Thoughts on Jamaica's 50th anniversary

By FRANKLIN W KNIGHT




The approach of the 50th anniversary of Jamaican independence provides an appropriate time to review and perhaps revise the way Jamaica is governed. Thinking about the structure of government does not require the approach of a significant year, but anniversaries are always an opportune moment for assessment. How has the country done in the past 50 years since it took control of its own affairs? What institutions are not working at all? What is working well? What could be made better?

One place to start is with the constitution hastily written in 1961 to respond to the self-made emergency following the unexpected collapse of the West Indian Federation that was carefully designed to shepherd a number of Caribbean units into an awkward form of independence. But the principal goal of the federation was to relieve Great Britain of the administrative costs of empire. British Caribbean independence was not designed to secure the future happiness and well-being of the citizens of the Caribbean. To guarantee their goal, the British promised that any territory that felt it could make it on its own was free to do so. With the premature collapse of the federation, Jamaica, along with Trinidad and Tobago, opted for independence and needed constitutions to legalise the process.

In 1776 the British North American colonies initiated the idea of a written constitution as a prelude to political independence. It was a rationale for change that tried to do two things. The first was to synthesise some core values and guiding principles of just government. The second was to lay out the guidelines for structuring and regulating the good society. Since then every group of citizens wishing to construct a modern state has outlined its history, culture, hopes and expectations in a form of written constitution. That is what Jamaica did in 1961.

The Jamaica constitution quite properly tried to capture what it felt were the basic values and principles of the country at the time. In that it did a good job. It recognised that Jamaica was a demographically diverse country with roots in Europe, Africa, Asia and the Americas. It had a culture that was an eclectic and creolised blend of the various peoples who made the island their home over centuries or who had recently arrived. Jamaican culture was not like a pizza with a choice of exotic toppings. Rather, it was like a delicately constructed cake with discernible ingredients all delightfully melded together. That conviction is reflected in the island's motto, "Out of many One people" as well as in the symbolic colours of the national flag. That intrinsic diversity is still exalted as a desirable virtue.

Jamaicans also hold a deep respect for popular democracy, deriving from its curious history. Jamaica was not always a democracy. Indeed, the original British representative legislature was neither representative nor democratic. But neither was the British Parliament before the Great Reform Act of 1832. Fortunately for Jamaica, the English residents who structured the government of the colony after its capture from the Spanish in 1655 were not the viable critical mass needed to develop and retain the sort of bourgeois proclivities of the white property holders in British North America. The Jamaican legislature accepted free non-whites and Jews as bona fide members as long as they met the eligibility requirements. They were not happy with the result but they had no choice.

Then in 1865 the Jamaica Assembly did a remarkable thing. Rather than expand its representation it abolished itself. That was a lesson in self-preservation that was not lost on the masses. Political control, it learned, was the most important instrument in ensuring social cohesion and common justice. By the time that Jamaica began universal adult suffrage in 1944 a popular democracy was being practised widely by hundreds of organisations across the island. Teachers, small farmers, dockworkers and various other groups of workers formed mutual aid associations hoping to improve their common condition.

Jamaican democracy is founded on the unswerving conviction that the legitimacy of any government rests on the overt approval of the people expressed in free, fair, and open elections. The government is not only responsible to the people; it is also the principal protector of those people. It is benefactor and surrogate parent. This conviction crosses all social and economic divisions and ties the elites to the masses, unlike many other countries where governments are divorced from the people. When governments work well it results in genuine accountability. Governments that fail to meet the expectations of the people are usually rejected at the polls.

The weakness in this apparently sound principle of government resides in the written constitutional form that privileges the two founding political parties, the PNP and the JLP, which have controlled the political process since 1944. As constitutionally structured, especially in a first-past-the-post electoral system, parties other than the PNP and the JLP do not have a fair chance of winning sufficient representation to form a government. These parties have been monumental failures since 1962. Yet a good constitution should cater to a wider representation of views than just those of the PNP and the JLP.

As Jamaica approaches its 50th anniversary, now is as good a time as any to rethink the constitution. What Jamaica needs is a responsive procedure that results in the greatest good for the greatest number of its citizens. Because democracy is not a perfect form of government - there is no perfect form of democracy - then from time to time it needs to be modified and re-calibrated to serve the majority of the people. Nothing could serve the people of Jamaica better than a major discussion in the next year about the constitutional basis of its government and how it may be improved. As the poet Tennyson wrote: "The old order changes yielding place to new; and God fulfils himself in many ways lest one good custom should corrupt the world." Change is inevitable. Jamaica's present and future depend on periodically reconciling its political institutions to its new realities.

September 14, 2011

jamaicaobserver

Bahamas Blog International

The British Caribbean and its history

By Franklyn W Knight:


The English-speaking population of the Caribbean represents less than 20 per cent of the conventionally defined region. That definition describes a Caribbean composed of the island chain from the Bahamas and the Dutch ABC islands of Aruba, Bonaire and Curaçao plus the mainland enclaves of Belize, Guyana and Suriname. Sometimes Bermuda is included although its 68,000 additional souls hardly change the proportion.

In the 1980s a new political definition became popular. It added the Central American states but omitted Cuba, displaying more the political bias of the United States of America rather than the reality of Caribbean affairs and the peculiar history of the region. The driving force behind the conventional definition of the Caribbean was a certain uniformity of history. The states of the conventional Caribbean were inordinately influenced by the interrelated sugar revolutions that convulsed the region between the 17th and the 19th centuries.

These sugar revolutions radically transformed the political, social, occupational, economic, demographic, and environmental structure of most of the Caribbean islands. Sugar was the principal driving force but it was not the only one and not all the islands succumbed to those revolutions. The massive importation of Africans - more than 10 million between 1518 and 1870 - made possible the transformation of the vast region between the northeast of Brazil, the Antilles, the Magdalena-Cauca river valleys of Colombia and a huge swath of the southern part of what today is called the United States of America. But African slavery affected every country in the Americas to some degree.

Slavery, of course, existed long before Christopher Columbus and his ill-fated caravels wandered into the Caribbean. Slaves constituted an integral part of Roman expansion and colonisation of most of Western Europe. The preferred slaves of Romans came from the region that today comprises Germany. But the word itself derives from the Slavic peoples who formed the greater proportion of people who were traded in the slave markets of the Mediterranean. Europeans continued to enslave one another until the middle of the 19th century, although mostly in Russia. And Muslim states enslaved captured Europeans in the Mediterranean until the Napoleonic Wars.

African and indigenous American peoples also enslaved one another. Throughout the continent of Africa, stronger states subordinated weaker states and subjected their conquered peoples to some form of slavery. Among other occupations, male slaves were employed as warriors or protectors of harems and religious sites. In Mexico a system of slavery called Tlacotli existed until the arrival of Hernán Cortés in 1521.

Slavery in the Americas reconstructed by the Europeans and their slaves finds no precedence anywhere else in the world. Neither in Europe, Africa nor among the indigenous societies of the Americas did the practice demonstrate the rigidity and suffocating mutually reinforcing cleavages developed after 1518. Only in the European American colonies were race and colour essential aspects of enslavement. Only in the Americas did slavery perform a vitally important economic function, assets that could independently generate wealth. The American slave society and the American slave-holding society were fundamentally different.

Nevertheless, the way the history of the Caribbean is taught, especially in the British Caribbean, leaves much to be desired. It tends to be excessively centred on the British Caribbean experience and neglects the integral connection with the non-Anglophone Caribbean or with the wider Americas.

To begin, not all Africans arrived in the Americas as merchandise. Several Hispanised Africans arrived with the Iberians in the first century of conquest and colonisation. Columbus recruited travel companions such as Juan Garrido and Pedro Alonso Niño from among the large free black population that lived in Andalucía, in cities from Málaga to Huelva. Nuflo de Olano who accompanied Vasco Nuñez de Balboa across the Isthmus of Panama was probably a bought African slave. Juan Valiente who accompanied Hernán Cortés to Mexico was described as black. So was Estebanico who wandered for 10 years with Alvar Nuñez Cabeza de Vaca from Florida to Mexico by way of Louisiana and Texas.

These free blacks, like their fellow adventurers, spawned a large, free, mixed population wherever they went. There were blacks and descendants of blacks all across the Americas who were never enslaved. They formed pockets of free population in cities, especially port cities like Havana, New Orleans, Vera Cruz, Porto Bello, Cartagena, Lima, Salvador de Bahia and Buenos Aires. And the town of El Cobre in eastern Cuba had a town council of freed and semi-free residents between 1680 and 1780.

During the 19th century another group of free Africans arrived along with Chinese and Indians from the Asian subcontinent to assist in the transition from slave labour to wage labour across the Caribbean. While smaller than the imported numbers of the commercial transatlantic slave trade, these immigrants are a part of the history that should not be neglected.

The massive importation of Africans was necessary because, unlike the narratives of Bartolomé de las Casas, the population of the Caribbean and circum-Caribbean in 1492 was not as large as the friar supposed. The Caribbean islands may have had a combined population of just about one million. That population could not support the increased labour demands of export-oriented plantations. The decline of the Native American population between 1500 and about 1650 was extremely complex and not the result of the single or simplistic explanation of Spanish genocide. Indeed, genocide is an inappropriate description for the decline of the Tainos of the Antilles.

But slavery is not the only theme in which moving the boundaries beyond time and space offers rewards. Hispaniola had a relatively early sugar complex - as early as 1512. The distillation of rum has a history preceding the English arrival in Barbados. Rum was distilled in the 13th century by Benedictine monks in Lebanon. Maroons were not really instrumental in the process of disintegration of the Caribbean slave society, and their role in the Haitian revolution seems highly exaggerated. Finally, the peasant society in the Caribbean goes back to the 16th century.

July 07, 2010

jamaicaobserver

Bahamas Blog International