RECENTLY I HAVE been somewhat perplexed as I consider the state of our world as elections and referenda alike have produced results that appear inconsistent with developmental prudence and common sense. There have perhaps been several earlier indicators of this trend; however, the British Brexit vote presents itself as a notable instance where the public acted in a way that appeared inimical to its own best interest. This was quickly followed by the Columbian referendum and the US election which both reflect peculiar political behaviour. The Grenadian referendum was held in this environment and while we had stunning precedents, Grenada appeared safe for several reasons.
Significant among these was the fact that Grenada is considered one of the more ideologically progressive populations in the region. It is the place in the region where one of very few successful political revolutions took place in the post-independence which speaks volumes about the extent to which Grenadians are politically progressive. Substantively, the matters they were asked to endorse should also have given rise to an expectation that all or most of them would be passed easily. In much the same way that the choice between Clinton and Trump was a “no-brainer,” those measures were at worst; harmless or at best progressive.
Among the measures were the establishment of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), central to decolonisation and an Electoral and Boundaries Commission which would have insulated the electoral process from the political sphere. The opposition would also have benefited from changes allowing the appointment of a Leader of the Opposition which would mean that the current senator who holds that post would have been more powerful. The Prime Minister also demonstrated a willingness to surrender some of his power way of a fixed date for elections and by limiting terms to three.
One of the more interesting proposals was a concession for the fiercely nationalistic populations of Carriacou and Petite Martinique, 4 500 and 900, respectively. Those persons have for years resisted the label “Grenadian” and in their interest a proposal was brought to change the name of the country from Grenada to Grenada, Carriacou and Petite Martinique. This too, was rejected and moreover rejected by voters living on those same islands. Unsurprisingly, the least popular initiative was the Rights and Freedoms clause which advanced a right to freedom from discrimination on the grounds of gender which is consistent with the most progressive traditions of constitutionalism. That was also rejected apparently because of a fear that gender non-discrimination was equivalent to gay-marriage and as such a population that has a majority of women effectively voted against enhanced protections for itself.
Regardless of the larger point the population might have been trying to make, the Grenada outcome has produced irrefutable evidence that populations are often prone to sadomasochism and will stand boldly in the path of progress if given a chance. It is either ironic or fortuitous that in the wake of this turmoil Comrade Fidel Castro passed away and his passing provided the opportunity to reflect on the extent to which he is loved and hated. Most of us across this region admire what Castro has done for Cuba in the face of a western assault by powerful countries led by the USA.
Cuba has advanced in medicine, education and in these two sectors alone has demonstrated an ability to care for and educate its population in a way to which the US can now only aspire. Regionally, Castro has been a friend to us, providing material support to neighbours in areas such as construction, health and education. Certainly, the Americans have also done some of this but it is always noteworthy that while the Obama administration recently helped drug interdiction by way of buying guns, Castro offered scholarships to train doctors, dentists and veterinarians.
In some sections of the west, the dislike for Castro is intense and fuelled by his human rights record and unwillingness to hold elections. Ironically, his critics like Donald Trump are anxious to embrace China where national elections are also unknown and Russia which has a record on human rights that in a league with Zimbabwe. While several of the challenges to Castro’s legacy are easily dismissible, the contrast of the good that he had done with his obvious discomfort with democracy does provoke questions which the counter position of these most recent events help to answer.
Peter W. Wickham is a political consultant and a director of Caribbean Development Research Services (CADRES). Email: peter.w.wickham@gmail.com
