With the exception of the years 1986-1991, two parties have been at the helm of Trinidad and Tobago’s politics. Red and yellow have filled our Parliament houses so much that their very presence seems immutable to most. So, one can imagine the stir when Nikoli Edwards registered his Progressive Party and confirmed that it was a contender for the upcoming national general elections. Nikoli, a 27-year-old man from San Fernando with a history in the civil service and a stint as an independent senator under his belt, declared that Trinidad and Tobago was at a critical point in its history and that his new party was the light that citizens have been asking for. Is it, though? In addition to the knight-in-shining-armour rhetoric, which while seductive, is extremely ambitious, I do not think that what the Progressives offer is what Trinidad and Tobago needs or what I would want to consume. Below, I outline the reasons why I do not think so.

As a member of the curious club, armed with smartphone and, dare I say, hope, I crafted a probing Instagram message on the party’s philosophical underpinnings, vision and mission and hit send. In response, I was told to wait for the June launch for clarification…so I did…and I waited some more…and then it happened. I was left with more questions than answers. In the interest of fairness, I sought Nikoli’s interviews post-launch so that I would not misrepresent his position. It was then that I happened upon this gem. It is the most extensive I have seen him get to date, which is not exactly a compliment.

The characteristic vagueness with which Nikoli speaks is both telling and exhausting. It shows me that he has no concrete ideas or mission or even opinions. That is scary. I mean, when a man can answer the question “Where and what is your manifesto?” with “How about I ask you what you would like to see in a manifesto?” a year before elections, and AFTER launching a whole political party and promising the moon and stars, it becomes clear that he is putting the cart before the horse. His vocabulary is splendid and his eloquence, notable. These are a testament to his communication studies degree, which, if I had to guess, would have first class honours attached. But what good is an eloquent speech about nothing in particular? I have grown weary of waiting for a meaningful response to anything I ask and have concluded that the reason for this vagueness is ignorance. I refuse to be led by a blind man, even if he has really cool hair. That highlights my first issue.

My second issue with Nikoli and his Progressive Party overlaps with the first. He does not seem to have a grasp of effective policy. The meaning of “policy” is admittedly elusive, but there are certain things for which I demand exceptional evidence. One of those things is a policy on minimum wage, which I think does more harm than good to an economy. In his discussion with Let’s Talk About It podcast’s Jahleel Castagne, Nikoli, had much to say about Prestige Holdings Limited’s choice to advertise job vacancies in Spanish upon the influx of Venezuelan nationals to our shores. Of particular interest was his suggestion that pressure by the populace to raise the minimum wage was a viable solution to the apparent problem of persons not being able to raise a family on a KFC salary. The alarm bells in my head went off.

According to this study by Meer and West, minimum wages reduce employment (i.e. increase unemployment) over time in a dynamic manner, especially through a reduction in job growth. This holds even when questioning the validity of the traditional demand and supply model. There are arguments made for and against the validity of this traditional methodology which suggests more immediate changes in employment statistics when the minimum wage is increased, though most are for it. A study by Strobl and Walsh entitled “Minimum Wage and Compliance: The Case of Trinidad and Tobago” showed that the introduction of the minimum wage in Trinidad and Tobago resulted in a reduction in employment for low wage earners and an increase in the use of part time workers. This research has been cited by the Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago in a 2013 working paper by research economists Reshma Mahabir, Vishana Jagessar, Crystal Neptune and Delvin Cox. This article has links to some relevant studies on the impact of minimum wages on unemployment.

To Nikoli’s credit, he acknowledged that people must creep before they walk and shared his own experience working in a herbal shop and later, starting his own herbal soap business. But it is this exact fact that suggests that he is not competent to do the job for which he is asking citizens to hire him. Such a policy decision would directly contradict the reality of his early employment. Sure, it is well-intentioned and even radical (I scoff at the word) to suggest that citizens should stand up and demand a vague “better” in the face of low wages. But if an increase in minimum wages increases unemployment over time, and if, as is most likely the case, traditional methods turn out to be valid and their findings on increases in unemployment in the short term are accurate, then why would he even dare to suggest pressure for such an increase as a solution? Is that actually better? A low-paying job is better than unemployment and these minimum wage jobs offer quick upward mobility through the provision of invaluable working experience. There is no shame in honest work and there is definitely no shame in growth over time. Is it that he wishes that others do not have the opportunity to work their ways up? Does he wish to make starting on a career path more difficult by removing the lowest rung from which people are to boost themselves? His mention of the gender and youth policies, as well as his clear desire to expand the public service only cement my opinions on his failure to grasp what makes for effective policy. Were these even policies? What did the gender and youth policies achieve? Has he seen the public service?

My third issue with Nikoli and his Progressive Party is what I perceive to be his lack of regard for facts. In the interview above, he spoke about the existence of “multiple genders as opposed to male and female.” Biology and reality will make it clear that people are either male or female, with some genetic disorders accounting for intersex persons. Gender Dysphoria is a psychiatric disorder. You can be masculine, or feminine or androgynous in your gender and reflect this in your presentation. You cannot identify as whatever you want under the sun and be sane. That is called a delusion. I do not say this tongue in cheek. The politicising of gender and the invention of additional genders is an actual thing these days and in Canada, attempts have been made to mandate the use of invented pronouns and thus, limit free speech, all in the name of identity politics. I do not play that game and it will not do any good for Trinidad and Tobago to play it. A stable society requires an acknowledgement of basic facts like the existence of two genders.

On the less nefarious end of the ignorance-of-fact-spectrum, Nikoli stated with authority that in Trinidad and Tobago, you have to be at the age of majority (18) to access sexual education and sexual health treatment and resources without parental consent. A quick visit to the TTConnect website would show that this is not true. Further, minors can access information and consent to different medical procedures by meeting the threshold of the common law Gillick Competence test. The rationale of this test is that as a child develops, he or she becomes more independent and thus, is more competent to consent to certain things without parental input. Lord Fraser set out five guidelines in his judgment which are of particular relevance in this discussion, because the Gillick case was actually about sexual health education. He stated that (1) if a minor understands the nature of treatment/the advice given, (2) cannot be persuaded to inform his/her parents, (3) is likely to start or continue sexual intercourse without contraceptive treatment, (4) is likely to suffer physically and/or mentally if treatment is withheld and (5) the best interests of the child are taken into account, the need for parental consent shall be waived. So, Nikoli is either uninformed or intentionally sharing false information. Either situation should inform one’s decision to support him and his party, as it is acceptable to follow neither the ignorant nor the dishonest…especially when a simple Google search clarifies the matter. Can a man be trusted to manage an economy if he cannot manage a basic Google search? Have we not had too many Prime Ministers who bray and talk off the top of their heads on matters of public importance? I think we have.

My fourth issue is simple. Although no clear policy positions have been given by Nikoli, his Progressive Party’s website states that it is Centre Left on politics. What that seems to mean is that the party’s aim is to utilize the existing framework to improve social justice. This would be done through a mixed economy, an extensive social security system, increased regulation, trade union support, progressive taxation, wealth taxes and Keynesian economics. I subscribe to libertarian politics. I lean right. I love capitalism. I think the existing framework is horrible and that the government is too big. I hate regulation because it stymies economic growth and innovation. Trade unions are the bane of my existence and I think that they are a cartel…only, in the words of my friend Kevin, “Cartels actually provide services, so there is a difference!” I hate income taxes because they penalise citizens for being productive. I am definitely NOT a proponent of Keynesian economics. Government spending does nothing more than mislead us into overestimating a stagnant or recessive economy. My politics do not line up with centre-left politics. I like freedom and responsibility and while I do not have an issue with basic social security, I am neither naïve enough to think that it cannot be exploited nor bold enough to pretend that the public funding, monitoring, staffing and auditing of an extensive social safety net, with its high maintenance costs and associated bureaucracy, which inevitably reduce the amount of money allocated to help the people we want to help, is better than private funding and private charity. The quick response to last year’s extensive flooding is proof of the effectiveness of private actions by good and charitable citizens. The Progressives and I fundamentally disagree on what the role of government should be and to me, they are more of the same-old with a fresh, new face.

My fifth and final issue with Nikoli and his Progressive Party happens to be my primary one. His blatant use of identity politics is unbecoming to anyone with a modicum of conscience or maturity. I have already mentioned his pandering to the gender crowd, so it is clear to me that he is willing to play that game. I need not reiterate that aspect of things. The brand of identity politics that he seems to be milking most, however, is that of “youth”. While it is a fact that Nikoli was the youngest person to be appointed to the Senate, he mentions youth like clockwork every time he speaks as if it is some kind of virtue. Youth is as much a virtue as old age and the infusion of us-vs-them talk on age lines is unfortunate…and presumptuous…and sly. I do not see how the number of times one has orbited the sun affects the validity or effectiveness of one’s policies. Of course, if one has not actually outlined any policies, it becomes necessary to find a selling point. I get the sense that his sole aim is to become Trinidad and Tobago’s youngest Prime Minister and that he will stop at nothing to get there.

I am open to proposals and ideas and statistics. I am a sucker for a good scientific study and policies based on empirics. Empirics are sexy. Empirics are also absent from all of his statements and in their stead, we have received buzzwords, good intentions, doe-eyed naivety and shapeless, utopian assertions, which we are apparently supposed to excuse because he is “young” and aspires to “develop Trinidad to its fullest potential”. What exactly he means by that remains unspecified. “Give young blood a chance!” is a statement I have heard too many times this week as if the Progressive Party is owed a chance solely because its leader has not yet hit the big 30.

Politics isn’t musical chairs. The economy isn’t a UWI exam with supplemental exams in Semester 3 if you fail. This is not a Guild Election. We are discussing whether we should put billions of dollars into a government’s hands and trust them with managing it. We are discussing whether we can trust someone to do a job which will facilitate individuals in this country bettering their lives and the lives of their families and loved ones, through autonomy, responsible action, hard work and dedication. None of the previous parties meet the threshold and, in my view, neither does Nikoli’s. Trinidad and Tobago doesn’t need “leadership”. Political pundits have continually told us that we need “leadership”. Smooth-talking intellectuals with no grasp of the reality of our day-to-day lives have told us that they are the answer more times than we can count. What we need is freedom to pursue our best and a government that understands that it is neither parent nor nanny. The Progressive Party is rife with paternalism, is willing to pander to social hijackers like gender politicians and is void of direction. It is for those reasons that I shall not be lending my support to them.