Topic Five.

Lectures 13-15

Robert Buddan

October 21-28, 1999

Introduction

Political tradition is an important foundation of a country=s politics. That tradition establishes those political ideas and institutions that have taken take root over time and in which the population has become acculturated. A people learn that tradition, that is, the norms by which the political system operates and such political values as human and civil rights, electoral participation and representation.

The political traditions of the Caribbean are varied and mirror those of the former and present colonizing powers. The region constitutes a representative sample of the main forms of democracy that exist in the world. For instance, the English-speaking Caribbean follows the British pattern of parliamentarism, the Dominican Republic follows the Spanish American pattern of presidentialism, Cuba follows the pattern of a revolutionary socialist democracy modeled off Eastern European communism, Haiti follows the French system which is a mixed form of presidentialism and parliamentarism, Puerto Rico follows the United States pattern. Suriname and the Dutch Caribbean operate a system consistent with the Netherlands, and Martinique and Guadeloupe=s political systems are an integral part of French political arrangements.

Two Traditions.

The variety of political systems in the Caribbean  can be simplified by classifying them under two broad categories: the Anglo-Caribbean and the Latin Caribbean traditions.

Anglo-Caribbean democracies share certain common traditions that distinguish them from Latin Caribbean systems.

(1) They are English-speaking and dominated by the Protestant ethic of individualism in politics compared to the Spanish and French-speaking Catholic ethic of collectivism in politics found in Latin America and the Hispanic and Francophone Caribbean. This individualism is thought to be more supportive of liberal democracy compared to the less liberal or more communitarian Catholic culture.

(2) They have parliamentary forms of government modeled off Britain rather than presidential or semi-presidential forms found in the Latin Caribbean where there is stronger influence from the United States and countries of the European continent.

(3) They have two-party or two-party dominant systems again following the British pattern rather than the multiparty systems of the Latin Caribbean (except Cuba) like those found in Spain, France and the Netherlands.

(4) They have plurality or first-past-the-post electoral systems like the British but in contrast to systems of proportional representation found in the Latin Caribbean. Proportional Representational systems are borrowed from Spain, France and the Netherlands.

(5) They have secular political cultures rather than ones in which religion plays a strong role in      politics. A tradition of Christian democracy exists in

Europe where Catholic movements had formed political parties to promote religious values in politics and this has come down to the Latin Caribbean.

(6) They have a longer tradition of peaceful, civilian government while the Latin Caribbean has been characterized by wars of independence and military governments. In fact, although Haiti, Cuba, and the Dominican Republic have been independent for a longer time than the Anglo-Caribbean countries their western-style civilian democratic traditions are shorter and still uncertain in such places like Haiti.

(7) They have strong Ademocratic assets@,^[1] that is, conditions that support the functioning of democratic politics. They have relatively strong civil society organisations such as trade unions, professional associations, churches and civic associations. Also, their political parties and the tradition of regular, competitive elections is well established. Latin Caribbean countries tend to have strong states and an influential role for the military in politics going back to the period when the armed struggle and military strategy played a leading role in the wars of independence. This military has sometimes repressed civil society, human rights, political parties and elections.

Democracy and Democratic Traditions.

The two traditions are different in the quality of democracy that prevails.

Liberal democracy can be defined as a political system of free and fair elections, held at regular intervals, in the context of guaranteed civil and political rights, the accountability of government and where rules are established by a constitution.^[2]

(1) The length of the experience with representative government, especially in Barbados, The Windward and Leeward Islands and Jamaica, an experience that goes back to the C17th, first under the Old Representative System (ORS) of the planter class and later to self-government under nationalist leaders.^[3] The British did not practice democracy under colonialism, it was the idea of representative government under the ORS that nationalist leaders accepted and converted into post-independence democracy.

In contrast, the Dominican Republic, Haiti and Cuba experienced more centralised colonial administrations and upon attaining independence, experienced violent upheavals in their history. Under Spain=s imperial system, for example, colonial legislatures did not exist. English settlers had enjoyed the right to elect an Assembly which enacted laws for the internal government of the colony. This was not the case under the Spanish system.

In the Dominican Republic, independence was declared in 1821 but Haiti invaded and occupied the country until 1844. Spain reannexed it in 1861 but independence was declared anew in 1865. Then the US occupied it from 1916 to 1924 and after that it was governed by a military dictator from 1930 to 1961. It was invaded again by the US in 1965.^[4] The country=s first free elections were held only in 1978.

Cuba was occupied by US troops between 1898 and 1902, 1906-1909, 1912, 1917-1923. A dictator nicknamed > the butcher= then ruled Cuba from 1925 to 1933, followed by another dictator named Batista from 1934 until the Cuban revolution in 1959. Cuban politics was dominated by the Cuban and American military, the planter class, multinational corporations, dictators and even the American mafia.^[5]

The US occupied Haiti from 1914 to 1934 and helped the dictator, Francois Duvalier (Papa Doc) to power in 1957. Duvalier ruled until 1971 when his son, Jean Claude Duvalier (Baby Doc) became the country=s dictator from 1971 until he fled into exile in 1986.

Stotzky says that the history of Haiti has been a tragic tale of corruption and military violence, ceaseless coups, assassinations, and massive violations of human rights.^[6]

The democratic tradition in the Latin Caribbean suffered from American interventions to safeguard American commercial interests, its support of dictators for this purpose and the continuing strength of the  planter class of those countries in alliance with American multinational control of huge coffee, sugar and banana plantations. Hence, they came to be called >banana Republics=.

2. The acculturation of nationalist elites into the culture and practice of parliamentary democracy. With reference to the Anglo-Caribbean leaders, Payne said, AEnglish-speaking, colonially educated, the recipients of elite scholarships from Jamaica College to Oxford, Cambridge and London, what else could the Jamaican elite become but would-be parliamentary democrats.@^[7] They acquired the habits and attitudes of the Westminster system of government and politics.

Indeed, the British required the Caribbean nationalist leaders to respect their institutions and the practices of parliamentary politics. It was only on this condition that they were willing to grant independence. In the case of Guyana, for instance, they suspended the Guyanese constitution when the Marxist People=s Progressive Party won the first national elections in 1956. The British intervened in Guyana and forced the party out of power.

The Latin Caribbean on the other hand inherited a non-democratic culture. They gained independence from countries that did not have a democratic tradition to pass on at a time (in the nineteenth century) when democratic ideas were still only developing. Those leaders came to power in a pre-democratic age.

Furthermore, while the Anglo-Caribbean leaders were forced to be flexible, compromising and consensual as they negotiated independence constitutions with Britain, the Latin Caribbean leaders had a less consensual style. They were more militant, confrontational, and uncompromising. This was because their colonizing powers were not willing to grant independence, as Britain was after 1945, and nurture their colonies towards more democratic constitutions. Latin Caribbean leaders had to fight wars of independence.

Their larger populations meant that they could amass a credible fighting force to take advantage of France=s weakness during the internal strife caused by the French revolution and the fact that Spain had passed the peak of its power.

The British colonies had much smaller populations and were less likely to have defeated Britain militarily since Britain was still a world power.

The weakness of Spain, in fact, encouraged the United States to seek control of Spanish territories such as Cuba, the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico. The US was then more interested in promoting the commercial interests of its multinational corporations even with the support of dictators while Britain showed greater interest in its Acivilizing mission@, that is, passing on its culture and political model to its colonies and tutoring the colonies= leaders into the British ways of democracy.

3. The relationship between social classes and the state is regarded as another important explanation for the different democratic traditions. Dominguez  believes the history of slavery made Anglo-Caribbean peoples distrustful of power that was highly concentrated in the state. They valued freedom and developed suspicion towards centralized power. After slavery they sought to protect their African and Indian cultures from suppression and came to value the right to one=s own beliefs and the private ownership of property. In Trinidad and Guyana, the mutual suspicion of the races might have caused political instability but each race also found it in its perceived interest to resist domination by the other and to accept a system of competing parties on their behalf.^[8]

The Latin Caribbean.

In the Latin Caribbean democracy did not fail so much as not being given a chance to work. The wars of independence in Cuba and the Dominican Republic were seen by the larger Hispanic populations to have been their victory and not to be shared with the ex-slaves. These Hispanic leaders did not come from the black masses and tended to see themselves more as extensions of the metropolitan elite than as among the common indigenous population. In Haiti, the Mulatto elite distanced itself from the blacks. The elites relied on dictatorship rather than democracy to maintain their privileges.

Haiti.

The United States intervened in 1915 claiming that the Haitians were immature and not yet ready for democracy. The United States created a constitution for Haiti which did not even permit elections of Haitian presidents. The US aligned itself with the Mulatto group so that after its occupation ended in 1930, Haiti was ruled by Mulatto presidents for 15 years. These presidents encouraged colour discrimination in all aspects of social life such as appointments to government administration and membership in social clubs. Elections in 1946 did produce a Black president, Dumarsais Estime, on a wave of nationalism seeking to resurrect Black values. However, Estime was overthrown in 1950. Another period of authoritarian rule was introduced under Paul Magloire supported by the Mulatto elite. After a period of autocratic and corrupt rule he was forced into exile in 1956.

This only opened the door for the election - by widespread fraud and violence - of Francois Duvalier. Duvalier posed as a nationalist leader of Haitian Blacks but was repressive of both Blacks and Mulattos. He established control over all aspects of Haitian life. The Haitian legislature became his personal instrument and he employed force to maintain control. Francois declared himself president-for-life and appointed his son, Jean-Claude, to be his successor, which he became in 1971.

The Duvaliers never pretended to be democrats. While the outward trappings of a democracy were maintained - parliamentary assemblies and elections - the system was manipulated though force and fraud, nepotism and religious symbolism (Voodoo). Jean Claude was eventually forced into exile in 1986 by the >people=s power= movement led by Jean Bertrand Aristide. Between 1986 and 1990, Haiti was governed by five different administrations, each purporting to lead a democratic transition. None succeeded because none had the support of the Black majority. Ultimately, Aristide overwhelmingly won presidential elections in 1990, the first free and fair elections in Haiti=s history. But Aristide was overthrown in 1991 and a brutal period of military repression followed. Even though Haiti has subsequently returned to civilian rule, its politics is still marred by violence and its elections are still highly suspect.^[9]

Cuba.

Cuba=s first political system after independence operated under the shadow of United States imperialism. The infamous Platt Amendment to the Cuban constitution, which allowed American intervention in the country=s affairs, limited the democratic nature of the constitution. American involvement was, however, more for economic and strategic reasons and less out of a belief that the Cubans (not being Black) could not govern themselves.

Government was usually run for the personal enrichment of office holders, congress was largely inactive and presidents were typically autocratic. Dominguez says that there was little check on executive power, the inaction of congress made a mockery of legitimate political democracy and an unchecked executive and an unenforced constitution did not inspire confidence in the belief in democracy.^[10] The worst of the authoritarian rulers, like Batista, restricted freedom of the press, freedom of association and political activity.

In 1905, the first election was so corrupt that the opposition party withdrew its candidate. The opposition later revolted against the government leading to American intervention.