Posted May 21st. 2004 - Special Feature by David Hinds

There should be joint Government-Opposition delegations to CARICOM meetings

Stabroek News' editorial on the role of the Opposition in Caricom (A role for the Opposition? May 19, 2004) addressed a critical issue in the regional integration process that was raised by Antigua's new Prime Minister, Mr. Baldwin Spencer. The editorial's identification of the relationship between domestic conflicts and the pace of regionalization goes to the heart of the problem. Dr Thomas' treatment of the larger issues in his weekly column is also very enlightening.

According to Stabroek News "In these instances it may well be the case that Caricom projects are being held hostage to domestic conflicts. Indeed it may well be the case that the slow pace in the implementation of decisions made by the Summit and other Caricom bodies is due precisely to the fact that governments must steadily look over their shoulders at what political capital the opposition might make of Caricom issues." This is on the ball. Since the Caribbean is moving towards shared institutions, what happens within member countries must by necessity have an impact on the region as a whole. The disjoint between the decision making process within member countries and the necesities of the regional movement is, therefore, a matter of urgent concern.

The implication of domestic conflicts for the regional movement is not confined to the pace of implementation of decisions; there is also the strong possibility that change of governments could lead to countries reversing decisions of their predecessors. The Jamaica case reeks of this. Imagine the negative impact on CARICOM if Mr. Seaga comes to power and pulls Jamaica out of the CSME and CCJ. Unlike Europe, CARICOM cannot afford the absence of some of its members from the CSME. Dr Eric Williams' mathematical logic still holds true.

While one may, with some justification, dismiss Mr. Seaga and Mr. Panday as obstructionists and anti-CARICOM, the matter is more profound than that. The Caribbean is trying to build a regional movement based on consensus but the individual countries are wedded to a majortianism that has served to perpetuate differences and disharmony rather than similarities and harmony. These differences are direct and indirect legacies of colonization but they have been taken to higher heights since independence.

The truth of the matter is that, unlike Europe, the Caribbean is trying to build a regional movement among countries that have not yet settled the national or democratic question-the questions of nationhood and an acceptable body of principles, values and rules. But they continue, to their individual and collective disadvantage, to postpone this debate and subsequent resolution of the issue of what kind of societies they want or is possible given the contradictions arising out of the region's history. The convergence of authoritarianism, class domination, an externally driven and determined political economy, racial insecurity and gender inequity continue to weigh heavily on and retard consensus and development of the countries in the region.

The domestic threat to regionalization, therefore, is largely a function of history, but it is equally a function of a faulty analysis of where the Caribbean has been since independence. Many scholars and political leaders have incorrectly attributed to the countries of the region a democratic profile that has not been consistent with the lived realities. They have mistaken democratic forms for democratic substance; they have focused on structures while ignoring outcomes. And this has had a negative effect on the region as this analysis has generally informed the culture of governance and the construction of policy. It has also informed the view that the issue of democracy is not one that will affect regional integration since the region is a "democratic family."

In each Caribbean country there has developed an intra-class rivalry and competition among the working peoples who have been divided into two antagonistic camps or political tribes. In the case of Guyana and Trinidad these tribes have the added identification of race. This antagonism is total because what is at stake is the power of the state, the power to govern and the power to determine who gets what, when and where. In effect the winner determines unilaterally the fate of the rest of the society including what has evolved to be their "historical enemies." Regionalism, therefore, is not a major consideration for leaders; it is a sideshow or, where possible, a noose to hang around the neck of the incumbent party-tribe. It becomes a political football, a casualty of tribal politics.

The Westminster majoritarian model, which assumes a spirit of consensus within the letter of majority rule, has proven disastrous because the Caribbean societies, although there were moments of unity during the decolonization process, have never developed any sustained consensus ethos. In the final analysis, apart from the external problem, the most worrying problem of Caribbean regionalization lies in the non-resolution of the problem of governance and decision making within member states. That is what is being played out in Jamaica and Trinidad; the CSME and CCJ are not the cause of the problem, but merely the occasion for a dramatization of it.

For CARICOM to advance with any purpose this problem has to be solved within the states themselves. It cannot be solved at the regional level unless the countries collapse their individual sovereignty into one sovereign state, something that has receded very far into the political distance. Of course the leaders can proceed-some would argue that they have no choice given the global imperatives--, but the process will be persistently handcuffed by the democratic contradictions within member states.

In the Caribbean government and opposition behave more like enemies rather than partners in the developmental process. It is of course laughable that leaders talk about cooperation when it comes to regional issues and about government-opposition when it relates to domestic issues. A consensus form of democratic governance will go a long way towards reducing adversarial politics, which in turn will reduce the possibility of regionalization being held at ransom. Regional consensus will always be vulnerable in the face of a lack of domestic consensus. Surely decisions on important matters such as committing sovereign countries to shared institutions should not be left to the discretion of a bare majority of the people's representatives. Both the Jamaican and Trinidadian governments should find a framework for consensus within their countries on the CCJ and CSME before proceeding with it. If Mr. Patterson and Mr. Manning cannot find unity at home, how can they be serious about unity with others? The same holds true for the other countries.

The editorial is correct in its assessment that the Assembly of Caribbean Community Parliamentarians (AACP) does not address the problem. Ultimately decisions both at the national and regional levels are made in the executive. So if the opposition is to play any meaningful role, it has to be within this branch of the regional body. I would propose that rather than having an opposition delegation at CARICOM meetings as Stabroek News seems to suggest, each country should have a joint delegation that include government representatives and representatives from the parliamentary opposition and where necessary members of Civil Society. It would make no sense for governments and their opposition to be sparring at a CARICOM meeting; that sparring within a consensus framework and a spirit of shared interests should take place before they go to the meting.

Perhaps Mr. Baldwin Spencer should start the ball rolling by including the Leader of the Opposition in his delegation to the next CARICOM meeting.

David Hinds lectures in Caribbean and Africana Studies at Arizona State University in the USA. He is also a political and social commentator who has written extensively on Guyana and Caribbean politics. More of his writings can be found on his GuyanaCaribbeanPolitics.com website.