Open-minded politics and the Caribbean

By Oliver Mills:

Caribbean politics in many ways can be regarded as being a closed-minded activity. We as Caribbean people often have our allegiance to political parties pre-determined for us by our political culture, and through political socialisation. Through these processes, our minds from very early are shaped to accept designated political beliefs, which very often we do not question, or even revise, despite the fact that the political organisations we support can often behave in unacceptable ways. We therefore become the victims of our own choice. We are therefore not open-minded about the political beliefs we hold.

William Hare, a former professor at Dalhousie University, says that open-mindedness is the ability to hold particular views, but to revise them when new evidence that contradicts them is presented. To me this means we remain open to the possibility that what we currently hold to be true; can be found to have no basis or substance when new evidence is presented to the contrary. We should therefore revise our original position, and adopt the new, evidence-based one, despite the psychological unease we may experience, because of the changes necessary to put things right.

The lack of open-minded thinking in Caribbean politics is seen most starkly just before independence, when Caribbean governments had other political systems to choose from, but instead retained the one they inherited. This meant continued governance by the well-off and parliamentary legislation being formulated to benefit the elites. Since the system benefited only a minority at the expense of the majority, there was no consideration of reflecting in an open-minded way, on whether it needed to be evaluated, and replaced by one which was more equitable.

A closed-minded view of politics therefore prevailed from the eve of independence to the present. Independence itself was a gift to the Caribbean closed-minded elite. This is why every Caribbean independent country is experiencing the same problems in some form presently, since the content of the gift was worse than the packaging.

Apart from not being open-minded about the inherited political institutions, there was, and still is no attempt to politically educate citizens of the independent countries in a serious way to rid their minds of the myths their previous controllers had, and still have about them.

One Caribbean author states that myths were used to make people contented with their lot. For example, they were told the social order under which they lived was natural, and even divine. This led to a cowed ambition, and an existence without any serious purpose, since everything was fixed. Few Caribbean countries since independence have sought to free the minds of their citizens in a systematic way from the complexes the pre-independence period imposed on them.

Because of this, unhealthy negative thinking remains, and some of the coping mechanisms in the pre- and post-independence period were and are to submit to the system and be contented with it, while seeking to be recruited into the ranks of those who wielded, and still possess power and authority, so they could be a part of the system of dominance, and so help to keep their own people quiet and obedient. This is the closed-minded way of coping, and these behaviours remain in the present era.

Some who used this strategy, and still employ it, include the educated middle class. Closed-minded thinking has therefore led to economic stagnancy, exhausted political ideas and, most frightening of all, it has led to ministers of government behaving like civil servants, rather than transformational leaders.

The political directorate in the Caribbean has therefore become copycats of other systems, because they have not employed open-minded thinking to find alternative social arrangements that would work in their respective countries.

In one area where the Caribbean political directorate has become most open-minded though, is in the role of the maximum political leader, or prime minister, simply because it gives them more power, and authority. This is shown where, according to Trevor Munroe, the Caribbean prime minister dominates the executive or cabinet, more than does the British prime minister, and we also have a political culture which defers to our leaders.

The prime minister in the Caribbean also exercises greater control over his or her party than what obtains in Britain, since party candidates are approved by the leader. In Britain, the candidate for election is chosen by the people in the constituency. The Caribbean prime minister’s power over the legislature is also greater than that of the British prime minister, because he or she has the power to dissolve parliament.

We have seen, then, that open-mindedness in Caribbean politics exists only where it benefits the leaders. If they see where being open-minded gives them an edge, they revise their views on certain practices. If no political mileage is gained, closed-mindedness prevails.

But open-mindedness goes beyond personal advantage. It is about being constantly alert to the possibility that the political environment might change and so endanger progressive policies. It is being constantly open to the changes in the way the electorate measures the political winds, and decides to change with them. It is being open to new political ideas and philosophies, which are transformational in character. And it is having the willingness to adopt, make decisions based on evidence, and so provide citizens of the Caribbean with a prosperous, happy, and viable society.

Most importantly, open-mindedness involves the willingness of Caribbean leaders to give up their most cherished ideas, once new evidence shows they no longer have credence, and change them for those that have.

April 03, 2014

Caribbeannewsnow

Dominica's Mary Eugenia Charles - A legacy for gender equality in the Caribbean

By Rebecca Theodore



As Caribbean governments continue their focus on the eradication of direct and indirect forms of discrimination against women through legislative reforms and the enactment of gender sensitive social policies, the achievements of Mary Eugenia Charles, grand dame of the Caribbean come to light.

While the accomplishments and contributions of Mary Eugenia Charles to Caribbean politics are widely discussed in the scholarly and popular literature of universities and political arenas; it is also sometimes argued with much speculation, controversy, admiration and hatred. However, Eugenia Charles confronts Dominica and the Caribbean with the picture of a woman attributed with the enigma of power in a patriarchal society. Her leadership challenges the traditional belief of the inferiority of women and the authority and supremacy of men in the male-dominated sphere of politics in the Caribbean.

According to the Journal of Caribbean International Relations, “Dame Mary Eugenia Charles championed the cause of gender equality long before it became commercially fashionable. As a feminist, Eugenia Charles evoked the burning issues of the rule of law, and the rights of the individual in society.” Yet, her relentless demands for equal rights, social justice, and the end of sex discrimination still does not guarantee women in Dominica and the Caribbean autonomy and freedom in the determination of their lives.

At a time when the human rights of women have been in many aspects undermined by ideals of masculine character and by historical disparities in the decision-making process, women in Dominica and the Caribbean should take strength in the strong symbol that has developed around the image of Dame Mary Eugenia Charles in the international arena.

Despite being president of the international federation of women lawyers, occupational segregation in gender-based wage gaps in the Caribbean still registers women as subjects of discriminatory stereotyping. Women in the Caribbean still lack promotional rights, free from job discrimination as social and legal institutions do not pledge equality in employment and earning and social and political participation.

It is against the drapery of such concepts that the distinctions between women as political leaders and gender inequality in the Caribbean are mirrored. The Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) documents that “despite higher levels of education, Caribbean women continue to cluster at the lower sectors of society in terms employment, wages, and political representation, making them vulnerable to poverty and gender-based violence and harassment.”

The role of women in political leadership in the Caribbean questions the meaning of democracy and citizenship and awakens the need for a more inclusive style of governance and politics. The roles that men and women play in society are not biologically determined and it is time to stop using biology as a metaphor for interpreting reality or other socio-cultural traditions and beliefs about a woman's place in the family and society.

While critics advance the view that gender equality has been achieved within the Caribbean community and it is boys and men who are now disadvantaged; gender inequality in the Caribbean still constrains the lives of women and is still a significant challenge despite important law reform efforts. Women’s level of participation in senior political positions remains extremely limited and violates their fundamental human rights.

Against the backdrop of this view, the need for structural reform, redefinition of power and a re-negotiation of our understanding of the practice of leadership becomes an urgent plea. The need to increase women's participation in politics and decision making is a valid goal especially at a time when attempts of developing Caribbean nationhood and identity are smothered by dependence on male constructs and standards. The Commission on the Status of Women further affirms that “women form at least half of the electorate in most Caribbean states, yet they continue to be underrepresented as candidates for public office.”

The male dominated social system in the Caribbean has excluded and been hostile to female participation in the political arena. According to the ECLAC study, female participation in the politics of the Caribbean is about 20 percent overall. In the English-speaking Caribbean, the average participation of women in Parliament averages 13.5 percent, varying from 7 to 25 percent. This means that recognition of the importance of women in reconstruction and the role and discipline of political parties in the Caribbean needs to be addressed because women's empowerment in the Caribbean is vital to sustainable development and the realization of human rights for all.

If reducing gender inequality is essential to increasing women's economic security, defeating poverty and fostering sustainable development and growth, then Caribbean governments should show greater efforts in advocating for legislation to advance gender equality, to eliminate all forms of discrimination based on sex, and to prevent gender-based violence and increase. The education system and the media should also stop upholding the patriarchal orientation of society as well as the epitomes of male supremacy.

Dame Mary Eugenia Charles will forever remain a strong symbol for years to come as a woman who challenged culture, structures of oppression, and gender inequality in the Caribbean. Her legacy of equality and accelerating human rights for women provide a firmer foundation for social and economic development and security and new approaches to leadership in Dominica and the Caribbean.

May 19, 2011

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

Third political parties are not doomed to failure in the Caribbean

Are third parties in the Caribbean doomed?
By Oliver Mills


The commonly accepted wisdom in the Caribbean has been, and still is, that third political parties are doomed, and that any attempt to establish them will be met with failure. This belief is based on the fact that, in almost all Caribbean countries where a third political party has attempted to challenge the political process, it has met with failure, and in many instances some, or even all its members have lost their deposits. The electorate therefore seems to have lost trust and confidence that a third party will meet with any significant success, and have come to see them as a waste of time.

In his commentary in Caribbean News Now on February 12, 2011, on the failure of third parties, Wellington Ramos states that this failure is due to poor planning, no grassroots campaign, and the time of launching of these political parties, which is just before elections. He also states that after they lose, they disappear. In stating these reasons for third party failure, Ramos does not explain further what the phrases he uses such as poor planning, no grassroots campaign, and the time of launching these parties mean.

For example, what is meant by poor planning on the part of third parties? Does it mean planning to some extent, but with some inadequacy involved, or does it mean engaging in the process of planning without a clear direction or purpose attached to the various efforts? Does poor planning mean planning, but with little insight as to the purpose and point of the efforts made? Or does poor planning mean inefficient planning, not taking into account critical factors concerning the wider political process? How do we know when planning is poor? This is only judged after the results of some action, not before. Also, does poor planning mean being erratic, unfocused, tentative, and not following through with different ideas as to what the party needs and how it will achieve its goals? The writer needs to elaborate on this phrase.

No grassroots campaign is the other reason Ramos cites as a failure by third parties. Although he mentions with respect to Belize about not campaigning island wide and not establishing structures, this is not enough. Grassroots campaigning further means going into the various sectors of the society and spreading the philosophy of the party on a consistent basis. It means having public and town hall meetings, and meeting people where they usually hang out. But this is not only for grassroots people. It is for all potential voters. It also means constant political education, advertisements, and appearing on various media houses to spread the message.

From my experience, there is no such thing as no grassroots campaign, since the grassroots is where the majority of persons are. Third parties do approach them and try to win them over. But in many instances, they are so indoctrinated into the ways of the established parties, that they often give the rebuff to any new effort by a third party. The party’s officials therefore have to exercise patience, be sensitive to the ways of this constituency, win their trust, have a clear philosophy, and try to move them incrementally.

Change is difficult, and people at the grassroots level have to believe they are backing a winner before they commit themselves. Furthermore, labelling a particular constituency as grassroots, belittles them, places them in a category where they might feel devalued, and so there is the risk of losing support particularly if party officials adopt a condescending attitude. The third party therefore needs to see each type of constituency equally, and treat it as such. The class and sector approach to politics will not work.

The time of launching the third party is the final reason Ramos gives for their failure. How do we know precisely and accurately when it is the time to do anything? We can only suspect that a set of conditions exist, and that we should therefore capitalise on them. Suppose Obama had served out his Senate years, would he ever have become president? The point is to take prudent, measurable risks. We can never know exactly when to make a move. We just have to engage with the situation, alert ourselves to its dynamics, and seek the most opportune and rational moment in which to take the plunge. To say that the time of launching the third party contributes to its failure is therefore a misnomer. It is pure speculation based on an analytical fallacy.

Ramos states vaguely that they are launched just before an election. What does this phrase mean? Two weeks or months before, or two years? The phrase is vague to the point of being almost meaningless. The fact is that, if a sufficiently large percentage of the populace is fed up, they will show this in a protest vote. Although it might not be sufficient to win initially because of the psychological grip of the two traditional parties, if the third party persists, it could surprise itself.

For example, third parties now exist in several countries including the UK, Israel, the USA, and France. As is seen in the UK, a third party could become a part of the government based on the distribution of seats after an election. Even in the Caribbean, some third party candidates have won seats, and they later joined on an individual basis with the governing party, particularly if they make a difference in who forms the government. In Israel, third parties have always helped to constitute various governments. This is also the case in Italy.

However, I agree with Ramos, that often, in the Caribbean, third parties dissolve after an election. They seem to lose hope, and the will to persist. But third parties are formed as a result of a crisis in the status quo parties. Their members feel that the electorate is so fed up that they desire fundamental change. The case of the National Democratic Movement in Jamaica is an example, as is the Turks and Caicos Islands with the formation of the National Democratic Alliance party. The NDA did dissolve after a particular election, but the NDM in Jamaica continues mostly as a pressure group. Its initial leader returned to his original party, and is now the prime minister.

So are third parties doomed to failure? It is certainly not wise to give a quick answer. In a theoretical sense, nothing is doomed to failure. The context and circumstances of an issue require serious deliberation. This will determine the success of the effort, or its need to change course. Nothing should be condemned outright. If third party officials have a clear philosophy and ideology which connect with the aspirations of the people, and they win the people’s trust, the groundwork is laid for serious, constant, and persistent work. If party officials are committed to the political work required to enlist the faith of the people in the party’s objectives, then support will be forthcoming over time. Remember, the third party is in the political business of changing mindsets, and re-socialising people into a new way of thinking and being. It will be challenging at first, but consistency and constancy on the part of party officials are necessary.

Third parties are therefore not doomed to failure. They attract new blood and talent into the political process, bring new ideas, challenge old, established ways of operating, and could bring hope to those who want serious change in the infrastructure of Caribbean politics. Third parties can also bring ideas about different, more workable political structures and processes into the political system, and introduce a more ethical and moral politics into political systems weighed down by traditions that have not worked to the benefit of significant numbers of people. They are therefore not doomed to failure. In fact they do not fail. It is those who have been instrumental in their establishment that have failed to consistently operationalise the beliefs and philosophy they advocate on a sustained basis.

Persons forming third parties also need to convince potential followers that they are not in the political business for personal gain. They must prove that principles guide their efforts, and that the goal is a new and transformed society, and political order. Leaders of third parties also have to refute the idea by others that they have everything they need, but want more at the people’s expense. These leaders will also have to show that they have a different kind of political psychology that the third party is not third in any numbering system, but is a movement with no other goal than the political expression of the general will of the people. And that indeed, the third party is the people in action, since the new political institutions the party establishes, will convey and manifest the aspirations and objectives of the people.

Selflessness, a noble sense of purpose, and the urgency to do the will of the people become the philosophical frame of reference for the third party. With this in mind, the third party will enjoy the confidence and goodwill of the people, and will therefore gain respect and credibility. It could then become a potent force for good in the politics of the Caribbean.

February 23, 2011

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

'Job description' for a new Caricom secretary general

Jamaicaobserver Editorial:


Mr Edwin Carrington, the secretary general of Caricom, has signalled he will be stepping down after 18 or so years in the job. The appropriate tribute will be paid to him when he does so.

But as the Caribbean Community looks for a new secretary general, the search, we suggest, must be guided by certain criteria in order to find the person with the necessary qualities. Let's start with the 'don'ts'.

First, the person cannot be a Jamaican because Jamaicans now head several regional institutions, such as the Office of Trade Negotiations, the Caribbean Development Fund and Caribbean Export. A Jamaican is also the financial controller (effectively number two) at the Caribbean Development Bank. Let's avoid the appearance of a Jamaican take-over.

No one from the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) has been secretary general and they are now the governments with the least commitment to Caricom. A woman has never had the post and this should not be ruled out nor made a requirement. The person should not be a naturalised citizen of the OECS as they would not have support in the sub-region.

Second, the person must be a genuine leader with proven political acumen and experience and have a stature which commands respect -- ideally, a former minister or prime minister.

Technocrats and bureaucrats from regional and international organisations should, under no circumstances, be considered.

Third, the person must be in his or her mental and physical prime, given the stamina required to maintain the arduous travel schedule and the tedium of the perpetual round of meetings. The new SG must be able to serve for 10 years and this should be the enforced term limit.

The region must not entertain the delusion that anyone in their 70s can properly execute the duties of SG. Ideally the person should be in the 40s, like United States President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron. The heads of nearly all Fortune 500 companies are below 55 years old. There is good reason why 60 is the normal mandatory retirement age for diplomats.

Fourth, nobody currently in the Caricom Secretariat or retired from it has the ability or credibility to become SG because of their culpability for the failures of the outgoing administration.

Recruiting someone from outside is necessary, both to inject new management and to send a clear signal that there is a new beginning. An outsider needs to be unencumbered by loyalties to existing senior staff since they will have to be quickly replaced. This is often a healthy practice when there is a new CEO.

Fifth, it is essential that the person should have some exposure to and understanding of Caricom affairs. The vice chancellor of UWI can vouch for the difficulties and disadvantages entailed in the steep learning curve of Caribbean politics when you do not have that background.

In short, the new SG must be a non-Jamaican in his or her prime (under 55 years old) who has a track record of leadership, management skills and political savvy. Under no circumstances should the new SG be a former diplomat, bureaucrat in an international organisation, academic (generally out of touch with reality) and current member of staff of the Caricom Secretariat.

The Caribbean has an embarrassment of riches in human resources. The region has more than enough well-qualified and talented people to find a very able individual to be SG of Caricom as it struggles to survive.

August 08, 2010

jamaicaobserver editorial

Bahamas Blog International