Listening to the ongoing 2024 Budget debate, I was reminded of the title of a novel by the famous British author Charles Dickens that I read while still a young boy. It was entitled “A tale of two cities”. The reminder is based on the very disparate perceptions of the Vincentian reality put

put forward by both sides of the House of Assembly, Government and Opposition. It reflects not only widely differing perceptions of the 2024 Budget, but also contrasting political outlooks as well as being a very vivid indicator of the divisive nature of our local politics. As I write, the debate has a long way to go and the Budget itself needs to be carefully studied before definitive conclusions can be drawn.

Although we have not reached the toxic levels exhibited in some Parliamentary debates in the past, it is clear that the two sides of the House are more separated than the physical divisions in the Chamber place them. Even more worryingly, just based on early comments from supporters of both sides, the division extends into society as well.

Sadly, it appears as though in spite of better educational levels in society as a whole, people are only hearing what they wish to hear, not listening intently to the debate except for the political music which soothes their ears. The political atmosphere in the country is such that with political ‘talk radio’ abounding, amplified by social media with people confusing commentary for factual information, it is clear that we are heading for trouble. In addition, the very longevity of the ULP government, 22 years and counting, and sometimes its apparent insensitivity and communication errors, have led to an ossification of the political divide. More listening, greater understanding, the qualities which could help most in the situation, are precisely the ones in short supply. More and more our country is being dragged along the path to being not just a two-party country, but a deeply politically divided society. A whole cross-section of society began to feel more and more excluded, even when the reality was otherwise.

I had a first-hand experience of this “tale of two cities” just the day after the budget presentation by Finance Minister Camillo Gonsalves. A worker approached me saying, “so they raise licences”. I made a retort to the effect that “they raise pay too”, but to my amazement he expressed the view that he does not believe that “they” would increase wages. It reinforced in my mind how wide the political chasm has become.

The “tale of two cities” phenomenon is being exhibited in other ways as well, not just directly political. Just before Parliament met, three local trade unions representing public sector unions held a press conference setting out their views on the critical issue of reform of the National Insurance Service (NIS). This is a potential life and death issue for many pensioners like me and has significant implications for the economy as a whole.

The unions, the Public Service Union (PSU), the SVG Teachers Union (SVGTU) and the Police Welfare Association, made a number of recommendations for the reform and took the opportunity to explain their views on the matter. While it is clear that those views have not been, for the most part, taken on board by the government, I wonder whether greater efforts cannot be made at more dialogue on the issue. While it is true that “government is not a continuing university seminar” as Prime Minister Gonsalves is fond of saying, there are issues on which all efforts at arriving at some agreed approach should be pursued. At least that is my humble opinion, and the NIS matter seems to be one of these.

But there is another aspect to this. The local trade union movement, like many others in the Caribbean, has had its share of difficulties in forging a common front. While there are understandably, differences in perspectives, approaches and tactics, it is also true that party political preferences have played its part, throughout the Caribbean. In Trinidad and Tobago for instance, where a powerful movement was built based on the work of such labour leaders as Uriah “Buzz” Butler and George Weekes, political divisions have split the trade union movement into two distinct bodies, weakening the combined effort of a potentially very powerful body and allowing politicians on both sides, to play the divisive cards.

We seem to be approaching such a situation here. Where, for instance, do the other two unions, the National Workers’ Movement (NWM) and the Commercial Technical and Allied Workers Union (CTAWU), stand on this important issue? Has there been dialogue in an attempt to arrive at a unified labour movement position on this? Or are some satisfied and courting slipping into arrogance by claiming that they represent the majority of organized labour on the matter?

My simple logic tells me that the more there is a unified trade union on such issues, the more effective will be the representation and the more we will avoid the possibility for division among the workers. I know that in small societies like ours, especially where there are strong personalities and historical experiences, it is not easy to promote continuing dialogue, but it is essential.

Our society is too small to continue with this false “tale of two cities”. The “winner takes it all” approach of the British Westminster system is not in our best interests. Yes, we will have differences, in principle and approach, but we must put the interests of our people above all else.

• Renwick Rose is a community activist and social commentator.