In mid-March of this year, the Governor of the British colony of the Turks and Caicos Islands announced that the constitution of the territory would be suspended. This followed the report of a commission of inquiry which made allegations of widespread mismanagement by the existing cabinet.
In effect the suspension of the constitution meant the removal of Premier Michael Misick’s semi-autonomous administration, and the return of full powers to the governor. This was not the first time that this had occurred in the Turks, a suspension of the government having taken place in 1986, following a commission of inquiry, and on the same grounds.
As Guyanese will know, the use of this instrument of suspension has been a long-standing one, the then British Guiana, under the relatively newly elected PPP Government having gone through the experience. Then as now, the British were deaf to any appeals to withdraw its decision. The Cold War reasons for suspension in the case of Guyana were, of course, quite different from those now announced in the Turks and Caicos.
Premier Misick has been under pressure for some time to curb what has been seen as his extravagant ways with the country’s financial resources, and a certain degree of scandal in his private affairs. It is probably fair to say that he had paid little heed to such pressures, perhaps not believing that, in this modern period, the British would resort to actual suspension of the country’s constitution.
The appeal by the temporarily appointed Premier for a stay of execution of the Governor’s – in effect the British Government’s – decision, as well as an appeal for a referendum on the matter, has been given short shrift. And it seems that the colonial authority seems convinced that the situation has gone so far, that even a general election is not seen as the necessary curative. From their perspective it would appear that they believe that a period of temporary rule by the Governor, supported by an Advisory Council and the civil administration, is necessary before government can be returned to the people’s representatives.
It is, in a sense, surprising that the British Government has not given fuller consideration to the call for fresh elections, an approach that would certainly be preferable to the Caribbean Community, than the one they have chosen. Indeed it would be interesting to know whether the British had chosen to have any consultations at all with the community on its approach, the Turks having been for many years, and until the independence of Jamaica, under practical Jamaican jurisdiction. Indications are, however, that such consultations have not been held.
Oddly enough, quick on the heels of these events and the British decision in the Turks, has come the scandal of corruption of privileges affecting members of both main parties in the British House of Commons, a certain embarrassment to Prime Minister Brown in particular. But the Prime Minister, whose party is presently well down in the polls, has resisted all calls that his government step down in favour of a return to the polls. In Britain’s case internal remedial action is being taken, under the supervision of a parliament which has been a partial party to the crime. No doubt, however, the people of the Turks and Caicos must see their circumstances in the context of those of the British, as a case, in an old British phrase, of “the pot calling the kettle black.”
The Turks and Caicos events remind us that there is still a lot of uncertainty among some European governments, as to how to handle the remaining small territories under their jurisdiction in various parts of the world, including the Caribbean. The unfortunate volcanic eruptions in Montserrat will certainly be seen today as having blocked their way towards some form of substantial autonomy, if not full independence. In the 1980s and into the 1990s, the government of Chief Minister John Osborne, having directed the country’s economy towards a diversification based on tourism and financial services, seemed to be well on its way to that goal. But today, with much of the population having migrated, and the economy reduced to a shadow of itself, the existing administration has no choice but to be under substantial British direction.
In respect of the other British territories like the British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands, the British seem content to see that the people’s representatives have a limited constitutional power. But they also do not seem to mind these “offshore financial destinations” remaining under their jurisdiction. The local authorities, on the other hand, seem to have to play between exerting pressure for more self-rule, while taking cognizance of the kind of recognition for financial probity, under the British crown, which their economic status enjoys.
In the eastern Caribbean, the French Government has recently got a rude awakening from the widespread demonstrations, destruction and breakdown of economic life and political administration that started in Guadeloupe and spread to Martinique. To long-time observers, the causes of these events have been pretty clear: a heavy administrative and political hand exerted by France, an economy heavily subsidized and increasingly possessing no basis of autonomous growth, a people feeling social and economic discrimination by the largely Mulatto economic masters of the territories; and in the case of French Guiana, France’s determination to hold on to the territory as a demonstration of its geopolitical presence in this hemisphere, as well as the location for its satellite experiments which are a significant financial boon in this era of the technological revolution in communications.
And in the southern and eastern Caribbean, the Netherlands Government seems uncertain as to how to deal with its colonies, the so-called Netherlands Antilles. At first the government sought to maintain them as a political grouping, much along the lines of the British in the area in an earlier time. But resentment from the more significant territories, in particular Aruba and Curacao, and then St Martin as its tourism economy boomed, led to disintegration.
In May, yet another of the referenda which the Netherlands Government has authorized in the area since 2000, saw Curacao opting for the choice of ‘status aparte’ – a degree of substantial autonomy which Saint Martin and Aruba had previously claimed, leaving the even smaller entities of Saint Eustatius, Saba and Bonaire to remain under stricter jurisdiction. But at the same time, the Netherlands Government has opted to maintain a certain control over funds which it has granted, this time to Curacao, to compensate for the territory’s extensive debt. Needless to say, Venezuela has long had a strong influence in the economy stemming from the oil industry, and increasingly now as a tourism destination and a financial services location.
The Netherlands Government has had for some years, a concern with the increasing amount of crime, including violent crime, in the territories, stemming from the drug trade in particular, given their location virtually on the boundaries of Colombia and Venezuela. This, and a certain presence which they give the Netherlands, like France, across the North Atlantic and in this hemisphere, are no doubt reasons for the country’s continuing presence among us.
