TRINIDAD and Tobago’s Prime Minister Patrick Manning recently confessed that governing the country with its diverse races and religions was no easy feat.

He is correct in saying that it’s difficult to govern a plural society, but a major part of that blame has to be shouldered by past administrations and by the current government for their failure to implement a policy of integrating diversity and pursuing equality of all its people.

Years ago, following the appointment of some of his ministers, Mr. Manning declared nonplussed that he was looking for Indians to serve in his administration and had left a few positions open.

Naturally, many people saw it as tokenism. But the statement said a whole lot more from a leader who governs a country where 40 per cent of its population are descendants of former slaves, and about 40.3 per cent whose fore-parents were Indentured labourers from India.

The balance of the population is made up of middle eastern, whites, Chinese and mixed races.

Racial, and to some extent, political and religious discrimination continues to be a problem in Trinidad and Tobago, although all groups continue to co-exist peacefully with one another, and are economically interdependent.

Even the United States, perhaps the most pluralistic society in the world, continues to deal with its own ethnic and racial differences, as we all saw when black Harvard University professor, Henry Louis Gates Jr., was arrested in his own home last month by police for disorderly conduct.

Many saw the incident, which led to Gates arrest, as another example of racial profiling and President Barack Obama initially chastised the police officer who arrested the eminent professor.

The trio later simmered down over some beers at the White House.

The issue of race discrimination surfaced in the public domain in Trinidad about three weeks ago when opposition parliamentarian, Dr Tim Gopiesingh, using a highly exaggerated phrase, claimed that ethnic cleansing was taking place at the Port of Spain General Hospital where Indo-Trinidadian doctors were losing their jobs.

Some of the doctors Dr Gopiesingh identified as being victims of the ethnic cleansing came forward to explain that they had in fact resigned to go into the more lucrative private practice, or opted not to renew their contracts for one reason or the other.

Dr Gopiesingh’s ill-coined statement led to some sober debate but it also opened up a spew of ethnic hate talk.

One just had to listen to some of the call-in radio talk programmes to hear contributions from the public degenerating into incendiary language of ‘we’ and ‘them’.

Some radio commentators, who failed to manage the debate responsibly, reminded me of how broadcasters used radio during the Rwandan genocide in inciting mass killing by mobilising Hutus, who wiped away an estimated half a million Tutsis in the mid 90s.

There is clearly need for responsible debate on the issue, but the challenge, however, is ensuring that it does not descend into creating hostility and animosity, and deepening the divide between the two dominant races. Its purpose should be how to create a harmonious balance between them.

Indo-Trinidadians have always claimed discrimination, since the country became an independent nation in 1962.

Ruled by the Afro-backed People’s National Movement (PNM), persons of Indian ethnicity complained that it was often very hard to get employment in the Public Service. Even up to the current day, the Public Service continues to be highly dominated by one major group.

It is for this reason, according to the Indo-Trinidadians, that they saved up their hard-earned money, mainly from working in the agriculture sector, to send their children to universities to become doctors, lawyers, economists and other professionals.

They have said, too, that as long as the PNM — which ruled and continues to rule the twin-island State since 1956 — with the exception of two five-year terms in the Opposition, discrimination against them will continue, especially if there is no real move towards bridging the divide.

It also does not help to cement the relationship between the PNM and persons of Indian descent when Mr. Manning continues to ignore invitations to attend Indian Arrival Day celebrations.

Mr. Manning said he has a problem with the word Indian in the Arrival Day name of the holiday. So this year, as he has done in previous years, he absented himself from the celebrations and instead attended a sports day hosted by his political party.

In contrast, Mr. Manning invited a professor of world history with a special interest in charting the lives of persons in the African Diaspora, and bearing his own name, as a special guest of the annual National Association for the Empowerment of African People (NAEAP) dinner, a main function on the eve of the Emancipation Day holiday.

Mr. and Mrs. Manning also took part in the Kamboule procession through the streets of the capital the following day, dressed in the attire of the celebrations.

In previous years, he has invited African leaders to the country to celebrate in the Emancipation Day festivities. He hasn’t done the same for the Indo group though, Indian organisations have complained.

Afro-Trinidadians also seem to have their own problems with their Indian counterparts, accusing them of controlling businesses and being greedy for profits.

When the Indo-backed United National Congress (UNC) got into office, some of their over-exuberant supporters were reportedly chanting: “It’s we time now,” which many Afros today believe meant “Indian time now,” especially as the country got its first prime minister of Indian ancestry, Basdeo Panday.

This is a rough and raw picture of Trinidad and Tobago’s race relations today.

Although the race issue continues to simmer and, at various points, boil heatedly in the public domain, no one is looking at what solutions there might be for dealing with discrimination and fostering a harmonious balance between the two races.

In 1993, Prime Minister Patrick Manning commissioned a report from the UWI’s Centre for Ethnic Studies on race relations in the country, which, not surprisingly, found widespread complaints and evidence of racial discrimination in both the public and private sectors in the country.

Up to 2009, recommendations made in the report to reduce the suspicion and tension between the two dominant races in the country, have not been implemented.

Years later, after the study on race relations, former media magnate, Ken Gordon and other prominent individuals in the private sphere launched the Principles of Fairness, which were signed by most major organisations in the country.

One of the main points in the Principles of Fairness is the recognition that the problem of racial discrimination does exist in both the private and public sectors, and calls for “certain fundamental principles of fairness” to arrest this degeneration of race relations in the society.

Sadly, the Principles of Fairness have faded into oblivion while the people behind it have gone totally silent.

The national challenge for this country lies in how the races can live comfortably with their diversity, negotiating their differences, achieving cultural convergence, and how the merits of pluralism can be used positively to bring about a prosperous and forward-looking society.

But for a society to be cohesive, it must be inclusive, with no groups, however minor they are, left behind.

It’s no easy task, but there must be a beginning towards how we can achieve such a society. Until then, the simmering continues.