Caribbean Politics: A Matter of Diversity

Paul Sutton

The Caribbean is a region of immense political

diversity. In its comparatively small area there exist
established liberal democracies, overseas territories
variously associated with the United States and Euro‐
pean countries, “fragile” liberal democracies emerging
from a recent authoritarian past, a “failed” state in
Haiti, and one of the world’s last remaining communist
states in Cuba. Defining the region in its widest sense
to include the “rim” countries of Belize, Guyana,
and Suriname, and the territory of French Guiana, it
comprises sixteen independent countries and thirteen
distinct “associated” or “dependent” territories. The
size of political jurisdiction varies from Cuba, with
more than ten million inhabitants, to Anguilla, with its
ten thousand people. The per capita income includes
some of the world’s richest developing states and one
of the world’s poorest countries, Haiti.

Such political diversity makes it extremely difficult

to make general statements on politics and political
systems that are true for every country within the
region. This is compounded by the pervasiveness
of an insularity that causes each island to assert its
differences from its neighbors; this is true even of
countries that are conventionally grouped together,
countries that are conventionally grouped together,
such as the Commonwealth Caribbean (all former or
existing colonies of Britain).
The difficulty is further exacerbated by the strength
of the “metropolitan” connection, which causes the
countries to look outward rather than inward, placing
more emphasis on cooperation with Europe and North
America than cooperation among themselves.

A common Caribbean identity and common Caribbean

interests are accordingly hard to find. Although there
are formal intergovernmental associations that seek to
promote the region, such as the Caribbean Community
(CARICOM) and the recently formed Association for
Caribbean States (ACS), they do not encompass every
Caribbean state or
“associated/dependent territory.”’ In short, the
Caribbean is fragmented and divided politically—
a region that shares a common past and a common
contemporary predicament, but in which political
community remains firmly anchored to island and
enclave.

A Common Past

How is this to be explained? The starting point, as so

often in political analysis, is history. In the Caribbean,
the weight of history has been greater than anywhere
else in the developing world, and the colonial impress
else in the developing world, and the colonial impress
more enduring. It must not be forgotten that the first
footfall of Columbus in America was in the Caribbean,
and that parts of the Caribbean remain linked to
Europe today. Bermuda has been a British colony
since 1609; Curaçao a Dutch possession since 1634;
and Guadeloupe, Martinique, and French Guiana—all
former French colonies over hundreds of years—have,
since 1946, been constitutionally départements of
France. Recently independent countries such as
Barbados (1966) and St. Kitts-Nevis (1983) were
ruled by Britain for more than 300 years. Countries
that gained their independence earlier, such as the
Dominican Republic (1844) and Cuba (1902), had even
longer experiences of Spanish rule.

The legacies of such colonial rule can be found in the

political cultures and formal administrative rules and
regulations that give shape to political life throughout
the Caribbean. In the former British Caribbean,
for example, all countries are governed through a
modified form of the British “Westminster” system
in which institutions and procedures first developed
in Britain have been transplanted and adapted to
Caribbean realities. The same applies elsewhere,
making it easy to determine in any independent
Caribbean country the former colonial rulers. It even
holds true in places where there was more than one
former colonial master—for example, Grenada, Guyana,
St. Lucia, St. Vincent, and Trinidad and Tobago. It
is likewise true for Cuba and Haiti, where violent
is likewise true for Cuba and Haiti, where violent
revolutions ruptured embedded colonial rule.

The colonial impress has in turn shaped distinctive

political regimes. The two types most often contrasted
are the authoritarian regimes that have dominated
in Cuba, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic, and
the democratic regimes to be found in the English-
speaking Caribbean. The former have allowed military
rule and personalist dictatorship to flourish, and this
“caudillo” tradition remains strong, as personified to‐
day in the rule of Fidel Castro in Cuba. In Haiti, military
rule and dictatorship have been the normal forms
of government, and have directly contributed to the
endemic poverty to be found throughout the country.
The Dominican Republic has also had long periods
of dictatorial and oligarchical rule, although since the
mid-1960s there has been a gradual transformation
of the political system resulting in the development of
political institutions and the emergence of competitive
democratic electoral politics. The Dominican Republic
can now be classed as a democracy, and its recent
history points to the possibility of making a successful
transition from an authoritarian to a democratic regime
in the Caribbean.

In contrast, the English-speaking Caribbean has

emerged as the most democratic region in the
developing world. More than 125 general elections
have been held in the independent states of the
Commonwealth Caribbean since the first vote under
Commonwealth Caribbean since the first vote under
universal suffrage was held in Jamaica in 1944. Every
Commonwealth country in the region has experienced
a change of government as a result of elections. Such
elections have generally been free and fair, and the
government of the day has been accorded a high
measure of legitimacy. The result in most countries
has been the institutionalization of democratic politics
in which political rights and political participation
are secured, and in which political issues are widely
discussed.

This is not to say that the political systems in the

English-speaking countries are untroubled by divisive
issues. In Guyana and in Trinidad and Tobago, there
has been a history of political tension between those
of African descent and those of East Indian descent.
Jamaica continues to be marked by wide divisions
between its “haves” and “have nots” that lead to
occasional outbursts of political violence. But on
the whole, the Commonwealth Caribbean has a high
incidence of political stability and an enviable record of
good governance.

Similar points could be made about the various

“dependent” and “associated” territories. Nearly all
of them have put in place democratic practices and
politics, while civil liberties have been underwritten
by the continuing metropolitan connection. This, in
turn, has prompted a common concern with “status,”
that is, with what the relationship should be between
that is, with what the relationship should be between
the Caribbean territory and its distant metropolitan
partner. It is a central and continuing theme of
relations between Puerto Rico and the United States
and, given the almost equal division in Puerto Rico
between those who want to continue with the existing
“associate” status and those who wish to see a
change (for statehood or independence), this issue is
set to dominate the agenda in the future.

Those living in the British and Dutch overseas

territories in the Caribbean have also seen some
administrative modifications in their relations with
Britain and the Netherlands. These have confirmed
their interest in strengthening the metropolitan link,
thus weakening the move to independence, which has
become virtually nonexistent in recent years. A similar
picture applies to the French départements, where
political movements seeking greater autonomy from
France have been limited in their political effect. The
Caribbean is thus set to continue as a region in which
external political influences, which have done much to
shape the past, will continue to exercise an influence
in the future.

The most important external influence throughout the

twentieth century was the United States. In the early
years of the century, it acquired Puerto Rico and the
U.S. Virgin Islands, as well as occupying Cuba, Haiti,
and the Dominican Republic for varying lengths of
time. Following the Second World War, U.S. influence
time. Following the Second World War, U.S. influence
spread to the British colonial territories. Upon gaining
independence, these countries sought a closer
relationship with the
United States, primarily for economic and security
advantages. At the same time, the United States—in
its competition with the former USSR and its current
position as world leader—has sought to ensure that
the Caribbean region remain firmly locked into its
sphere of influence. The interventions in the Domini‐
can Republic in 1965 and in Grenada in 1983 were part
of this strategy, as is the continuing policy of isolation
and containment of Cuba under Castro. The result has
been an overwhelming U.S. presence in the region,
sometimes challenged by nationalist movements and
governments, but generally accepted as inevitable
and even beneficial. The end of the Cold War has
seen a reduction of U.S. interest in the Caribbean,
and a redirection of its interests in the region toward
combating drug trafficking and controlling migration—
both important issues in the U.S. domestic agenda.

Diverse Cultures and Politics

Although external influences remain important—and

on occasion even overwhelming—the political life
of the Caribbean region today is largely determined
by internal factors. One of the most important is the
differential impact of social classes and ethnic groups.
differential impact of social classes and ethnic groups.
Variety here is of the essence, as there are at least four
broad types of Caribbean societies, but with no clear
correspondence between political regime and social
structure. Following a typology developed by Colin
Clarke,1 these broad categories are:

Plural-stratified societies. This includes former British

colonies that are now independent liberal democ‐
racies, such as Jamaica and the small states of the
eastern Caribbean, the “associated” and “dependent”
liberal democracies in the French départements and
the Netherlands Antilles, and the “failed” state of Haiti.

Plural-segmented societies. This includes Trinidad and

Tobago and Belize, which have robust and established
liberal democracies, and Guyana and Suriname, both
of which have a chequered recent past embracing
authoritarianism and state socialism, and are now
“fragile” liberal democracies.

Class-stratified societies. This includes a communist

state in Cuba, an “associated” liberal democratic state
in Puerto Rico, and an emergent liberal democracy in
the Dominican Republic.

“Folk” societies. This includes a scattering of individual

islands characterized by highly personalist politics
and a dependent relationship with a larger political
jurisdiction, including Saba (Netherlands Antilles),
Desirade (Guadeloupe), Barbuda (Antigua) and
Desirade (Guadeloupe), Barbuda (Antigua) and
Anguilla (British Overseas Territory).

Adding to this complicated picture are the very differ‐

ent political styles and programmes of the multitude of
political leaders who compete for office. All Caribbean
countries can point to at least one, and many to
several, political personalities who have dominated
politics in the recent past or continue to do so today.
They include Juan Bosch and Joaquin Balaguer in the
Dominican Republic, Jean-Bertrand Aristide in Haiti,
Michael Manley and Edward Seaga in Jamaica, Aimé
Césaire in Martinique, Luis Munoz Marin in Puerto
Rico, and, of course, Fidel Castro in Cuba.2 While the
dominance of such personalities can be a matter of
size, with the smallest countries experiencing the
greatest impact of personality, the fact that a highly
personalist form of politics is found everywhere in
the region points to social and cultural explanations
for this phenomenon. Decisive political leadership
appears to be a feature much admired by electorates,
or feared in dictatorships, throughout the Caribbean.

Community vs. Insularity

Ultimately, then, political life and political systems

in the Caribbean have to be understood in terms of
individual countries and territories, however small. The
insularity of the islands and enclaves, the various his‐
insularity of the islands and enclaves, the various his‐
torical legacies, the complex mix of social structures,
and the dominance of political personality provide
each country with a stamp of authenticity that renders
it unique. At the same time, there exists an intangible
sense of a wider Caribbean “community” that is often
invoked and occasionally provides a spur to action.
The most recent manifestation of this approach is the
creation of the Association of Caribbean States (ACS)
in 1994, following an initiative taken by the leaders of
the Caribbean Community (CARICOM).

The newer ACS is open to all Caribbean countries

(independent, “associated” and “dependent”), plus
mainland countries in Central America and countries
with Caribbean coastlines in South America. It is
therefore a wider grouping than that usually seen
in the Caribbean, and this has led to problems in its
operations. It has been impossible to agree upon
a political programme or agenda, and the most
successful areas of action have been those where
easily defined interests coincide—for example, tourism,
transport, disaster management, and communication
and information networks. Its potential has so far been
limited by the desire of individual Caribbean states to
retain sovereignty and freedom of action, and the fact
that although Caribbean states would clearly benefit
from closer cooperation, most lack the political will to
pursue such a path vigorously.

The immediate political future of the Caribbean is thus

The immediate political future of the Caribbean is thus
one of individual,
fragmented states. Some parts of the region—for
example the English-speaking states in CARICOM—
will likely draw closer together, but political union is a
long way off even among those states that are similar
in size and social structure, such as the former British
colonies in the eastern Caribbean. In choosing to
remain apart, most Caribbean countries are leaving
themselves exposed to powerful economic and
political forces they can do little to resist—although
Cuba shows that resistance is possible, even under the
most difficult conditions.

Among the most important forces affecting the

Caribbean in recent years have been the global
economic forces shaping new trade agendas in
Europe and the Americas, which are eroding the
preferential trade advantages most Caribbean states
have relied upon for sustaining their commodity
exports; and the new thrust of global competitiveness,
which especially disadvantages the smaller and more
underdeveloped Caribbean states in terms of easily
obtaining foreign investment and international finance.
The economic future for the majority of states is
uncertain, and the development prospects for some of
them—such as the small banana-producing countries
of the eastern Caribbean as well as Guyana, Haiti, and
Suriname—are bleak.

These effects of globalization may have political

These effects of globalization may have political
consequences in increased political instability and
new threats to U.S. security through increased drug
trafficking and higher levels of illegal immigration.
Included in this scenario is Cuba, where major
economic restructuring has not been matched by an
equivalent move to politically reform the communist
state. The disjunction of the two becomes daily more
acute, and with it, the risk of breakdown in Cuba and
ill-considered U.S. action that is likely to make matters
worse.

In conclusion, the Caribbean presents a political

picture of great diversity. There are common themes
and shared experiences that bring the countries
together, but much politically that pulls them apart.
History and the impact of divisive external factors
explain some features of the situation, but do not
tell the whole story. Politicians and islands delight
in being different, and among those who migrate
to the metropolitan centers of the United States,
Canada, and the European Union, as well as those who
remain in their islands and enclaves, there is a strong
attachment to place.

The political systems of the region reflect local factors

more than any other, so that even in countries as
small as St. Kitts-Nevis (42,000 people), the Nevisians
(8,000) have recently sought greater autonomy, even
though they are only two miles across the sea from St.
Kitts. This may be hard to grasp in a large country like
Kitts. This may be hard to grasp in a large country like
the United States. But it is the essence of Caribbean
politics and ensures that in the foreseeable future,
there will be no single Caribbean state, but a multiplic‐
ity of political regimes and vibrantly different forms of
political life from one country to another in the region.

Last modified: 1:33 PM