Posted July 17th. 2003. - Special Feature by David Hinds

Whither CARICOM:
Governance at National and Regional levels must be Complimentary

The decisions taken at the just concluded CARICOM Heads of Government conference are a welcome boost to an hitherto fragile and uncertain regional unity. In particular, the projected Executive Commission is a giant step in the right direction. There are, however, a couple of things that have to quickly be ironed out. First, although the Commission will be similar to the relatively successful EU Commission, the Caribbean has to be careful not to mimic the latter to the letter. The dynamics of the Commission must respond to and reflect the concrete realities of the Caribbean. Unlike our experience with the Westminster model, we must tailor the EU model to suit the Caribbean landscape rather than mimic it.

The second concern is the relationship between the Commission and the CARICOM Secretariat. I can see some overlapping, which if not taken care of can lead to tension, as was the case initially with the Regional Negotiating Machinery (RNM). A committee needs to almost immediately work out the spheres of operation and the relationship between the Secretariat and the Commission and also the CCJ and the RNM. If the Ralph Gonsalves report anticipates this issue and has dealt with it, then all the merrier. All of the above points to the larger question of the democratization of decision making at the regional level. Super governments are by nature powerful, and so must be checked by democratic rules and accountability.

This brings me to my next point. While regional unity is welcomed, it will falter if it is not premised on democratic practices both at the center and inside of its sub-units or individual countries. In this regard Trinidad and Tobago opposition UNC position of tying agreement to the CCJ to constitutional reform in that country should not be taken lightly. Similarly Jamaica's opposition JLP call for a referendum on the CCJ should not be ignored. These two developments point to the necessary relationship between governance in the individual countries and governance at the regional level.

There is no doubt that regional governance has to be premised on shared democratic governance or consensus among the member countries. Already governance at the level of the Heads of Governments is based on consensus democracy. This consensus model is, however, at variance with the majoritarian model used in the member countries. Hence part of the reason for the tension in Trinidad and Jamaica. The views and role of the opposition in the member countries cannot and must not be ignored. If governments continue to endorse CARICOM agreements by using the "part-democratic" majoritarian principle, then CARICOM itself will be plagued by the instability that arises majoritarianism.

It follows, therefore, that forms of shared democratic governance have to be worked out in the member countries if regional unity is to be effective. For example, there is a contradiction between Mr. Manning's fierce advocacy of closer regional political unity and his dismal failure to advocate and work for a similar unity with the opposition in Trinidad. There is also the democratic contradiction of the regional heads making decisions on super government when they represent just over half of their populations. For the sake of CARICOM's effectiveness, this contradiction has to be taken care of. One way to begin to address this problem is for the member countries to move in the direction of power sharing based on shared democratic governance to compliment the evolving power sharing at the regional level.

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.