Make your own free website on Tripod.com

                           GT22D - POLITICS IN THE CARIBBEAN

Topic One           POLITICAL PARTIES AND PARTY COMPETITION

Lectures 1-2

Robert Buddan

January 23-25, 2001

Introduction.

Political parties have become standard mass organisations in modern political systems. A political party is defined by Emmanuel as, "an association of people under a specific name whose primary purposes are the achievement and exercise of governmental power."[1] Competitive party systems are regarded as essential pre-requisites for democracies. Political parties are therefore essential institutions in modern democratic politics.[2]

Caribbean political parties first emerged in the Latin Caribbean. However, those parties were weak and governments were often run by militaries and personal dictators rather than by parties. Parties existed more in name than in substance. Effective mass political parties first emerged in the Anglo-Caribbean towards the second half of the twentieth century.

 

Latin and Anglo-Caribbean Parties.

There are certain differences in the way Latin and Anglo-Caribbean parties emerged.

Parties and the right to vote.

The existing political parties of the Anglo-Caribbean were formed mainly in the period between 1938 and 1960. Their formation generally followed the achievement of universal adult suffrage. In Jamaica the established parties - the People=s National Party (f. 1938) and the Jamaica Labour Party (f.1944) -  preceded adult suffrage of 1944. The right to vote and the formation of parties were closely associated. Once the right to vote was won parties were formed for people to vote for.[3] The same association existed in the other English-speaking countries. Parties came with the rise of mass democracy.

In the Latin Caribbean, the current parties were formed mainly after 1960, following long interludes of military or personalist governments and long after the right to vote was won. These parties came after the failure of democracy following independence. For instance, the Cuban Revolution overthrew the old corrupt party system and a one-party system was established after 1959. In the Dominican Republic, the modern parties came into being after the Trullijo dictatorship ended in the 1960's. The oldest of the current parties was formed in 1965. In Haiti, most of the parties there were formed in or after 1986, following the Duvalier dictatorship.

Number and competitiveness of parties.

Parties have been more numerous, long-lasting and have operated more freely in the Anglo-Caribbean. Emmanuel shows that in ten Anglo-Caribbean countries, 133 political parties have existed between 1938 and 1991.[4] Most of these have been loosely formed transient micro parties that did not last. They died a natural death rather than being repressed. It is generally the case that one or two parties have dominated each country and in most cases, two parties have governed in each territory. Some 20 to 30 parties in the Anglo-Caribbean have established themselves as durable national political organisations.[5]

There is a lower rate of party formation in the Latin Caribbean. Only one party legally exists in Cuba. While a number of parties exist in Haiti, only one is dominant and has governed since democracy came to Haiti in the early 1990's.

In the Dominican Republic too, one party has been dominant. Parties are more usually repressed or harassed in the Latin Caribbean because of the stronger tradition of violence and authoritarianism there.

Parties and national goals.

The successful parties in the Anglo-Caribbean have been associated with trade unions which have given them roots among the working people. They emerged out of the labour riots of the 1930's. They were also in the forefront of nationalism and associated with nation-building. These parties have eclipsed independent candidates and small groups or cliques that got elected on a narrow franschise during the colonial period.

The current Latin Caribbean parties did not play an important role in the winning of independence nor did they promote and build close relation with trade unions, except in Cuba. They have not played the same historical role in nation-building as they have done in the Anglo-Caribbean. Independence preceded the formation of these parties.

Caribbean Party Systems.

Political parties are with democracy. The relation between parties and democracy can be best understood in terms of party systems of competition. A party system refers to the number of parties in a political system and the degree of competitiveness between them. This tells us how parties contribute to democracy in the Caribbean. One of the ironies of parties in democracy is that they seek to be vehicles of mass democracy but they might use their powers to undermine other parties and thus undermine democratic competition. The nature of party systems tells us if this happens in the Caribbean.

(1) One-party system. Cuba is the lone example of a one party system in the region. Only the Cuban Communist Party is legally recognised and only it has formed the governments of Cuba. Other parties exist but they are illegal. Is democracy compatible with a one-party system? The Cuban Communist Party argues that other parties served the interests of the rich to exploit the poor. It argues that competitive party systems are divisive. Cuba has replaced political competition with policies of social equity. Democracy, Cuba suggests, should not be about how many parties have access to power, but how many people have access to basic goods? Democracy, according to the communist party, cannot be equated with the number of political parties that exists?

(2) Multi-party systems. Some countries have proportional representational election systems and multi-party systems, that is, three or more political parties. PR systems awards seats in the legislature according to the number of votes a party receives. Small parties can therefore win seats, even if a few, and many tend to get elected to legislatures. But even when they don=t win seats, the chance that they might do so encourages many small parties to form. For example, in Haiti there are about 28 parties. In Suriname, there are 26. In Guyana, the only Anglo-Caribbean country with a PR system, there are 15. Does this mean that, the more parties there are, the more democratic a country is; and that people have more choice? Or could it be that the existence of too many parties is evidence of too much political divisiveness?

(3) Two-party systems. The Anglo-Caribbean has two-party systems. This does not mean that only two parties exist in these countries, only that only two tend to have a realistic chance of winning elections and usually governments alternate between two parties. The reason is that FTP election systems allocate seats on the basis of constituencies won, not votes received. Parties have to be large enough to win entire constituencies and at least a half of all constituencies to form the government. This discourages small parties and promotes systems where supporters mainly concentrate their support around two parties.

Two-party systems have different variations:

(A) One-party dominant systems. There are two leading parties but one party tends to dominate government for long periods of time. In Guyana, the People=s National Congress (PNC) formed the government (usually by electoral fraud) between 1964 and 1990. In Trinidad, the People=s National Movement (PNM) dominated between 1956 and 1984 during the life of Eric Williams. The Antigua Labour Party has been dominant for most of the years since 1951. The St. Kitts/Nevis Labour Party has dominated politics for much of the period since 1952. In Grenada, Eric Gairy=s party was dominant between 1951 and 1979.

(B) Classical two-party systems. The two countries with the most classical two-party systems are Jamaica and Barbados. In these countries, parties alternate regularly and are fairly even in their national strengths so they are almost always competitive.

Jamaica is the classic case of the British-style two party model. It is the only country in which two large parties competed under the first general elections; in which there was a perfect record of two-party alternation in government between 1944 and 1980;[6] and where third parties and independent candidates  never posed a challenge to the established parties once they consolidated their organisations. The Jamaican system has been the best example of a two-party system.[7] Is democracy better off when two parties are competitive enough to regularly alternate in government? Is this more important than whether there are many parties or just two? Some might argue that in systems where two parties are dominant, voters do not have enough choice, especially where the two parties do not represent much difference between each other; and that one-party dominant systems provide even less choice.

One-party dominant systems hav existed either where there has been electoral fraud (Guyana, Dominican Republic), or where a strong personality has dominated the country (Eric Williams, Vere Bird Sr., Eric Gairy). However, where elections have been free and fair or the dominant personality has died, the one-party dominance has ended.

In classical two-party systems, two strong and competing personalities like Adams and Barrow (Barbados), and Manley and Bustamante (Jamaica) have led parties and the parties have been strong enough to defeat each other fairly.

 

What do Parties do? The Positive View.

Political parties face a certain democratic dilemma. Parties and party competition are necessary for democracy. Government is necessary for society and parties remain the only organisations dedicated to forming and running government. Therefore democracy and society need parties. On the other hand, parties are blamed for serving themselves rather than democracy or society and are criticsed as being obstacles to the development of both. Party politics is said to have bred a political class that looks out mainly for itself and whose ambition is primarily to win power.

Are parties to be blamed for the many shortcomings of Caribbean democracy and the many ills of Caribbean societies?

The Positive View.

Political parties were important founding institutions of Caribbean politics in the formative period of Caribbean politics, especially. Parties served important functions in integrating the new and immature electorate into the emerging political order.[8] They did this by performing roles that are typical of political parties.

1. They won the right to vote. This is the minimum democratic function in society. They gave meaning to the choices facing the electorate through educational campaigns. They created an identity and alignment between voter and party. They gave the voter their own national organisations through which to participate in politics.

2. They integrate and mobilize citizens. Political parties mobilized citizens for political independence, constitutional reform, new labour laws, social policies, ideas of nationalism and converted them from a passive and detached state of non-participation to a condition of active citizenship. Citizens develop a sense of membership of, familiarity with and attachment to the political system and to democracy through their integration into party life and national affairs.

3. They recruit nationals for leadership in government. The functions of nominating and electing individuals to government come almost exclusively through the political party. It is through the party that potential leaders of government develop political experience, knowledge of programmes and identification with a public philosophy. Parties allowed voters to rcruit their own nationals to government.

4. They organize government. The governing party gives coherence to government. It gives the government a programme. These programmes replaced the programmes of colonial authorities. Government=s members work as one serving a collectively held position on policy and serving a common purpose.  The coherence a party brings to government reduces chaos and conflicts of purpose in what governments do and make all the members accountable to the electorate through their association with the governing party.

5. They form policies. Party manifestos and programmes guide ministers in making policy relevant to Caribbean development. Government is tied to the expectations of the party and its supporters by the views which make up the party programme. Parties act as intermediaries between voter and government by appealing to and obtaining consent to the programmes which guide policy. The party is an important link in the democratic chain between people and government.

6. They aggregate interests. Parties unite a variety of interests around a single set of ideas and policies. They establish broad national coalitions of support from different classes, races and interest groups, especially in a region like the Caribbean where such diversity is strong. They serve an aggregative function among a diverse set of interests in society and help to forge a consensus on the party=s position. Unlike an interest group, the party serves the general rather than a specific interest.

These are some of the important positive functions that political parties serve and these functions were especially important in the early period. Parties obviously continue to do these things and in spite of the damaging criticisms of parties today, there remains no alternative to the political party.

Despite their critics, political parties in the Anglo-Caribbean retained mass support right up to the 1980's. This was based on the loyalities they developed among first and second generation of voters, the role in winning independence, and their social democratic policies in favour of lnd reform, education, industrialization etc., and the provision of goods and services that colonial governments had not provided.

However, the positive view of parties began to decline over time as their situations changed:

- their founders and charismatic heroes of the nationalist period died. New generations of leaders do not enjoy the blind faith of followers enjoyed by the founders;

- the goal of independence was achieved. No other goal has united parties and societies as this did;

- the initial phase of growth from industrialization-by-invitation reached its peak and declined. The world economy has become more competitive and hostile for small economies;

- a new middle class took control of the parties and trade unions and the working class became less influential and more distant. The class character of the parties have changed. Members of the higher professions dominate;

- parties began to turn their attacks away from the colonial system and towards each other, leading to sometimes violent struggles. Issues of race, class and party power have divided the parties;

- societies have become more educated and informed and have developed more of their political views independently of parties and even more critically of parties. Parties compete with the media and civil organisations in the market of public opinion. They are no longer the main source of political education and information.

- more civil society organisations emerged as alternative organisations through which individuals could participate in politics so that parties became less central. Party memberships have declined, party activism has declined and voting for parties has declined relative to newer, alternative organisations.

- as the population has grown, especially the younger age groups, there are less resources to go around, leading to greater competition for scarce resources through parties, or greater alienation from and antagonism towards parties.

Since parties are the main intermediaries between state and society, the failures in the state=s ability to satisfy society is blamed on the parties. Parties are accused of using the resources of the state and the trust of society towards their own game of competition for power. Since parties aggregate the support of all classes and races they are targets of criticism by rich and poor alike. 

 

What do Parties do? The Negative View.

Parties are criticized as being self-serving and for abusing the system of competition for their own ends, which is, to win and keep power in order to serve themselves.[9]

They are accused of using race and poverty to divide the people;

This argument is given added force within the Caribbean context. The Caribbean=s history of race and class exploitation makes the criticisms particularly sensitive. Political parties can either be seen as a reflection of the underlying weaknesses of society or as causes of society=s weakness.

On the basis of these criticisms, it has become a part of popular perception that political parties that were formed as instruments of democracy and development have become threats to both because the pursuit of power has become the overriding objective. 

A study by Stephen Rodriguez in 1994 indicates this perception. A sample of Jamaicans were asked if they thought that governments put the interest of the people above that of the party in power and 87% said the interest of the party was put ahead of that of the people. Rodriguez also found that 64% thought that most or all politicians in Jamaica were corrupt and that approximately 72% felt that people became politicians to get rich quickly, out of  reasons of self-interest or to gain power and status. He also asked which institutions in Jamaica did the most to uplift people. The church was first with 24%, then trade unions with 19.3% and the political party was third with 13.6%. Probably what is most striking is that many people (one-third) did not feel that any institution was uplifting Jamaicans, including the political party.[10] 

(We should note that data from a larger number of countries in the developed democracies themselves, that is, Europe and North America, do show that over the past 30 years there has been a significant decline in popular trust in government and politicians. In relation to political parties, specifically, people are voting, joining and contributing to political parties in much smaller numbers in those countries).

 

Explanations: The Impact of Parties on Democracy and Development.

What might be the explanations for this? Explanations tend to centre on certain aspects of the problem: the quality of the party that controls government and its ability to manage modern government and society; the nature of party competition and the effects of this on society and economy; and the condition of society.

 

The quality of the party.

Different arguments are made:

1. Political leadership. Political parties do not havethe skills to manage complex, modern economies. Although parties recruit leaders they recruit those persons who are not the best people for national leadership. They recruit people who are loyal to the party or the party leader and not necessarily to the nation; and persons who do not understand the modern economy or have skills in economic management although they might be good political activists; that many people who are attracted to politics are interested in the power and status that go with it and therefore make poor representatives of the people once elected.

The quality of a party is worsened by the lack of personal integrity, national commitment and management competence on the part of its leadership.

Trevor Munroe has highlighted the quality of leadership as a crucial factor  to the party, government and the sustenance of democracy. The quality of leadership, he says, was critical in steering the Caribbean through decolonization and developing and sustaining the political and governmental institutions of liberal democracy, which would include the political party.  Is that the case among the present generation? Munroe believes that a new generation of political leaders is emerging, one that is more managerialist and post-charismatic. He mentions Keith Mitchell of Grenada, Edison James of Dominica, Owen Arthur of Barbados, Kenny Anthony of St. Lucia, and we can add Hubert Ingraham of the Bahamas and Bharrat Jagdeo of Guyana.[11]

Carl Stone had raised the question, Ahow do we generate leaders with the attributes needed to manage the state effectively,@[12] Munroe felt through there should be in-service training of parliamentarians. He said, AGiven the complexity of the modern nation-state, the rapidly changing character of each society and the global reality... it is...incomprehensible and...unacceptable that there is no programme of training and of human resource development tailored to the needs of Parliamentarians.@[13]

The performance of political leaders was the subject of the >Stone Committee= of 1990/91, set up by the government to recommend ways by which the performance of parliamentarians could be improved. That committee also recommended that special courses be designed to train MP=s and ministers to improve their capability in public management .[14] In addition, there were recommendations for a code of ethics for parliamentarians requiring full exposure of finances and assets[15], and a pledge from Parliamentarians to conduct themselves in a manner that would earn the respect and trust of their constituents; fight against corruption, dishonesty and violence;  not to engage in political victimization or acquire personal gain from public office.[16]

2. Party organisation. Another explanation is that parties have lost touch with the people. They have become electoral machines that come alive only at election time because their primary interest is in winning the vote. They have weakened their original ties with trade unions and the working people and have replaced these with ties to business elites. Their grassroots organisations and local party branches are not as strong as when the party was new and dependent on local branches to recruit supporters. Party leadership is centralized and decision-making is authoritarian.

Internal party matters are decided upon by professional politicians without sufficient participation by grassroots supporters.

Donald Peters has made an interesting discovery in this regard. The reduced popularity of parties results from their drift away from their roots, that is, trade union support, labour issues and the working people. In the Eastern Caribbean, he found that labour parties had declined in electoral strength. Between 1950 and 1960, the union-based parties won 80% of all elections. Between 1960 and 1970, the number of elections won fell to 68%. Between 1970 and 1980, they won only 56% of elections and in the 1980's less than 20% of elections were won by labour parties.[17] The character of these labour parties changed as they recruited middle class members who came to take over their leadership and to determine the issues that the party stood for. A clear case of this drift is the Jamaica Labour Party which since 1974 has been led by someone who did not come from the union movement and in the leadership dispute of 1999, a candidate for Deputy Leadership (Pearnel Charles) who came from the union movement had the support of the Bustamante Industrial Trade Union while the competing candidate who had the support of the party leader did not. 

Indeed, Caribbean political parties have become middle class parties. Perry Hentzen argues that the middle class parties, unions and ideology have won out over the lower class parties and unions that emerged in the 1930's. It is this middle class that has come to dominate the state systems of the Caribbean.[18] Rodriguez found that in Jamaica almost 27% of people interviewed thought that the upper classes had too much influence on government compared to about 7% who thought trade unions did.[19]

 

The effects of party competition.

Another set of explanations of party behaviour concentrates on the party system of competition. The argument is that party competition for power takes on a reckless form where winning becomes everything because of the nature of the Westminster system. Two aspects of the Westminster system drive parties to dangerous competition: the plurality or first-past-the-post electoral system which creates a bias towards a two-party system and disadvantages third and additional parties, and the majoritarian principle by which after elections, >the winner takes all.=

The First Past the Post electoral system (FTP) system discourages third parties who might provide real alternatives to the established parties. Although Anglo-Caribbean systems are two-party systems, all of them have more than two parties in existence. Some relatively new third parties have been formed. Examples are, the United Democratic Party of Barbados (1985), and the National Democratic Movement of Jamaica (1995). However, the FTP system is biased against new parties and because the >winner-takes-all,= losing parties do not have the opprtunity to contribute to policies.

The Prime Minister of Barbados, Owen Arthur, says: "There is something fundamentally flawed about a system of governance, based upon the first past the post principle, in which the victor gets all the spoils" [20] Bruce Golding of the NDM says, "There is no joy in being in Opposition...When you are in opposition, you control nothing...one is ineffective and impotent despite the fact that one may be a duly elected representative of the people"[21]

Because the winner gets all the electoral stakes are high. There is everything to win or everything to lose. This causes intense and even violent competition. Parties make unrealistic promises. But they cannot fulfill these promises once elected leading to post-election frustration. Over a period of time voters become disillusioned and begin to vote less and distrust parties more.

Michael Manley referred to this as the problem of populist politics. Politicians promise the moon and democracy is reduced to a set of competing promises that are dangled before the electorate every five years. But the package of promises will not be sufficiently realized.[22] It cannot be realized because resources are scarce.

It is out of this atmosphere of extreme competitiveness that phenomena such as patronage politics, electoral manipulation, garrison constituencies and political violence arise. Michael Manley was critical of the Westminster system which he believed promoted adversarial rather than consensual relations. He said that political parties lived with the constant reality of competition. This competition reduced them to electoral machines and placed them under constant pressure to distribute favours.[23]

 The phenomenon of garrison politics arises. Mark Figueora says that in a system where the winner takes all the spoils of party victory are expected to go to the party=s supporters. This takes the form of jobs, rent-free government housing, free utilities because constituents refuse to pay bills. These benefits are protected by a terrorist-type of organisation that inflicts violence against supporters of the opposing party and where there develops a state within a state. The garrisons develop a system of >donman= authority where try their own disputes, sentence and punish offenders according to their own laws.[24]

A culture of violence develops in these constituencies. The constituencies develop their own >economies= revolving around drug-trafficking and gun-running. They even develop an independence from the politicians and become difficult for the state, especially the police to control. Brana-Shute explains:

APolitical violence is the foremost obstacle facing the democratic process in Jamaica. This problem has intensified as the garrisons augment their traditional activities with drug-trafficking, gun running, document forgery, smuggling of aliens and links to criminal gangs abroad, primarily in the United States...Sadly, this culture of violence has become deeply rooted in the fabric of Jamaican life and will not easily yield to attacks by reform-minded politicians.@[25]

In the end, Selwyn Ryan says that the Westminster competitive party system has not served Jamaica as well as was initially hoped. Parties complain about the winner take all system when they are in opposition but benefit from it in government and therefore do little to change it. Ryan says of the parties: A When in opposition, they comprehensively stigmatize and demonise those in power. They tell their supporters...that their rivals are venal, corrupt and in the pay or control of the highest bidder, whether foreign or local. They also promise to bring affluence, efficiency, order and transparency tot he business of governance when they achieve office and to restore pride and dignity to a demoralized, pauperized and alienated people...When in opposition parties seek to outbid their rivals. Some do it  consciously and cynically, while others do it without making clear how difficult it is to effect the policy changes which they espouse.@[26]

The problem is that the electoral system forces parties into great antagonism. The solution, some suggest, is through electoral reform, specifically the adoption of a PR system.

 

The condition of society.

Certain explanations suggest that the impact of parties on society must be understood according to the nature of society itself. The party system is interactive with the society. The abuse of power and the scarcity of resources, for example, are best explained by small size and dependency and not abstractly by the misuse of power and resources by parties.

5. Small size. When the above factors are imposed on small societies, the problems of political failure are excaccerbated. According to Donald Peters the smaller Eastern Caribbean countries are different from the larger territories by being even more authoritarian and devoted to patronage.[27] Sir Arthur Lewis related small size to the abuse of power in the smaller states. Ryan provides a telling statement from Arthur Lewis:

AIn a small island of 50,000 to 100,000 people, dominated by a single political party, it is very difficult to prevent political abuse. Everybody depends on the government for something, however small. So most are reluctant to offend it. The civil servants live in fear, the police avoid unpleasantness; the trade unions are tied to the party; the newspaper depends on government advertisements; and so on. This is true even if the political leaders are absolutely honest. In cases where they are also corrupt, and playing with the public funds, the situation becomes intolerable.@[28]

Courtney Blackman believes that the authoritarianism inherent in the Caribbean=s experience of slavery and colonialism has been made worse by small size which has centralized power and given politics a certain primacy in the allocation of benefits in countries where economic opportunities are few.[29] Gordon Lewis believes that in the Eastern Caribbean, a tiny middle class controls power over a docile majority of workers and peasants.[30]

Donald Peters presents a graphic picture of political authoritarianism in the small Eastern Caribbean islands:

AWhat is peculiar about the Eastern Caribbean political system is the absolute authority that government somehow inherits. Government officials are able to circumvent laws that they have enacted. They are able to use public resources for their personal gain...When a party is elected to power, it virtually eliminates the opposition through patronage, control of the media, and legislative action where necessary. These actions are in part responsible for the domination of one party for decades in some of these islands.@[31]

6. Dependency. The dependent nature of the economies of the Caribbean is also used to explain the problems of party politics, specifically the problem of the scarcity of resources. Manley said that if the purpose of politics is to distribute favours one had better make sure that there are enough favours to go around.[32]  However, in dependent societies this is often not the case. Many Caribbean countries have foreign debts that range from 20% to 60% of their GDP. The resources of these countries are what is left over after foreign debts and repatriated profits are taken out. Economic dependency leads to a scarcity of resources. Selwyn Ryan acknowledges the problem. He says the fierceness of the struggle between parties for scarce resources was in part due to the meagreness of the resources left over after foreigners had taken their part. He points to the fact that although Europe consumes US$2 billion worth of bananas each year the Eastern Caribbean received only US$150 million for their bananas. This is after shippers, distributors and retailers had taken the lion=s share.[33]

Ryan says, AThe Caribbean is and has always been a dependent and peripheral part of the international system in which most of the value of what was produced, whether it was sugar, citrus, cocoa, bananas, petroleum, bauxite or gold, accrued to the metropolitan based elites. The indigenous elites of the Caribbean and the parties they founded or led were always struggling to get the morsels of what was left. In a sense, then, the Awinner take all struggle@ is for what was left after the bulk of the wealth that was created had been expatriated.@[34]

In fact, in Rodriguez=s study, there was a strong public perception that foreign interests had much more influence on government than Jamaican politicians did. The groups that the public thought had too much influence on government were, the private sector (32%); the IMF and foreign banks (30%); while only 3.5% thought politicians had too much influence on government.[35]

This would suggest that politicians in dependent societies are less to blame for the state of the economies of their countries and specifically for the scarcity of resources. Rather, it is the dependent condition of their economies that it is at the heart of the problem. The problems of politics and society become merely reflective of the underlying dependency of their economies. A UN study had shown that small countries have fewer resources and were more dependent on external economies.[36] In fact, studies agree that small societies are more dependent on foreign aid because of their limited resources to begin with. However aid does not solve their problems because these states pay out at least twice (and often more) in debt servicing than they receive in foreign aid.

The Westminster system of party competition therefore has to be assessed under the conditions of resource scarcity in small, dependent societies.

7. Political culture.  The dangers of intense competitive rivalry between political parties must also be seen in terms of whether the underlying political culture itself is adversarial or consensual and whether party rivalries merely mirror this. The dangers of competitive politics can be ameliorated if there is a an underlying social consensus around core values in the society. The issue here is about social capital rather than economic capital. Social capital refers to the human orientation to development, equality and democracy. This orientation can be positive if a society is well-educated, confident, responsible and willing to engage in social compromise.

Ryan distinguishes between Barbados and other islands in this regard. In Barbados there has emerged a pragmatic elite consensus between the political parties and the leading institutions of civil society. In contrast, he speaks of the pervasive distrust that exists among both the elite and the people in Guyana, Trinidad and some of the Eastern Caribbean states. Social relations concerning family and class structure also influence the characteristics of the political system.[37]

Culturally pluralistic societies and class divided societies have an underlying divisiveness among major groups that are sharpened and made violent when the high stakes involved in political competition are imposed. Political relations are determined by the historically-given forms of social and cultural relations. Perry Mars speaks of the different forms of >tribalism= in Caribbean politics. There is the racial and ethnic forms in Trinidad and Guyana, the materialistic - clientilistic forms in Jamaica (and Antigua) and the cultural - religious forms in Dominica, St. Vincent and Grenada.  These then produce tribalistic forms of electoral mobilisation, violent rivalries in the contest for power, purges and splits within parties along tribal lines and authoritarian control of the state based on tribal criteria as to who to exclude and who to include.[38] Many Caribbean scholars believe that the majoritarian, winner take all form of politics is inappropriate under these social conditions. They propose reforming the system towards greater consensus, compromise and power-sharing.

 

Conclusion.

Political parties, party systems and party competition are at the heart of liberal democracy and so they are strongly implicated as parts of the reasons for this decline. It is important to assess the state of Caribbean democracy and development against the changing role of parties before and after Independence in this regard. Specific changes are in:

- leadership

- intensity of party competition,

- control of the post-independence state and the means of patronage,

- public awareness and attitude towards parties,

- the class character and programme of parties,

- the tasks of managing modern governments, economies and societies in a global world.

 


[1] Patrick Emmanuel, AParties and Electoral Competition in the Anglophone Caribbean, 1944-1991: Challenges to Democratic Theory,@ in Carlene Edie (ed), Democracy in the Caribbean, 1994, p.253.

[2] Edie=s definition of democracy emphasises parties and party competition viz: Ademocracy refers to a system of government in which there is meaningful and extensive political competition...especially [among] political parties.@ See, Carlene Edie, Democracy in the Caribbean, 1994, p. 2.

[3] Emmanuel, op.cit, p.252.

[4] Emmanuel, op.cit, p.254

[5] This can be deduced from Emmanuel, op.cit, Appendix, Table 9, p.269.

[6] See Carl Stone, Democracy and Clientilism in Jamaica, 1980, pp.122-123. In 1944, Jamaica=s first >third party=, the Jamaica Democratic Party failed to win a seat and by the elections of 1959, independent candidates had been vanquished.The two-party system had become institutionalised by the mid-fifties according to Paul Bradley, AMass Parties in Jamaica@

[7] Barbados has the next best record of party alternation in government.

[8] These roles are described by Anthony King, APolitical Parties: Some Sceptical Reflections,@ in R. MaCridis and B. Brown (eds.), Comparative Politics: A Reader, 1972, pp.233-251. However, King questions how important parties are in performing these roles.

[9] This argument and its derivatives form much of popular perception and is reflected in  public opinion surveys and the media. They also comprise the attitudes behind much of the critical arguments of Selwyn Ryan, The Winner Takes All, 1999.

[10] Stephen Rodriquez, The Jamaican Politcal Culture: A Theoretical and Empirical Investigation, 1996, M.Sc. Thesis (unpublished), pages 109, 110.

[11] Trevor Munroe, ADemocracy and Democratization: Global and Caribbean Perspectives on Reform and Research,@ in Social and Economic Studies, 46:1, 1997, pp.31-55.

[12] Carl Stone, The Development of a Caribbean Political Science, 1991, (unpublished), 1991.

[13] Trevor Munroe, Submission to the Stone Committee on Parliamentarians and on Parliament, 1991 (unpublished), p.34

[14] Carl Stone, Report of the Stone Committee Appointed to Advise the Jamaican Government on the Performance, Accountability and Responsibilities of Elected Parliamentarians, 1991, p.3

[15] Ibid, p.3

[16] Ibid, p.34

[17] Donald Peters, The Democratic System in the Eastern Caribbean, 1992, pp.104-106.

[18] Perry Hentzen, ADemocracy and Middle-Class Domination in the Anglophone Caribbean,@ in C. Edie, (ed), op.cit, p.16

[19] Rodriquez, op.cit, p.107.

[20] S. Ryan, op.cit, p.47

[21] S. Ryan, op.cit, p.11

[22] Michael Manley, Up the Down Escalator: Development and the International Economy - A Jamaican Case Study,1987, pp.268-269.

[23] Michael Manley, The Politics of Change: A Jamaican Testament, 1974, pp.167-168

[24] Mark Figueora, Garrison Communities in Jamaica, 1962-1993: Their Growth and Impact on Political Culture, 1995, see pages 5, 27-28.

[25] S. Ryan, op.cit, p.16

[26] S. Ryan, op.cit, p.14

[27] D. Peters, op.cit

[28] S. Ryan, p.48

[29] Ibid.

[30] S. Ryan, p.49

[31] D. Peters, p.9

[32] M. Manley, The Politics of Change,op.cit, p.74

[33] S. Ryan, op.cit, p.309

[34] Ibid.

[35] S. Rodriquez, op.cit, p.107

[36] Ramesh Ramsaran, The Commonwealth Caribbean in the World Economy, 1989, p.263

[37] S. Ryan, op.cit, p.308

[38] Perry Mars, Ideology and Change: The Transformation of the Caribbean Left, 1998,

               pp.116-117


Topic 2 | Topic 3 | Topic 4 | Topic 5 | Topic 6 |Topic 7 | Topic 8

Course Outline GT22D Tutorial Questions