Dear Editor,
A few years ago, I wondered aloud in the letters pages whether anyone had done a survey of former colonies to determine how many had achieved promised socioeconomic and political goals since gaining political independence, and if those that failed miserably should be re-colonized. It was a survey that would require poring over volumes of data, whether provided by governments or by international organizations that had access to those countries’ data, but I have not read any compiled reports. Interestingly enough, some countries that have not been de-colonized have deliberately chosen not to be de-colonized, perhaps after having had the benefit of observing the utter failure of other countries that gained independence.
If we forego analyzing distant lands and stick right in the Caribbean and neighbouring environs, we can find that some countries are still under foreign rule of some sort, and deliberately by popular choice. Whereas most Caribbean nations, made up primarily of Africans, have attained independence, a handful have not. Take the British Virgin Islands, for example, where the 2010 census shows 83.4% of the population are Africans, with Guyanese being 7.2%, and where the folks prefer to remain a British Overseas Territory. The US Virgin Islands, with a 76% African population, is still a United States territory. The Turks and Caicos Islands are 88% African and still a British Overseas Territory. In 2011, a poll in Bermuda – a British Overseas Territory – showed 70% of the people were against independence. Martinique and Guadeloupe, with majority African populations, remain overseas regions of France.
Today, I am wondering aloud if it is the general failure of countries that attained independence that is goading citizens in those still under foreign rule to retain their status quo. More specifically, has anyone done a survey of Third World leaders, including the Caribbean, to determine whose leadership produced success stories and whose did not? Was winning independence extrapolated into to winning socioeconomic and political battles for locals? Whereas locals have been informed and educated by their own leaders about the perils of imperialism and colonialism, including denial of rights and freedoms and social and economic
justice, it has turned out that some of our own Third World leaders were no better than the colonialists and imperialists. Without itemizing cases of political oppression and failed economic experiments that are pretty much widely known from Africa to Asia to Latin America and the Caribbean, it does appear that some political leaders, who became very popular with their peoples, converted their popularity into permission to do anything they wanted. While some emerged from the military via coups, others rose through their party organizations via elections.
Among this latter group were some who became the embodiment of their parties, or around whom party activities revolved, creating such a dependency syndrome that no one and nothing could be done without their approval. A cult-like syndrome of leader worship developed. Tragically for some countries, the demise of such leaders tended to create a vacuum as a struggle then ensued over who should lead. In Guyana, Forbes Burnham and Cheddi Jagan could easily be described as fitting the description of iconic embodiments of their respective parties. When Burnham died in 1985, there reportedly was a bit of an internal struggle in the PNC between Desmond Hoyte and Hamilton Green over the direction and decisions the party should take, and even though Hoyte would prevail, residual effects of the embodiment concept remained
right up until Hoyte died in 2002 and Robert Corbin took over and the concept resurfaced in full effect. When Cheddi Jagan died in 1997, there was some sort of confusion over who would succeed him, and it was only recently that we learned from former PPP executive, Mr Ralph Ramkarran, some details about the nature of the confusion and power struggle.
But in the ensuing period, Bharrat Jagdeo emerged as the embodiment of the PPP, and both his recent remarks at Babu Jaan and his contemptuous comparison of his affluent lifestyle to that of the Jagans have caused me to try to analyze the journey we took to this juncture of our complex and complicated contemporary political history, and how we can avoid another phase of such a journey going forward.
Editor, I am convinced beyond conversion to any other persuasion that our post-independence elected leaders failed us so miserably, that the biggest proof has to be the ongoing mass migration of our people to foreign lands in search of a better life. But of all the destinations being sought out the ones from which our detested and denigrated colonial masters hailed are foremost. We literally expelled the foreigners only to be rushing to seek refuge in their lands.
As we prepare for the May 11 general and regional elections, therefore, we really need to stop and take stock of how we arrived at this juncture, weeks away from our 49th Independence anniversary, and not only vote out the PPP to end the downward spiral in our political and socioeconomic fortunes, but determine where we came from, how we got here and where we go from here. Democracy may allow us to keep changing governments, but democracy that does not lead to self-development and national development will lead to disillusionment and possible disaster, so we must ensure democracy extends beyond the ballot box of May 11 and into the development of institutions supportive of this extensive process into communities and lives.
It is my belief, based on my cursory observations of the US democratic system, that once institutions are developed and protected by the enforcement of laws and regulations, it does not matter how powerful a politician becomes or if s/he becomes the iconic embodiment of a political party, the system will always trump that politician and party.
This will now be one of the challenges of the new government: to build up our institutions and enforce our laws from the top down, so that in event an elected leader misbehaves s/he is replaced or if s/he passes on, the system continues functioning uninterrupted by political struggles and wannabe dictators. Enough with the cult-style politics!
Yours faithfully,
Emile Mervin
