Pluralism, Ethnicity and Governance in the Southern Caribbean

• Author: Rishee Thakur
• Pages: 117-140

Rishee Thakur 117117

117117

117

Pluralism, Ethnicity and Governance

in the Southern Caribbean

Introduction

Writing a decade ago long-time ‘Caribbean

hand’ Anthony Payne, borrowing from Patrick

Emmanuel, argued that a characteristic feature

of ‘the English-speaking states in the

Caribbean … was the ‘relative durability of

their constitutional regimes.’1 And this legacy

of constitutional durability, he suggests, has

had a significant impact on political stability in

the region. In his view,

(1) the historical legacy of British

colonialism shaped the emergent forms

of politics in the post- independence

Caribbean;

(2) that this inherited political order has

been adapted to Caribbean conditions

in a creative and distinctive way; and

3) the resulting system, which can be

described as democratic, offers the

region a workable, albeit far from

flawless, basis on which to defend its

political practice into the 1990s and

beyond.2

A key attribute of this process was the

willingness ‘and established habit of devolving

responsibility from the imperial centre to the

colonies’. And though there were setbacks and

detours the ‘precise direction of progress’ had

been marked by a typical gradualist British

R I S H E E T H A K U R

University of Guyana

8

tradition, and, in the end, ‘took on the

character of a generous gesture by the

benevolent colonial master rather than a

victory on the part of an indigenous

nationalism’.3

But this was not just a matter of British

ingenuity in creating adaptable institutions and

practices but also an active process of creating

and cultivating an indigenous class of educated

professionals in the standards and habits of

the Westminster system. The result with few

exceptions, according to Payne, was a group

of leaders whose political assumptions and

ideological inclinations ‘were deeply rooted

in liberal democratic politics’. Indeed, ‘so

natural had the process of acculturation been

that the whole apparatus of the Westminster

system was widely regarded as autochthonous,

not external.’4

In addition, the core elements of the

political system in the Caribbean have retained

the key semblances of liberal democracy/

Westminster style — constitutionalism, civilian

hegemony in political life, bureaucratic and

police neutrality, periodic competitive elections

and pluralist representation. And while each

of these can be shown to be flawed, even in

some fundamental respects, the fact that they

continue to claim political attention and are

ritualistically hauled out to provide legitimacy

speaks volumes for their continuing relevance

and import in providing continuity and stability.

Pluralism, Ethnicity and Governance in the Southern Caribbean

118118

118118

118

In conclusion, according to Payne, while the

system ‘is not without flaws and hiccups, it has

worked well enough for most of the region’s

citizens for most of the time over the last

quarter century, and it does appear to have

firm roots in popular consciousness’. 5

The article makes for uneasy reading,

especially from such a sensitive and even-

handed critic as Payne. In the end, it is not

certain whether he is intent on celebrating the

British colonial record or applauding the

ingenuity of Caribbean statesmen in adapting

their political instincts to the Westminster

tradition. He seems to have forgotten that the

retention of colonial institutions and the easy

adaptability of Caribbean leaders to them was

the source of much concern and had been

one of the more pointed criticisms of

Caribbean nationalism by an earlier

generation of scholars.6 In fact, as we will see,

it is precisely the British model and its

foundational assumptions and practices that

seem to be the source of much concern.

More important though, ten years on, the

prospects do not seem as sanguine as Payne

would have us believe, especially in the

southern Caribbean. Trinidad and Tobago

seems trapped in a racial cul-de-sac in which

the ethnic balance has produced a political

stalemate that renders it completely helpless

and prostrate wracked by alleged corruption

and a politics of ‘tit for tat’. In Guyana the

place seems to be in a state of permanent,

apprehended insurrection where every

election since 1992 has been followed by

customary (one thinks ritualistic) political

demonstrations and inevitable street violence.

Indeed, for the better part of 18 months

between February 2002 and July 2003 the

country seemed to have reached the end of

its tether, caught in the grips of a revolt driven

by banditry, politics, race and common

criminality. While Suriname, the newest

member of CARICOM, seems to have avoided

some of the more bitter racial confrontations

it appears trapped in the same racial dead-

end, held hostage by the racial/cultural

entrepreneurs of their ethnic communities in

a trade-off between/among elite political

cartels.

The obvious question, of course, is where

do we go from here? Is there some way out

of the common racial dead-end that seems to

be part of our collective heritage? Are we, in

the end, fated to live the half-lives of colonial

subjects that Naipaul so gleefully and

enthusiastically predicts for us?7

Several answers readily suggest

themselves, many of which have been

popularized in our daily press. But one has

been particularly persistent, especially since

the 1997 elections in Guyana. I am speaking

here, of course, of what is popularly known

in the vernacular as ‘power sharing’ or in

more theoretical terms as ‘consociational

democracy’.8

I want to take the opportunity provided by

this conference to rehearse some of the issues

that have been raised by the debate and to

interrogate some of the theoretical and

practical implications that emerge from it.

Elections: Solution or

Problem?

Hardly a day goes by when we are not

treated to another variant of power sharing in

the daily media. It is ubiquitous as it is

persistent.

Briefly, it is argued, as long as Guyanese

elections continue to be racial censuses in

which the majority of East Indians vote for the

East Indian-dominated People’s Progressive

Party (PPP) and Africans vote for the African-

dominated People’s National Congress (PNC)

there will be a political stalemate, since the

numerical differences between the

communities/parties make for very slender

majorities.9 Slender majorities are, by

themselves, hardly the problem since northern