Turks and Caicos politics in a Caribbean context

By Oliver Mills



Local historians in the Turks and Caicos contend that these islands were the first to be discovered in the Caribbean region, although this is contested by others. However, Caribbean historians have maintained that the real value to Europeans of the West Indies was their mineral wealth, agricultural products, employment for Europeans, and as a training ground for their navies. Nothing is mentioned about the value of the islands to their own people, the local inhabitants.

Indeed, the local inhabitants were highly civilised, particularly the Mayans and Aztecs, while the Caribs and Arawaks on the other hand, who lived communally under a system of governance that suited their needs and circumstances at the time, were regarded by the Europeans as primitive. The latter sought to use the tribal chiefs against each other to maintain a divide and rule policy. This meant that, instead of confronting a common threat, the local inhabitants fought against themselves, urged on by outsiders, who benefitted from this local rivalry which they initiated.

The Turks and Caicos were important for their salt product, cotton, as a training area for sailors and their warships and, initially because of our many islands and cays, as a hide out for pirates, buccaneers, and smugglers. Later in this century we became military bases to maintain surveillance of Castro’s Cuba, and to listen to and track Russian submarines.

A prominent historian of Caribbean affairs describes the background to the contemporary challenges the Caribbean faces today. He states that the society was based on masters and slaves, and this made impossible any spirit of mutual trust between the two sides. The phrase that emerged from this situation was, ‘the worse you behave to a Negro, the better he behaves to you.’ Even now, we still say this about each other.

This perception of these two categories of master and slave later translated into divisions between those with money and resources, and those who had only their labour to offer. From here, developed the antagonistic relationship between labour and capital. And although later, as Caribbean society became more sophisticated through the development of science and technology, a managerial versus a technologically skilled class developed, with knowledge replacing capital as the important factor in workplace relationships.

This historian further states that a further characteristic of Caribbean society was the parochialism of its governing climate of opinion. Any opinions that differed from, or contested the way things were being done, were discouraged. The idea behind this was to maintain the political and social dominance of one group of persons who differed from the local inhabitants in social status, colour and interest.

The type of governance that existed, particularly in those islands with British influence, was Crown Colony government, or direct rule, where a governor and officials from the metropole were the main players, assisted by selected locals regarded as prominent members of the community. This same type of governance exists in the Turks and Caicos today. In the early colonial period, it was based on the contrived assumption that people who were culturally different had no real conception of how to govern themselves, or conduct their affairs in a civilised way. They therefore needed persons of a different and superior cultural orientation to ‘help’ them to become more civilised. To hold their hand and gently lead them, until they were deemed ready and fit to govern themselves.`

This historian rounds out his description of Caribbean society’s background by noting that the European mind failed to apply the idea of equality to subject Caribbean people. The fact is that, in many instances, this perception still remains of people of other races. In the Caribbean, we have absorbed these prejudices, and use them against our own to determine class and social status. People with a fair complexion are still preferred to those with darker skins, and the many races we have still discriminate against each other in various subtle and open ways. We have not as yet, in our Caribbean, despite chatter at various conferences, come to accept each other, trust each other, or see each other in an open-minded way, without race, class, island of origin, or even religion, playing a significant part with respect to how we perceive each other.

In the Caribbean’s quest for ever increasing control over its political affairs, leading to independence for some islands, again, the dominant power insisted that certain steps or stages be gone through, as if locals had to take examinations at different levels of difficulty. Crown Colony government was followed by more political representation through the extension of the vote. Through agitation, internal self-government came about with either a Chief Minister or Premier, based on the intensity of the agitation. This was then followed by independence. But at each stage, it was the colonial power that responded to challenges made on it. It was the local leaders who formed political organisations that over time contested the existing system, and got it to be changed to a more democratic system, representative of the majority.

This is where the Turks and Caicos is today, with demands for the reinstatement of the 2006 constitution, that many insist has nothing wrong with it. Some feel the newly considered constitution is meant to restrict the power of the elected representatives, and the newly proposed electoral system is designed to emasculate the political parties, and give further authority to the function of Governor as an institution.

What is often forgotten, or not realised, is the fact that the 2006 constitution can in many ways be regarded as really an independence constitution. The office of Premier had enormous power, and many international missions were undertaken by the elected government, although it was the UK government that was responsible for foreign affairs. The then Premier gave audience to many heads of state, and a minister of government had some responsibilities for national security. The UK government on a whole, allowed the Turks and Caicos to exercise authority in many areas, which could only be seen in an independent territory. Under the 2006 constitution, therefore, the islands could be described as really being independent where governance in the strict sense is concerned. Ministers exercised certain levels of authority to negotiate abroad on behalf of the country, met with their counterparts abroad, and entered into agreements after the proposals had gone through the cabinet process.

The independent Caribbean territories basically followed this same process. It appears, though, that the Turks and Caicos, although coming a little late on the scene, caught up quickly with these countries, even surpassing them in economic development, and becoming their equal in the level of political awareness and consciousness. As a matter of fact, our first Premier was even invited to an economic event in Jamaica to share ideas on how his country was able to achieve the level of economic growth it did. One of our Chief Ministers under the PDM government even attended important functions abroad, on an equal footing with other heads of state. Although not formally an independent country, the Turks and Caicos enjoyed equality of status with the other independent Caribbean countries. No other Caribbean country received this recognition when they were at the political stage the Turks and Caicos was at.

We all know the political story of what happened to the Turks and Caicos political system, and the accompanying economic challenges we now face. Many feel that the introduction of current revenue measures, and those impending, will result in further economic decline, and a further lowering of the standard of living in the islands, as well as discouraging foreign investment. Some feel that our economic progress began with the introduction of political parties that took various initiatives that secured agreements for growth and development to take place. Others feel that jealousy is responsible for the state the country is in now, and that there is no independent objective means of knowing what the real state of the economy is.

There is a segment of the population that also feels that whatever resources we have are not being used in a way significantly beneficial to the inhabitants, and that a new class of ‘others’ is calling the shots, and enjoying a certain lifestyle, while local people are mere spectators in their own country. If this is so, is this moral? Others feel that it is the Turks and Caicos political class and their associates that are responsible for the developments that led to where we currently are.

But there is also a view which is convinced that the profile of the Turks and Caicos as a country with people of colour who developed and managed a successful economy, and brought advantages not previously enjoyed to almost every island and its inhabitants, went against the previously held view of people of colour being unable to manage their political and economic institutions successfully, being always dependent on handouts from others, because they were lazy, carefree, and a bunch of freeloaders, incapable of anything serious or worthy of note. Certain activities therefore had to be initiated to restore the islands to the status it was felt they should really have, as a territory with people of colour as its majority, with a selected few of ‘others’ who feel themselves entitled, by virtue of their alleged cultural sophistication, to lead these people of colour into the light.

In the context of the wider Caribbean, then, it can be seen, that basically, the Turks and Caicos followed the same political and economic course, had the same historical elites that exercised power and authority over their destiny, and experienced the same condescending attitudes exhibited by these elites. The demonstrations for the restoration of democracy here were also carried out by other Caribbean territories in their quest for autonomy, and our politicians, although living in a more enlightened age, still behave in a way reminiscent of those Caribbean politicians at our stage of political development.

The independent countries got their way. Will the Turks and Caicos, through its party system, and other political groups achieve its objectives and soon join these territories as a fully sovereign and independent country?

March 16, 2011

caribbeannewsnow

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