Peter Espeut | The myth of independence

In 1975 – more than 50 years ago – UWI political scientist Louis Lindsay published an article titled “The Myth of Independence: Middle Class Politics and Non-Mobilization in Jamaica”. It caused a stir! Jamaica had been politically independent from the United Kingdom (UK) for more than a decade, and disillusionment had already set in.

Thirty years earlier – while the UK was distracted by World War II – adult Jamaicans were granted the right to vote, regardless of wealth or literacy. In 1947 India (and Pakistan) gained political independence from Britain following the efforts of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (affectionately called Mahatma), and local patriots sought the same for Jamaica.

Independence was supposed to bring “liberation from the yoke of foreign oppression and the freedom of a community to pursue policies and purposes which reflected its own interests and values … Its attainment was thought to imply the liberation of the spirit and creative energies of individuals from the whims and fancies of external and previously uncontrollable forces”. It didn’t quite work out that way.

That period between 1944 and 1962 was full of “drama, excitement and powerful normative vibrations”. Louis – my colleague at UWI when I began this column more than 30 years ago – wrote that “with the rapid dissolution of European colonial empires which followed World War II … the leaders of more and more formerly colonised territories in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean, took their seats in the United Nations, [and] the meaning of independence underwent a rapid process of devaluation. And this process has virtually emptied what was once a rich and exciting ideal of much of its ethical significance and moral thrust”.

Louis’ expresses his punchline in this paragraph:

“It is not easy to escape the conclusion that there is a clear connection between the devaluation which has occurred with regard to the meaning of independence, and the formal granting of the right of self-determination to traditionally devalued peoples of the Afro-Asian and Caribbean world.

As native leaders in colonial territories asserted their right to independence, metropolitan governments were increasingly compelled to make concessions to their demands. But the concessions which were made appear to have been more symbolic than real. No sooner was the right to independence conceded in form, than it was withdrawn in substance.

If native leaders demanded independence, they were given independence. But by removing from the offer of supposed national autonomy the key operational component of self-determination, European imperial powers pacified and placated colonial discontent by offering the myth while withholding the reality of national political sovereignty”.

FOUNDED THE UN

The United Kingdom, the United States of America, China, France, and the Soviet Union (USSR) were among the 51 sovereign states that founded the United Nations (UN) after victory in 1945. The myth surrounding the idea of the UN is that having a flag and an anthem, a national bird and a national dish, somehow admits a former colony into the company of its former (and would-be) colonisers as equals.

The Monroe Doctrine of 1823 gives the lie to all of this. Even while most Jamaicans were still enslaved, US President James Monroe effectively declared that the Western Hemisphere was now a possession of the US, itself a British colony less than 50 years before that. At the time the US did not have the military might to comprehensively enforce the Monroe Doctrine, but it grew into the role it declared for itself.

In my lifetime the US has invaded or intervened in Cuba in 1952 and 1961, Guatemala in 1954, Haiti in 1959, 1994 and 2004, Ecuador in 1961, Peru in 1962 and 1965, Bolivia in 1963 and 1971, Dom Rep in 1963 and 1965, Brazil in 1964, Chile and Uruguay in 1973, Nicaragua in 1979, Grenada in 1983, Panama in 1989, Venezuela in 2002 and 2026. I think I left out a few.

In the mean time, Russia developed its imperial ambitions in Europe, and China did the same in Asia. In this second quarter of the 21st century, with both the UN and NATO weakening, and with the three empires flexing their muscles in their spheres of influence, never has political independence and national sovereignty seemed more like a myth.

This quote from Louis Lindsay may prove interesting:

“But for the great majority of citizens in the alleged newly independent state, life continues in much the way that it did before what was heralded as independence was achieved. For a small minority of privileged individuals, however, the formal declaration of independence means new and rewarding ambassadorial and consular positions abroad, grand and luxuriously appointed official residential mansions, and greater access to and positioning for the corruptive uses of funds which are now more easily obtainable from both foreign and local sources”.

Louis’ article contains many insights, and reads well after 50 years. In some ways it is profoundly prophetic; the following describes perfectly recent efforts at constitutional reform in Jamaica:

“For at all stages in the history of the island’s development, the play of political forces have always been designed to keep the public outside of rather than involved in planning for change and development. This kind of elitist political orientation was critical for the maintenance of colonial domination. It meant that for ordinary citizens, politics was something to be seen, but not touched”.

“Independence, of the type we have been describing, acts as a barrier to political development. For it serves to generate the myth that substantive changes have taken place, and that cherished goals and objectives have been achieved when in reality nothing of the kind have occurred. Political leaders in seeking to sustain these myths find it easier to maintain illusions of progress rather than take the hard steps and make the bold decisions which genuine modernisation demands”.

In this combustible world, it looks like more military activity is on the horizon. Maybe the only thing little Jamaica can do is keep our heads down.

Peter Espeut is a sociologist and development scientist. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com