National awards are not given on a race-based quota system, nor should they be. That being said, the procedures by which awards are handed out are quite unsuitable for a modern democracy.

The first problem is that nobody except the National Awards Committee knows how persons are chosen for the various medals. Last year, Devant Maharaj, head of the Indo-Trinbago Equality Council and an executive member of the Maha Sabha, had to use the Freedom of Information Act to find out who was nominated and not given awards, as well as who wasn’t nominated and still received medals. So the committee, contrary to the spirit of transparency which should direct a body charged with honouring citizens, tries to hide information at every turn.

But perhaps such an attitude is inevitable when the committee is headed by a politician. The Prime Minister has veto power over any nomination made by citizens, as well as the authority to put up individuals who nobody else might want but whom he approves. In a more politically sophisticated society, this might not matter, since public opinion would force a prime minister to separate his office from his political position. But we know that our political culture is not so advanced and, on this basis alone, the Prime Minister should not be part of the committee at all. This is a necessary step in creating the perception of impartiality which must be the basis of truly national awards.

Then there is the matter of the committee itself, which is made up of the Chief Justice, the three chairpersons of the various Commissions, the head of the Civil Service and two members of the public. These last three are chosen by the Prime Minister, and again this is clearly an unsatisfactory basis on which to hand out national awards. Revamping the committee so it is more independent and more representative of civil society would be a progressive step.

Only after such political reforms can we consider the bureaucratic aspects of the awards: the rules by which the committee accepts or rejects nominations, to what extent they should publicise their deliberations, and clearer definitions of the criteria. If the public is aware of such matters, there would be fewer grounds for complaint and, when dissatisfaction is voiced, the committee should be able to offer reasonable justifications for its decisions.

It is a pity that the national awards should have become a matter of contention, but such disputes are part and parcel of the evolution of Trinidad and Tobago as a nation. Resolving the various issues are important in this process since, properly executed, the awards will become a device for unity rather than divisiveness.