Decolonising Process needs Revitalisation

So, the political version of the “royal rumble” is on and the long-awaited date for the general elections has been announced. After an intensive weekend of activities to celebrate our country’s independence – schools/youth rally, the national exhibition, the opening of the modern port, the annual  military parade, all topped off with the inevitable “feature address” by the inimitable and seemingly inexhaustible Prime Minister, it seems as though the PM is satisfied that the pot is bubbling and that meal time is ready. Who is to feast is left up to the electorate.

The activities were well attended and apparently well appreciated. They seem to have boosted the confidence of the Prime Minister though one would have thought that with such an impressive record of achievements, vis a vis all his predecessors, he should not have to rely on independence benefits to feel assured of an election victory.

Unfortunately, we have set the precedents, and it is for us to unravel and demonstrate more maturity in our politics. The less distracted, and dependent we become where such political packages are concerned, the more time we would have for a realistic appraisal of the contenders for political office, their programmes, outlook and track record.

In today’s world, especially in an increasingly volatile Caribbean, criticisms and seemingly randomly conceived plans are not enough. Any serious contender for political power must instil confidence in the electorate. The issues facing the country, its people and the aspirants to political office are formidable. In the few weeks leading up to the elections, this column will attempt to discuss some of these and the outlook of both government and opposition where these matters are concerned. Given the Prime Minister’s revived decolonisation thrust as contained in his Independence Day address, decolonisation is a good place to begin. It is a theme set out in the PM’s first Independence Day address in 2001, when for the first time he put this momentous step in its correct historical context. It was tied to our proud legacy of resisting colonialism, the struggles of the valiant Kalinago and Garifuna, the determination of the African population and the demands of the indentured “servants”, especially from the Indian sub-continent to just treatment.

We set in train a movement for the just recognition of Paramount Chief Chatoyer and hopes were high for rectifying all the injustices of the past. This set in motion the process of constitutional decolonisation. Less than two years after its historic electoral triumph of March 2001, the ULP administration demonstrated its commitment to the decolonisation process by initiating a Constitutional Review Commission (CRC), accountable to this country’s Parliament and charged with leading the most democratic process of constitutional reform ever initiated in the English-speaking Caribbean.

This was no isolated venture for similar supportive processes were embarked upon, such as the Education Revolution, a Committee on local government reform and a National Economic and Social Development Council (NESDC), drawn from civil society and legally established by Parliament.

Again, these seemingly interlocking pieces raised hopes and enthusiasm for serious decolonisation and democratisation. A thorough analysis of these related processes is not the object of this article, but they set in train a democratic awakening.

The constitutional review process was especially important since it brought into focus our forced passage from a sovereign country under its indigenous inhabitants to colonial subjugation, slavery and plantation economy. It was an unprecedented popular engagement which, despite the reluctant participation, and often opposition from representatives of the NDP and the reluctance of some ULP activists to contemplate genuine civil society in governance, raised popular awareness about our political evolution. Never before, or since, has there been such a wide-ranging discussion on such matters.

For a multitude of reasons, all these processes did not proceed as smoothly as envisaged. The major initiative, the CRC, adopted a root-and- branch approach, opting for a draft of a completely new constitution, submitting it to Parliament which then put it to the electorate, as constitutionally prescribed, in 2009. The over-ambitious constitution, misunderstood in many quarters, was rejected by the referendum. It was hailed by the Parliamentary Opposition as a major victory which was supposed to lead to its success in the general elections of 2010. This elusive goal is yet to be realised.

The result clearly revealed that the consciousness of most of our people was not yet at a level to understand such a bold, far-reaching initiative. The government and Prime Minister himself, seemed embarrassed by the defeat in the referendum and as indicated publicly by the PM on several occasions, were unwilling to take this aspect of the decolonisation process any further.

The PM has continued to offer public support for important aspects of the process, such as the Reparations movement, at both the local and regional levels, but clearly the process has slowed down considerably. The government, deeply engaged in significant economic and social programmes and projects, has not paid sufficient attention to the political education of the populace in general, it being left almost entirely to the whims and fancies of the Prime Minister. (To be continued)

• Renwick Rose is a Social and Political commentator.