A concerning democratic reversal is unfolding in Trinidad and Tobago as the current administration moves to regulate social media commentators, marking a stark departure from its previous stance while in opposition. This policy shift represents both profound hypocrisy and a fundamental threat to constitutional freedoms that form the bedrock of the nation’s democracy.
During its opposition years, the United National Congress (UNC) actively championed social media as a vital platform for public discourse, even encouraging memes, caricatures, and criticism directed at the then prime minister and cabinet. Their Monday Night Forum served as a celebrated rallying point for dissent. Today, however, the same party condemns similar expressions as “reckless” and seeks to regulate what it once vigorously defended.
This dramatic reversal reveals a troubling pattern where criticism appears valid only when directed at political opponents rather than being recognized as an essential democratic right. The government’s approach contradicts established democratic principles, particularly regarding free expression. Legal precedents from multiple jurisdictions demonstrate that when public officials create forums for public discourse—including social media pages—they cannot subsequently silence critics without violating fundamental rights.
International legal perspectives reinforce these concerns. US courts have consistently ruled that when public officials utilize social media for governance purposes, the interactive portions of their accounts transform into “public forums” where censorship constitutes unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. While these cases originate abroad, they articulate universal democratic values that should concern every Trinidad and Tobago citizen.
Further alarm arises from the homeland security minister’s openness to collaborating with foreign governments to revoke visas of commentators disseminating “misleading” narratives. This development follows closely after the Prime Minister denied involvement in Gary Aboud’s visa troubles, suggesting either concerning coordination or visible disunity within government ranks.
Equally troubling were the minister’s comments praising China’s social media control model, which prioritizes strict state censorship to maintain “social stability” and single-party narratives. This approach remains fundamentally incompatible with Trinidad and Tobago’s constitutional democracy, which explicitly guarantees freedom of thought, expression, and press.
While the government cites legitimate concerns about online extremism, existing legal frameworks already provide sufficient remedies. Trinidad and Tobago law contains various statutes, common law offences, and civil remedies that render totalitarian-style censorship unnecessary. From preventative detention orders to established defamation laws, authorities possess adequate tools to address genuine threats without resorting to broad censorship that inevitably stifles legitimate criticism.
The solution to challenging speech isn’t enforced silence but more speech. As late US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis wisely counseled, the remedy for falsehood remains “more speech, not enforced silence.” Similarly, Dr. Eric Williams eloquently stated, “Let the jackass bray,” emphasizing that the most effective response to problematic speech is counterargument rather than government suppression.
This assault on free expression coincides with troubling signs of press freedom erosion, recalling the 2013 attempt by the previous government to deny media access to crime statistics and criticize negative coverage. The current administration appears to be continuing this dangerous precedent rather than reversing it.
Ultimately, a government that genuinely champions democracy cannot emulate the censorship practices of authoritarian regimes. However well-intentioned these measures might claim to be, historical precedent demonstrates that powers to silence critics, once established, inevitably expand beyond their original scope. Citizens across political affiliations must collectively defend the foundational principle that in a true democracy, every individual retains the right to criticize their government without fear of reprisal.
