Bitter-sweet Independence

Peter Espeut

IT WAS the fashion in the 1960s for colonies of European nations to be granted "Independence"; last Monday we celebrated the 39th anniversary of our version. We have been told that Busta and Manley somehow "won" our independence so we could shrug off political control from London and grasp our future firmly in our hands to move from underdevelopment to development. But we know now that in the wake of World War II, Whitehall was only too happy to be rid of the burden of dozens of expensive and troublesome colonies, and they virtually rushed us into Independence.

I don't think that our independence was "won", and I don't think that Bustamante or Manley deserves the stature of "National Hero". British colonialism held back Jamaica's educational and industrial development, and much else. Prior to internal self-government in 1944, the British made little effort to establish even high schools in Jamaica. Their intention was that all important civil service posts would be held by Britishers or by colonials trained in Britain. The lot of Jamaicans was to labour on the plantations.

All high schools in Jamaica prior to 1944 were private, owned either by trusts (e.g. Munro, Titchfield) or the church (e.g. Calabar, St. George's). Internal self-government saw the establishment of the first government high schools, and the University of the West Indies. The British pursued a policy of developing their home economy first. No industrial process which could be performed in the UK was allowed in colonies like Jamaica to ensure that British voters got as many jobs as possible - and the best paying jobs; even with internal self-government, the manufacture of sugar was taken only to the point where product could be sent to Britain; only brown sugar was made in Jamaica, and we had to import refined white sugar - our own sugar - from England!

One of the first acts after Independence was to open a sugar refinery in Jamaica to produce our own white sugar. We did not prosper under colonialism; but we could have done far better with our independence. The point is often advanced that Britain's present colonies in the Caribbean are better off than the territories which opted for independence. The Caymans, the Turks & Caicos and even volcano-ravaged Montserrat have less crime and higher per capita incomes than we have. I think there is much truth in this, but I don't think that we can infer from this that we should have remained a colony. Economics is not everything. If we had remained a colony with the same wide racial and social divide as in 1962, it is likely that we would have exploded.

Independence gave us hope that better might come, and so postponed the social explosion. Some people lionise Singapore and Malaysia (or I suppose it should be tigerise) for their high economic growth rates, starting at roughly the same level of development as Jamaica in 1962. They fail to point out that these countries are virtual dictatorships - police states - not nice places to live if you like personal freedom. I don't know if we should see them as models for what we should have done, but we should have done better.

Britain's colonies were her overseas plantations, producing crops which couldn't be grown in the UK. To get cheap (or slave) labour the British moved around the peoples of the world. Many of Britain's former colonies are in difficulties as independent countries because they have failed to successfully deal with the inequalities based on race which they inherited at independence; witness the cases of Fiji, the Seychelles, and in Uganda; in our own region, the ethnic problems in Guyana and Trinidad are good examples.

The crisis in Zimbabwe where the government is now turning over lands owned by white farmers to black Zimbabweans - lands stolen from black Zimbabweans during the colonial period - is another example. In addition to creating economic growth, newly independent countries have been charged with the responsibility of righting the wrongs of the colonial period - and largely have not done a good job of it.

Former British territories which have made a better job of it (like Mauritius and Barbados) have done so because they have found a way to deal with the race problem. Those countries have made their populations literate, have developed traditions of democracy, have kept their economies buoyant, and have produced some of the highest standards of living in the world for their citizens. Not that the solutions they found were ideal (I don't know how long the racial "stability" of Barbados will last); but they show that it is not independence itself which needs to be criticised, but what we have done with it, or failed to do with it!

I believe that being independent for 39 years, we Jamaicans have not resolved our race problems, and have not dealt with the inequalities inherited from slavery. Indeed we have not yet built a nation; most of our citizens do not have profound national loyalty (some call it patriotism) and respect for our national institutions. Many people believe that Jamaica is organised fundamentally for the benefit of a few, and that they don't have a stake in the country. I don't believe that successive governments have respected the people (c.f. the continuing disrespect and even brutality of state agencies), and the tribal nature of our politics has led to public disrespect for the government, national symbols and national institutions. This is ultimately why the productivity of Jamaican labour in Jamaica is so low.

We have dismally failed in the first task of Independence - to make of the many Jamaican tribes, one people united under the flag and the anthem. I hope that in this new century, those who lead us will do better than those who have led us over the last fifty years.

Peter Espeut is a sociologist and executive director of an environment and development NGO.

Back to Commentary