PM Kamla and her People's Partnership posse have been getting it wrong and, if you want a good recent demonstration, go no farther than her speaking notes for the second anniversary of her wresting of the leadership of the UNC from Bas Panday.

You would think that, after our history of slavery and indentureship, after years and years of PNM stranglehold on power, after years and years of sufferation in the political wilderness, after the unambiguous rejection of Manning's PNM in 2010, the UNC and its partners would have the right orientation to governance. No such luck. They came along and have been giving us more of the same bad thing—and with passion and insouciance.

They came along armed with the notion that, as a body of men and women of political stripes different from the PNM's, they were somehow smarter and morally better.And it came out most glaringly in ideas from individual ministers posing as government policy.

They came along with the failed tribal reflex that Naparima and Tobago (but not labour, which is not a tribe!) must gobble up all the spoils of victory in the form of ministerial posts, state board directorships, and ministerial prerogative in the employment of persons in the state sector. It has not occurred to them, or they do not care, that if that behaviour was neither progressive nor peaceful under the PNM, it cannot be under them. They seem unable to see that it only aggravates our static sociopolitical condition.

And, most unprofitably, they came along with the failed philosophy that they can govern apart from the electorate.

Kamla boasted about the accomplishments of her different ministries; they had delivered reliefs and amenities to the people in different shapes and forms. She crowed about having kept promises and about being committed to keep promises in the future. She waxed lyrical about overseeing a democratic and transparent government and about being inspired by a vision. Hear her on the vision:

"My vision is one that sees our people celebrating that which brings us together, not what sets us apart … a vision of a new society that we fashion with discipline and where we open our doors to one another and welcome the best human values….It is a vision of a country where the poorest have the same opportunity as the most affluent… .

It is the vision of a society where every family has a home, where no one goes hungry, where the entire community raises every child as its own…. At one point, there seemed to be recognition that delivering basic goods and services, while necessary, is not tantamount to good governance. It comes in the following statement in a section of her notes on "good governance":

"But we cannot simply boast about all of our tangible achievements. None of these significant achievements in the context of what people now expect of a new kind of governance mean the same thing anymore. The list of things accomplished by this government is merely what we were put there to do.That is the job of the government.

"But I will tell you where you can go looking beyond the daily deliverables of government to find the kind of change you voted for, and that is in the hearts of each of us here.

"If I were to list the greatest achievement of the People's Partnership, it would be that people no longer give any government credit for providing the basics but for demonstrating that there is a genuine concern for them through the kind of policies and programmes set in motion."

But note that, in the same breath, there is this nebulous statement about the change that was voted for residing "in the hearts of each of us here" and a not-so-nebulous statement about policies and programmes showing "genuine concern" for people.

But what underlies the change of heart if not the policies and programmes that produced the tangible achievements, which, we were told, are the matter-of-course job of government? A case of doublespeak? And while we know about the programmes, where are the policies and how were they generated? Whose ideas are they? Certainly not the people's—except insofar as the government represents victorious constituencies.

In Kamla's notes, there is virtually nothing whatsoever about people participating as a necessary part of the decision-making machinery in the formulation of policies and programmes. Nothing. There is no claim that her government worked with the electorate to achieve. None.

What we have here are givers and receivers, promisers and promisees, manufacturers and consumers. The Government gave and the people received. The Government promised and the people accepted. The Government produced goods and services and the people consumed.

This is the model of governance, and it has been the model of governance from colonial times right up to these republican times. And it is not working well just as it has never worked well, in witness whereof are the virtual weekly series of missteps, the alienation of labour, non-action on critical promises.

This model is palpable in the way Kamla addressed her audience. Rhetorical style aside, they had to be told what to tell the UNC/People's Partnership detractors when confronted with queries about the Government's accomplishments, for while some of them were clearly beneficiaries, they did not initiate, create, or formulate.

Where did the idea of a party ombudsman come from? Not from the people. Where did the idea of delivering medication to the doorsteps of the sick and elderly come from? Not from the people.

The people are expected to be loyal and dedicated to the leaders, not to participate manusmanus. They vote and then they disconnect. Indeed, they are not organised for that kind of engagement. And that is the major problem with Trinidadian and, more generally, Caribbean politics.

But there's a little glimmer of hope in the notes—the proposal for constituencies to recall inefficient representatives. But guess what,Kamla did not present the idea as coming from the people! Did I say there was nothing in her notes about people participation?

* Winford James is a UWI lecturer and political analyst.