October – an historic month

The month of October is a very historic one for the people of the Caribbean in general, and the people of St. Vincent and the Grenadines in particular. It is, of course, the month of our accession to political independence, but that may not have occurred when it did, had it not been for a series of important preceding events, including the October 21, 1935, rebellion here and a number of related anti-colonial struggles in the rest of the Caribbean.{{more}} October is also sadly remembered by Caribbean people as the month during which the Grenada revolution imploded in 1983, bringing with it the invasion of that tiny island by US troops. I plan to devote much of my column space this month to those events, but as the words of a popular local calypso question: “How can I….”, talk about Grenada and not mention the United People’s Movement of SVG?

Let me digress a moment, though. Today is the tenth day of the tenth month of the year. It is the date that the people of the Republic of China on Taiwan celebrate as their National Day, more popularly called “Double Ten” Day. It is commemorated in memory of the historic Wuchang uprising in China (before the “Two Chinas” era) of October 10, 1911, which ended the feudal Qing dynasty. Though observed as National Day in Taiwan, it is a day of great significance to all Chinese people in all “three Chinas (my term to cover not only the two Chinas, but a third, the Chinese diaspora spread all over the globe). Given the 27-year bond of friendship between the peoples of Taiwan and St. Vincent and the Grenadines, it is only fitting that we extend greetings to them on this occasion.

Back to the Caribbean, though, and the United People’s Movement (UPM) of St. Vincent and the Grenadines. Launched in August 1979, that political movement (for that is what it was, a veritable “movement of the people”, to borrow the words of Bob Marley) represented the culmination of a long political process in our history. That process had its roots in the brave resistance of the Callinago and Garifuna people to foreign occupation of our land, the stubborn refusal of African slaves to meekly accept their inhuman enslavement, the 20th century struggles for democracy and human rights, for an end to colonial rule and the right of our people to self-determination. It gave birth to the trade union and national democratic struggles led by George McIntosh and others, continued in the anti-colonial drive with George Charles and Ebenezer Joshua at the helm. The People’s Rebellion of October 21, 1935, marking the spontaneous eruption of our working people with the inimitable Samuel “Sheriff” Lewis playing a leading role, commands a special place as a catalyst in the decolonization process.

In spite of the gains and advances of those struggles and the reforms forced out of the colonialists and ruling planter class, including limited land reform, the decolonization process was far from complete by the seventies. The return to the country of Vincentian intellectual capital in the late sixties, the rise of the Black Consciousness Movement and the spread of socialist ideas, all combined to provide a powerful stimulus to the nationalist movement of the time. Political groups with distinctive pro-independence claims were manifestations of the rebellious and revolutionary outlook of the young people of that era. The political movement was growing.

Crucially, these organizations were not simply content to look for room to be “pressure groups”, but emerging political formations determined to go all the way, in other words, to contend for political power and so lead the completion of the anti-colonial phase of our country’s development.

Significantly, too, these groups engaged in a level of ideological discussion and debate, in public, a phenomenon not only unprecedented in our country’s history but not matched ever since, in spite of the increased levels of education and information in today’s society. The emergence of the UPM was a manifestation of these developments. As an example, the organizations which later united in the UPM, didn’t forge their alliance behind closed doors, in cloak and dagger fashion. They are on record as airing their differences and emphasizing fundamental areas of agreements in public. This was especially so in the 1977 – 79 period after one of those groups, YULIMO, had put out a public call for “anti-imperialist unity of all progressive and democratic forces”. It was the start of open public discussion, unheard of on such topics, with YULIMO and the Democratic Freedom Movement (DFM) throwing out different perspectives on the way forward. It was the classic case of a “left-leaning” force, YULIMO, and its natural ally, the rural ARWEE, wooing the more centrist-inclined but broadly nationalist, progressive and democratic DFM, towards a people-centred alliance of progressive forces rather than allowing it to slip into the arms of the more rightist NDP of the time.

The debate and discussion were not without internal bickering and disagreements in the UPM itself, even after the Launch of August 1979. One contentious area was that of Leadership. There are those, some intimately involved in the process, who today can only recall the UPM in the context of leadership struggles and whose analysis can go no further than personalities. For them, the so-called leadership crisis was simply a power struggle between strong-willed and, some contend, power-hungry individuals. To accept this is to do disservice to the reality. The lack of clarity of the UPM on the leadership issue had much deeper underlying causes relating to fundamental concepts of leadership itself. What made it even more problematic was that time and experience were not on the side of the fledgling movement. A whole chapter, perhaps a whole book, can be devoted to this intriguing aspect.

The joint-leadership formula, adopted by the UPM on its formation, did not come about just because the various factions could not agree on a single leader. Not that this was not also the case. But more importantly it was rooted in the fact that a new generation, mindful of the dangers of the “maximum leader”, was genuinely searching for a more relevant model of “maximum participation” in decision-making. Of course, the organizations involved in the alliance-building process each had their own choice, but until the pressures of electoral considerations gave the issue a raw and potentially divisive edge, they tried to fashion a new model. True, one can describe them as idealistic, ahead of the times, not fully appreciative of political traditions, yet we must never dismiss the effort to think and act “outside the box”.

This same failure to find correct and appropriate solutions to forms of leadership of the mass movement was later to bring tragedy to the Caribbean’s second successful People’s Revolution, four years later in Grenada. More on this in later columns.

Renwick Rose is a community activist and social commentator.