lic in­ter­est, trans­paren­cy should not be treat­ed as a threat.

The right to ask ques­tions is not a priv­i­lege grant­ed by any Gov­ern­ment. It be­longs to the peo­ple. Cit­i­zens have a right to know they are gov­erned, how their mon­ey is spent, how their rights are pro­tect­ed and whether those en­trust­ed with pub­lic pow­er are liv­ing up to their re­spon­si­bil­i­ties.

In the end, ques­tions are not the en­e­my of democ­ra­cy. Si­lence is. And a na­tion that stops ask­ing ques­tions risks los­ing far more than an­swers.

Mick­ela Pan­day is the Po­lit­i­cal leader of the Pa­tri­ot­ic Front and At­tor­ney at Law