St Christopher and Nevis acquired independence on September 19th 1983 with all the attendant pomp and circumstance of this auspicious occasion. This country became sovereign, which we are told, means that it was self ' governing so the future was in the hands of its citizens. We are all familiar with the paraphernalia associated sovereignty such as a flag, a coat of arms, and anthem and we feel a justifiable pride in them and what they represent. In the history of human government the nation state has proven to be the most successful form of civic organization because it allows society to function most effectively. At every level of society, the various duties of government including security and the equitable distribution of wealth are accomplished in the best way possible in a state.
However, it is apposite at this time to question the relevance of the concept of sovereignty in today's world. Many of the important decisions of state are no longer within the control of individual governments but have increasingly become globalized. In just the last decade Caribbean countries have suffered from the lack of control over their economic choices from bananas to sugar to money laundering legislation to USA passport requirements and gambling laws. All our governments have been able to do is give an opinion to the decision makers in the international arena from the EU to the WTO to the USA about how their decisions would affect us and then prepare to adjust. This sea change in economic conditions has had a particularly deleterious effect on Caribbean countries perhaps because we have only recently gained some measure of control over our affairs.
Despite this gloomy picture there is still a significant amount of control that is still exercised by national governments. Internal tax policies, for now tariff policies, land use policy and many others are determined nationally and can be used to tremendous effect to ensure that the local population gains as much as possible from their sovereignty. To this end it is rightfully expected by citizens that their government would enact policies that assure them the most beneficial economic environment. It is the first principle of political theory that in order for the promise of sovereignty to be more that mere symbolism, that is, for self-rule to have any true meaning, the people must own the economic factors of production. These are land, labor, capital and entrepreneurship. Looking around our business community it is apparent that the full benefit of our economic output is not enjoyed by the masses of local citizens.
Let us examine each of these factors in turn. The issue of land is visceral and emotional in our society in light of our history. Our enslaved ancestors bought this land with their blood, sweat and tears over four centuries sustained only by the hope that they would bequeath it to their posterity. In light of the closure of the sugar industry it is only natural and right that sugar workers in particular and locals in general would expect to have priority in land use policy yet the only significant pronouncements that have been made involve the purchase of large tracts by foreigners. Land, unlike cash represents power in a permanent way. It is not subject to the vagaries of the market the way currency is and is a more certain way of accumulating wealth and transferring it to future generations. Land represents security. It means that I own my home, can feed my family and that I can be an independent economic actor whether through agriculture, renting or the capacity to raise capital with my land as collateral.
On the other hand lack of access to land ownership has historically been the lodestone of oppression. Whether it was the townships and Bantustans of the former Apartheid South Africa, the marginalization of the black population in Zimbabwe which has precipitated the current crisis that has moved that country from being the bread basket of southern Africa to being dependent on foreign food aid or the forced imprisonment of aboriginal populations in Australia or the United States onto barren wastelands called reservations. A landless people is dependent on the goodwill of its landlords in order to sleep somewhere at night and eat something daily. This was the reality of life for many in St. Kitts and the rest of the Caribbean during the colonial era. In fact it is the reason that the quaint and colorful chattel house with its easily recognized shingle and board design is the characteristic icon of rural Caribbean architecture. Many listeners can remember being forced to move chattel houses off estate land if one offended the owner and being unable to sink septic tanks to have modern sanitation in ones home because the land was not owned.
In light of this painful and very recent history it is no wonder that many are increasingly concerned about the current land use policy. Private property is traditionally considered a cornerstone of a liberal democratic society because it allows individuals to be free of the political power brokers and make electoral decisions based on an evaluation of the issues rather than mere survival. A secure home not only protects persons from political victimization but also preserves human dignity. We are all well aware of the ingredients of a good dwelling house including sufficient space and privacy and yet when we look around our community we see that the homes of the richest among us have these attributes in abundance while the poorest among us live in what amount to concrete shacks. As a local news paper showed these dwellings of the poor approximate very closely to those wretched dwellings that our slave ancestors had to cope with. At the dawn of the twenty-first century, as a free and supposedly sovereign nation, surely we deserve and should demand better than that.
The quality and luxuriance of a home is the probably most telling signifier of individual wealth and a cursory glance at the vast difference between the homes of the rich and the poor indicate that the gulf between the haves and have nots is increasing apace. The concept of class warfare has a certain macabre romance about it but despite this the history of the twentieth century shows that unless governments expend the utmost effort to ensure that economic benefits spread through all levels of society then the social conditions that forment instability will undermine economic development. Poverty like wealth is passed on to future generations and both have the tendency to be further reinforced with each generation. This means that children born into poverty are highly likely to be trapped there. The antidote is access to the opportunities that create wealth, and that means land ownership.
The issue of labor is also very emotionally fraught with bitter historical experience. There is no need to rehash here the story of slavery but it is certainly relevant to our current situation. Caribbean countries have what I consider the dubious distinction of being sources of cheap labor. As such, foreign manufacturers are encouraged to relocate here in order to take advantage of what is for them a favorable industrial relations climate. The profit that is made by these companies indicates strongly that our workers are not receiving the full value of their labor.
The echoes of our history of exploitation cannot be avoided. In the modern age the wages that are paid to the workers on industrial estates here in St. Kitts but also throughout the region are in no way capable of maintaining one person but the women who work there have to make it stretch to support entire families. It brings to mind the ring game played by primary school girls called"chi - chi, chi - chi boom boom sitting on a fence, try to make a dollar out of 50 cents." Those ring games arose out of the difficult circumstances of times past and one wonders why it is we are still living with those times especially as the game ends " she miss, she miss, she miss like this." In other words living on these wages is not possible. Here in St. Kitts people, the labour force is the most abundant natural resource and if we are to develop we need to maximize the earning potential of our labour force. Selling it cheaply is of little if any benefit to our economy.
Entrepreneurship is arguably the most critical factor of production. It puts to the best use the native creativity and ingenuity of the people and guarantees the best return. Ownership of our own economic and financial destiny is fairly new to our citizens and needs urgently to be nourished by any and every administration. It is well established that the small business is the engine of economic growth. It disperses wealth in a more equitable and efficient way than is possible by a centrally planned economy.
Additionally, the social benefits of the financial independence of the citizenry cannot be overstated. Persons are able to acquire the security of home ownership and higher education without the debilitating effects of debt. Small business owners maintain economic growth because they not only generate income for themselves and tax revenues but also provide employment and the crucial intangible benefit of creating the incentive for others to follow in their footsteps. These are benefits that cannot accrue from foreign corporations brought here which demand lengthy tax holidays, exemptions from labour laws and the right to import professionals.
Finally, the term capital in its broadest sense refers to all that is produced within an economy without being immediately used up. This includes revenues, skilled workers, infrastructure and investment. It is both a reflection of and an inducement to economic development. In order for the people to own capital they must be able to generate wealth to invest and this can only happen through the acquisition of skills and entrepreneurship. This in turn relies heavily on access to land ownership. As I stated before land ownership is a strong condition precedent to being able to raise money to start a business or to allow one to pursue higher education to acquire skills. Individual ownership of land is therefore integral to economic and social development and ultimately to sovereignty. If the people do not own their land then they will quickly revert to being merely a servant class providing the raw material for multinational firms to generate large incomes for their investors. In fact they will have gone back in time to those dark colonial days. The symbols like the flag and anthem will then be meaningless; stripped of their content because the essence of sovereignty, power over our economic destiny, will be lost.
