West Indian Nationalism and the Paradox of Sovereignty

• Author: Terri-Ann Gilbert-Roberts
• Profession: Research Fellow of the Sir Arthur Lewis Institute of Social and Economic Studies (SALISES) University of the West Indies Mona
• Pages: 38-64

 3

West Indian Nationalism and

the Paradox of Sovereignty

The events that led to the pursuit of sovereign independence of the

British West Indies colonies have been a compelling aspect of Caribbean

        

aspirations for political autonomy in the individual territories, was in

fact undertaken within a regional framework, thereby instituting a

paradoxical association between regional governance, on the one hand,

and the attainment of sovereignty, on the other hand. Ten of those



Indies Federation (WIF) established in 1958.1 However, the legacy of the

Federation’s collapse in 1962 has been the adoption of a nationalist

interpretation of sovereignty under the framework of independent

statehood and the adoption of a minimalist approach to regional

governance in the independent Commonwealth Caribbean. Against that

background, this chapter introduces the historical developments, which



which regional governance institutions were conceived and functioned in

the Caribbean region.

Firstly, the chapter introduces the ideological foundation of regional

governance, emanating from the nationalist campaigns for increased

autonomy from Britain and full political control over territorial socio-

economic affairs. Secondly, it reviews the process of negotiation,

establishment and collapse of the WIF and the adoption of a purist

conception of Westphalian national sovereignty on the attainment of

independent statehood in each of the territories from 1962 onwards.

Thirdly, it discusses the way in which the paradox of sovereignty became

evident in the independence period, prompting a renewal of regional

economic cooperation, through the 1968 Caribbean Free Trade Association

(CARIFTA). Finally, it concludes with a brief discussion of the overall

legacy of this period of regional political history in relation to the tradition

of sovereignty and interpretation of the paradox which has impinged on

the evolution of successive institutions of regional governance.

West Indian Nationalism and the Paradox of Sovereignty

39

The Nationalist Foundations of Regional

Governance

The people of the West Indies were subject to colonial administration

for several hundred years, including over 200 years of British rule aimed

at sustaining a West Indian political economy, based on agricultural

production by enslaved and indentured labour from Africa and Asia, and

the subjugation of the local population to external political rule.2 Even

after the abolition of the slave trade and the emancipation of West Indian

slaves by 1838, the British Government continued to impose upon the

people a system of governance which excluded them from participation

in the management of their own political, social and economic affairs.

In particular, the Crown Colony system of government instituted in the

late nineteenth century was generally criticised by local merchants and

workers alike for its maintenance of British power at the expense of

progress for the local black and Indian populations.3 The beginnings of

a nationalist movement emerged from several decades of petitioning the

British Government to modify the system to permit elected representation.

The movement adopted an increasingly violent form in the twentieth

century as the people revolted against increasing levels of unemployment

and poverty which they perceived to be a direct result of the unjust

system of governance. In that context, several leaders who represented the

disenfranchised working population, including A.A. Cipriani in Trinidad

and Tobago, Albert T. Marryshow in Grenada and Cecil Rawle in Dominica,

became the champions of an anti-colonial movement towards legitimate

and elective governance institutions. That cadre of labour leaders was

of the view that self-government, based on full adult suffrage, including

the poor, unemployed, black segments of the population, was the only

way to achieve socio-economic progress for the people in their respective

territories.4

to the territorial boundaries of each colony.

Although the colonies were collectively regarded by the British as a

single administrative region, they had at various times each maintained

separate political governance arrangements. Indeed, the region was further

         

miles spread from British Honduras in Central America, through Jamaica

and the Leeward Islands to the Windward Islands, Barbados, Trinidad and

ast of the South American

continent. Half of the regional population – estimated to be about only