By: Paul Sarran
April 22, 2025
In Trinidad and Tobago, a troubling narrative has gained traction—one that suggests social activists are increasingly influencing political outcomes, particularly during election seasons. While activism traditionally plays a crucial role in democracies by promoting accountability and representing the people’s voice, there’s now a perception that activists are less about civic duty and more about political disruption. This belief carries serious consequences, especially during general elections, as it risks distorting the political process, weakening parties’ ability to govern effectively, and sowing distrust among the electorate. It also misrepresents the true nature of activism and contributes to a political climate fraught with suspicion and division.
The effects of this narrative are extensive. It positions activists not as independent advocates for social justice, but as hidden extensions of political parties. This perception can discredit legitimate issues raised by civil society, especially when those issues touch on political sensitivities. When activism is seen through a partisan lens, ruling parties may treat it as a threat rather than a call to improve governance. Instead of engaging with the issues, political parties may shift focus to defending their image, deflecting criticism, or silencing dissent. This not only detracts from their central purpose but also polarizes the national conversation, reducing it to a war of narratives instead of a collective pursuit of solutions.
Tensions are particularly heightened during general elections. In these moments, every social commentary is scrutinized for political bias. Activists who highlight systemic failures or call out corruption are sometimes accused of having ulterior motives or of covertly supporting the opposition. As a result, political leaders may become preoccupied with countering these voices rather than outlining meaningful policy agendas. Campaigns become more about optics and damage control than about addressing the needs of citizens. This defensive posture erodes the quality of political engagement, leaving the electorate frustrated and disconnected from the democratic process.
This narrative also harms broader democratic participation. When activists are blamed for election results or viewed as puppets of political rivals, ordinary citizens may hesitate to engage in public debates or support social causes. They may fear backlash, character assassination, or being labelled as partisan. This discourages activism, mutes important discussions, and erodes civil society’s capacity to hold leaders accountable. In the long run, it produces a disengaged public and deepens social fractures, allowing critical issues to remain unresolved. The damage is not limited to public perception; it creates a feedback loop in which distrust begets more distrust.
Political parties, especially those in power, may begin to allocate more time and resources to managing public relations rather than fulfilling their development goals. Efforts to spin narratives and discredit dissent consume attention that should be directed at policy-making and governance. Parties may avoid bold reforms for fear of activist backlash, leading to stagnation and missed opportunities for progress. When activism is framed as an electoral threat rather than a democratic asset, it fuels paranoia within party structures. In turn, parties may become more insulated and less responsive to the needs of the people they claim to represent.
To address this growing tension and help political organizations remain focused on their mission, a cultural shift is needed. First, a more mature understanding of activism must be promoted—one that recognizes its value and distinguishes it from partisan politicking. Open dialogue between political stakeholders and civil society leaders can help bridge the trust gap. Clear, respectful communication can reduce misinterpretation and promote collaboration. Political education efforts can also play a role, helping the public discern between activism that seeks social justice and rhetoric designed for political gain.
Moreover, social activists themselves have a part to play in maintaining credibility. By committing to transparency and consistently distancing their efforts from political affiliations, they can protect their legitimacy. Staying issue-focused and value-driven helps the public see them as authentic voices for change. Political parties, meanwhile, must learn to engage with criticism constructively. Not all dissent is politically motivated—some of it reflects genuine concern from the citizenry. Responding with meaningful action rather than defensiveness can lead to better governance and stronger public trust.
The current narrative that paints activists as underminers of political stability is not only inaccurate—it is harmful. It risks muting necessary conversations, deterring civic involvement, and weakening the structures that support a healthy democracy. While some activism may touch on politically sensitive issues, that doesn’t make it inherently partisan. Activists serve to challenge complacency, spotlight social challenges, and give voice to those often left unheard. Political parties would benefit more from engaging with them than trying to discredit them. When parties and activists find common ground, it creates space for collaboration, policy innovation, and democratic resilience.
Political leaders must resist the temptation to see activism as a threat and instead view it as a critical part of the democratic ecosystem. Doing so will allow them to focus on their policy agenda, strengthen their public mandate, and better serve the people of Trinidad and Tobago. By embracing civic engagement, rather than fearing it, parties can improve their credibility, deliver real change, and foster a more inclusive political culture.
(The Author is a Political Science Student at the University of the West Indies Global Campus in St. Augustine)
Email your opinions, letters and commentaries to: letters@caribmagplus.com