Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Smallness and Status Debates in Overseas Territories: Evidence from the Dutch Caribbean

2016; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 21; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/14650045.2015.1104303

1557-3028

Wouter Veenendaal,

Island Studies and Pacific Affairs

ABSTRACTWhile non-sovereignty is often presented as a rational and pragmatic political status option, this paper asserts that the smallness of overseas territories in various ways obstructs and distorts the formation of an informed local public debate about this political status. Due to personalistic politics, patron-client relations, excessive executive dominance, and the lack of professional media, which all are consequences of a small population size, the extent to which citizens of overseas territories are involved and represented in status debates is limited. The paper uses the 2010 political reforms of the Dutch Caribbean islands as an illustrative case study, to show how the smallness of these islands has obstructed a balanced consideration of status options among the population. AcknowledgementsI would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers and the associate editor of Geopolitics for their constructive comments and suggestions. In addition, I would like to thank Gert Oostindie for his feeback on an earlier draft version of this article.Notes1. H. W. Armstrong and R. Read, ‘Comparing the Economic Performance of Dependent Territories and Sovereign Microstates’, Economic Development and Cultural Change 48/2 (2000) pp. 285–306; G. Baldacchino and D. Milne, ‘Exploring Sub-National Island Jurisdictions: An Editorial Introduction’, The Round Table 95/386 (2006) pp. 487–489; D. Rezvani, Surpassing the Sovereign State: The Wealth, Self-Rule, and Security Advantages of Partially Independent Territories (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2014) pp. 13–14.2. C. Corbin, ‘Dependency Governance and Future Political Development in the Non-Independent Caribbean’, in A. F. Cooper and T. M. Shaw (eds.), The Diplomacies of Small States: Between Vulnerability and Resilience (Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan 2009) pp. 81–83. Palau was the last small island nation to become an independent state, and it became formally independent from the United States in 1994. Whereas some Pacific island states, like Kiribati, Nauru, and Tuvalu only acquired UN membership in the late 1990s or early 2000s, their status as sovereign states had been broadly recognised since the 1960s or 1970s.3. R. Aldrich and J. Connell, The Last Colonies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1998) p. 3; H. Hintjens, ‘Governance Options in Europe’s Caribbean Dependencies: The End of Independence’, The Round Table 344 (1997) p. 538.4. Armstrong and Read (note 1); G. Baldacchino, ‘Innovative Development Strategies from Non-Sovereign Island Jurisdictions? A Global Review of Economic Policy and Governance Practices’, World Development 34/5 (2006) p. 853; G. Bertram, ‘On the Convergence of Small Island Economies with Their Metropolitan Patrons’, World Development 32/2 (2004) pp. 343–364; J. McElroy and K. Pearce, ‘The Advantages of Political Affiliation: Dependent and Independent Small-Island Profiles’, The Round Table 95/386 (2006) pp. 529–539.5. Baldacchino and Milne (note 1) p. 489.6. W. F. S. Miles, ‘Fifty Years of Assimilation: Assessing France’s Experience of Caribbean Decolonisation Through Administrative Reform’, in A. G. Ramos and A. I. Rivera (eds.), Islands at the Crossroads: Politics in the Non-Independent Caribbean (Kingston: Ian Randle Publishers 2001) pp. 49–55.7. G. Baldacchino, Island Enclaves. Offshoring Strategies, Creative Governance, and Sub-National Island Jurisdictions (Montréal: McGill-Queen’s University Press 2010).8. Rezvani (note 1) pp. 46–51.9. Baldacchino, ‘Innovative Development Strategies’ (note 4) p. 855; J. McElroy and K. De Albuquerque, ‘The Social and Economic Propensity for Political Dependence in the Insular Caribbean’, Social and Economic Studies 44/2&3 (1995) pp. 167–193; McElroy and Pearce (note 4) p. 530.10. McElroy and Pearce (note 4) p. 536.11. Baldacchino and Milne (note 1) p. 490; B. Bartmann, ‘In or Out: Sub-National Island Jurisdictions and the Antechamber of Para-Diplomacy’, The Round Table 95/386 (2006) pp. 541–559.12. I. Kelman, M. Davies, T. Mitchell, I. Orr, and B. Conrich, ‘Island Disaster Para-Diplomacy in the Commonwealth’, The Round Table 95/386 (2006) pp. 561–574; Rezvani (note 1) p. 50.13. G. Oostindie, ‘Dependence and Autonomy in Sub-National Island Jurisdictions: The Case of the Kingdom of the Netherlands’, The Round Table 95/386 (2006) pp. 624–625.14. P. Clegg, and P. Gold, ‘The UK Overseas Territories: A Decade of Progress and Prosperity?’, in P. Clegg and D. Killingray (eds.), The Non-Independent Territories of the Caribbean and Pacific: Continuity or Change? (London: Institute of Commonwealth Studies 2012) pp. 21–22.15. Baldacchino and Milne (note 1) p. 489; A. I. Rivera, ‘Rethinking Politics in the Non-Independent Territories: Risks and Opportunities for Decolonisation in the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century’, in A. G. Ramos and A. I. Rivera (eds.), Islands at the Crossroads: Politics in the Non-Independent Caribbean (Kingston: Ian Randle Publishers 2001) p. 161.16. R. L. Watts, Island Jurisdictions in Comparative Constitutional Perspective (London: Routledge 2009) pp. 28–33.17. Bartmann (note 11).18. Rezvani (note 1) pp. 82–84; Rivera (note 15) pp. 164–168.19. W. Veenendaal, 'Analyzing the Foreign Policy of Microstates. The Relevance of the International Patron-Client Model', Foreign Policy Analysis (forthcoming: published online).20. L. De Jong, ‘Extended Statehood in the Caribbean: Definition and Focus’, in L. De Jong and D. Kruijt (eds.), Extended Statehood in the Caribbean: Paradoxes of Quasi Colonialism, Local Autonomy, and Extended Statehood in the USA, French, Dutch, and British Caribbean (Amsterdam: Rozenberg Publishers 2005) pp. 4–5; Oostindie, ‘Dependence and Autonomy’ (note 13) p. 624.21. Hintjens (note 3) p. 540.22. J. Daniel, ‘The French Départements d’Outre Mer: Guadeloupe and Martinique’, in L. De Jong and D. Kruijt (eds.), Extended Statehood in the Caribbean: Paradoxes of Quasi Colonialism, Local Autonomy, and Extended Statehood in the USA, French, Dutch, and British Caribbean (Amsterdam: Rozenberg Publishers 2005) p. 80; J. Duany and E. Pantojas-García, ‘Fifty Years of Commonwealth. The Contradictions of Free Associated Statehood in Puerto Rico’, in L. De Jong and D. Kruijt (eds.), Extended Statehood in the Caribbean: Paradoxes of Quasi Colonialism, Local Autonomy, and Extended Statehood in the USA., French, Dutch, and British Caribbean (Amsterdam: Rozenberg Publishers 2005) p. 25.23. R. M. Allen, ‘The Complexity of National Identity Construction in Curaçao, Dutch Caribbean’, European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies 89 (2010) pp. 117–125; S. Hall, ‘Negotiating Caribbean Identities’, New Left Review 209 (2005) pp. 3–14. In this regard, Aldrich and Connell (note 3, p. 145) make a distinction between three groups of overseas territories; those in which the European population forms a majority (e.g., the Falkland Islands), those in which the indigenous population still predominates or forms a near majority (e.g., New Caledonia), and “other territories which were uninhabited or where the indigenous population has not survived” (e.g., most of the Caribbean overseas territories). Especially in the latter two categories of non-sovereign jurisdictions, identity issues and the postcolonial legacy are likely to strongly influence the evaluation of the non-sovereign status.24. W. F. S. Miles, ‘Democracy Without Sovereignty: France’s Post-Colonial Paradox’, Brown Journal of World Affairs 11/2 (2005) pp. 226–229; G. Oostindie, ‘The Dutch Caribbean in the 1990s: Decolonization, Recolonization?’, Caribbean Affairs 5/1 (1992) pp. 103–119.25. Aldrich and Connell (note 3) p. 21; C. Corbin, ‘Self-Governance Deficits in Caribbean Non-Independent Countries’, in P. Clegg and D. Killingray (eds.), The Non-Independent Territories of the Caribbean and Pacific: Continuity or Change? (London: Institute of Commonwealth Studies 2012) p. 173; Rivera (note 15) p. 168. In addition, the populations of US overseas territories do not have voting rights in US presidential elections, which in line with the presidential system also entails that they do not have an influence on the composition of the American political executive.26. T. Russell, ‘United Kingdom Overseas Territories Qualified Nationhood-Systemic Problems’, The Round Table 355 (2000) p. 348.27. G. Baldacchino, ‘Managing the Hinterland Beyond: Two Ideal-Type Strategies of Economic Development for Small Island Territories’, Asia Pacific Viewpoint 47/1 (2006) p. 49.28. Rezvani (note 1) p. 303.29. Corbin, ‘Self-Governance’ (note 25); J. Daniel, ‘The Construction of Dependency: Economy and Politics in the French Antilles’, in A. G. Ramos and A. I. Rivera (eds.), Islands at the Crossroads: Politics in the Non-Independent Caribbean (Kingston: Ian Randle Publishers 2001).30. Oostindie, ‘Dependence and Autonomy’ (note 13) p. 624.31. L. Briguglio, ‘Small Island Development States and their Economic Vulnerabilities’, World Development 23/9 (1995) pp. 1615–1632; S. Harden, Small is Dangerous. Micro States in a Macro World (London: Francis Pinter 1985); A. D. Knox, ‘Some Economic Problems of Small Countries’, in B. Benedict (ed.), Problems of Smaller Territories (London: University of London, Athlone Press 1967); E. A. G. Robinson, Economic Consequences of the Size of Nations (London: MacMillan 1960); D. Vital, The Survival of Small States (London: Oxford University Press 1967).32. W. Easterly and A. Kraay, ‘Small States, Small Problems? Income, Growth, and Volatility in Small States’, World Development 28/11 (2000) pp. 2013–2027; M. F. Elman, ‘The Foreign Policies of Small States: Challenging Neorealism in Its Own Backyard’, British Journal of Political Science 25 (1995) pp. 171–217.33. H. Srebrnik, ‘Small Island Nations and Democratic Values’, World Development 32/2 (2004) pp. 329–341; W. Veenendaal, Politics and Democracy in Microstates (London: Routledge 2015). In addition to the political consequences of smallness discussed in this section, which pertain directly to political representation, public debates, and public opinion, and are therefore relevant to this analysis, in the academic literature a number of democracy-enhancing consequences of smallness have been listed as well. These however pertain mostly to direct communication between citizens and politicians and higher turnout levels in small jurisdictions, and have therefore been excluded from this discussion.34. J. Richards, ‘Politics in Small Independent Communities: Conflict or Consensus?’, Journal of Commonwealth and Comparative Politics 20/2 (1982) pp. 155–171; (omitted).35. W. Veenendaal, 'Political Representation in Microstates: St. Kitts and Nevis, Seychelles, and Palau', Comparative Politics45/4 (2013) pp. 437-456.36. B. Benedict, ‘Sociological Aspects of Smallness’, in B. Benedict (ed.), Problems of Smaller Territories (London: University of London, Athlone Press 1967) pp. 7–8; C. Farrugia, ‘The Special Working Environment of Senior Administrators in Small States’, World Development 21/2 (1993) pp. 221–226.37. P. Sutton, ‘Democracy and Good Governance in Small States’, in E. Kisanga and S. J. Danchie (eds.), Commonwealth Small States. Issues and Prospects (London: Commonwealth Secretariat 2007) p. 203.38. M. Puppis, ‘Media Regulation in Small States’, International Communication Gazette 71/1-2 (2009) pp. 7–17.39. D. C. Peters, The Democratic System in the Eastern Caribbean (New York: Greenwood Press 1992); W. Veenendaal, 'Democracy in Microstates: Why Smallness Does Not Produce a Democratic Political System', Democratization 22/1 (2015) pp. 92-112.40. G. Baldacchino, ‘Islands and Despots’, Commonwealth and Comparative Politics 50/1 (2012) pp. 103–120.41. Puppis (note 38).42. In this regard, it should also be mentioned that migrants constitute an unusually high proportion of the population of most non-sovereign jurisdictions, and the extent to which these migrants enjoy voting rights (and other political rights) differs per jurisdiction. Apart from raising questions regarding insular ‘belonging’ (W. Vlcek, ‘Crafting Human Rights in a Constitution: Gay Rights in the Cayman Islands and the Limits to Global Norm Diffusion’, Global Constitutionalism 2/3 (2013) pp. 345–372), the presence of sizable migrant groups without political rights potentially further obstructs the extent and quality of political representation.43. L. De Jong and R. Van der Veer, ‘Reformation of the Kingdom of the Netherlands: What Are the Stakes?’, in P. Clegg and D. Killingray (eds.), The Non-Independent Territories of the Caribbean and Pacific: Continuity or Change? (London: Institute of Commonwealth Studies 2012). J. Roitman, 'Land of Hope and Dreams: Slavery and Abolition in the Dutch Leeward Islands, 1825-1865', Slavery and Abolition (accepted: forthcoming).44. G. Oostindie and I. Klinkers, Gedeeld Koninkrijk. De Ontmanteling van de Nederlandse Antillen en de Vernieuwing van de Trans-Atlantische Relaties (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press 2012).45. S. Hillebrink, The Right to Self-Determination and Post-Colonial Governance: The Case of the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba (The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press 2008) p. 259; G. Oostindie and P. Verton, Ki Sorto di Reino / What Sort of Kingdom? Visies en Verwachtingen van Antillianen en Arubanen Omtrent het Koninkrijk (Leiden: KITLV 1998).46. R. Croes and L. Moenir Alam, ‘The Decolonization of Aruba Within the Netherlands Antilles’, in B. Sedoc-Dahlberg (ed.), The Dutch Caribbean: Prospects for Democracy (New York: Gordon and Breach 1990); Hintjens (note 3) p. 539.47. Oostindie, ‘Dependence and Autonomy’ (note 13) pp. 617–620.48. O. Nauta, Good Governance in ‘the West’ (Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht 2011) pp. 149–151.49. G. Oostindie and I. Klinkers, Decolonising the Caribbean. Dutch Policies in a Comparative Perspective (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press 2003).50. Oostindie and Klinkers, Gedeeld Koninkrijk (note 44).51. C. Duijf and A. Soons, The Right to Self-Determination and the Dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles (Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers 2011); Hillebrink (note 45).52. Corbin, ‘Self-Governance’ (note 25) p. 166. In addition, in contrast to the autonomous status that Curaçao and St. Maarten acquired, there had been no precedent of a public body- or special municipality-status in the Kingdom, and the populations of the three smallest islands could therefore in 2004–2005 not sufficiently foresee what this status would practically entail.53. De Jong and Van der Veer (note 43) p. 70.54. I. Broekhuijse, De Gelijkwaardigheid van de Landen van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden: Realiteit of Perceptie? (Utrecht: Wolf Legal Publishers 2012); Hillebrink (note 45) pp. 153–154.55. M. Goede, ‘Populism in the Caribbean: A Case Study of Curaçao’, International Journal of Development Issues 11/3 (2012) pp. 259–273; A. Klomp, Politiek op Bonaire (Utrecht: Instituut voor Culturele Antropologie 1983); Nauta (note 48) p. 153; G. Oostindie and P. Sutton, Small Scale and Quality of Governance (Leiden: KITLV 2006); P. Verton, ‘Politics and Governance in Curaçao’, in B. Sedoc-Dahlberg (ed.), The Dutch Caribbean: Prospects for Democracy (New York: Gordon and Breach 1990) p. 73.56. F. Badejo, ‘Sint Maarten: the Dutch Half in Future Perspective’, in B. Sedoc-Dahlberg (ed.), The Dutch Caribbean: Prospects for Democracy (New York: Gordon and Breach 1990) p. 127.57. Verton (note 55) p. 73.58. Nauta (note 48) p. 153.59. Ibid., p. 153.60. F. Guadeloupe, ‘De Verdrijving van Hulanda: De Sabanen en hun Toekomst als BES-Eilanders’, Justitiële Verkenningen 35/5 (2009) pp. 48–62; Klomp (note 55).61. Nauta (note 48) p. 154.62. L. De Jong, ‘The Implosion of the Netherlands Antilles’ in P. Clegg and E. Pantojas-García (eds.), Governance in the Non-Independent Caribbean (Kingston: Ian Randle Publishers 2009) p. 25.63. R. Pin and S. Van Velzen, Ontwikkeling van de Media op Curaçao (Willemstad, Curaçao: UNESCO 2014).64. Sutton, ‘Democracy and Good Governance’ (note 37) pp. 203–204.65. Movimiento Electoral di Pueblo (Electoral People’s Movement).66. Arubaanse Volkspartij (Aruban People’s Party).67. L. Alofs and L. Merkies, Ken ta Arubiano? (Leiden: KITLV Press 1987) pp. 133, 145.68. Ibid., p. 145.69. Ibid., pp. 103–105.70. F. Badejo, Claude. A Portrait of Power (Philipsburg, St. Maarten: International Publishing House 1989).71. R. Hoefte, ‘Thrust Together: The Netherlands Relationship with Its Caribbean Partners’, Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs 38/4 (1996) p. 46.72. F. Badejo, Claude (note 70) p. 161.73. According to Badejo, “Whatever doubts he [Wathey] had about the viability of the island as an independent state disappeared in the face of political humiliation” (Badejo, Claude (note 70) p. 160).74. De Jong, ‘The Implosion’ (note 62) p. 26.75. Union Patriotiko Boneriano (Bonaire Patriotic Union).76. Partido Demokratiko Boneriano (Bonaire Democratic Party).77. Oostindie and Klinkers, Gedeeld Koninkrijk (note 44) pp. 223, 227.78. Ibid., pp. 224–226.79. Duijf and Soons (note 51) pp. 60–62.80. R. Giacalone, ‘The Political Status of Curaçao at the End of the Twentieth Century’, in A. G. Ramos and A. I. Rivera (eds.), Islands at the Crossroads: Politics in the Non-Independent Caribbean (Kingston: Ian Randle Publishers 2009) p. 100.81. Hoefte (note 71) p. 46.82. De Jong, ‘The Implosion’ (note 62) p. 27.83. Oostindie and Verton (note 45) p. 35.84. S. Ashworth and B. Bueno de Mesquita, ‘Delivering the Goods: Legislative Particularism in Different Electoral and Institutional Settings’, The Journal of Politics 68/1 (2006) pp. 168–179; H. Kitschelt, ‘Linkages between Citizens and Politicians in Democratic Polities’, Comparative Political Studies 33/6-7 (2000) pp. 845–879.85. N. T. Duncan and D. Woods, ‘What About Us? The Anglo-Caribbean Democratic Experience’, Commonwealth and Comparative Politics 45/2 (2007) pp. 202–218; D. Hinds, ‘Beyond Formal Democracy: The Discourse on Democracy and Governance in the Anglophone Caribbean’, Commonwealth and Comparative Politics 46/3 (2008) pp. 388–406; Peters (note 39); P. Sutton, ‘Democracy in the Commonwealth Caribbean’, Democratization 6/1 (1999) pp. 67–86.86. Peters (note 39) p. 133.87. Hinds (note 85) p. 195.88. P. Clegg, ‘Governing the UK Caribbean Overseas Territories: A Two-Way Perspective’, in P. Clegg and E. Pantojas-García (eds.), Governance in the Non-Independent Caribbean (Kingston: Ian Randle Publishers 2009); Daniel, ‘The Construction of Dependency’ (note 29); A. G. Ramos and A. I. Rivera, ‘Puerto Rico: Regional Transformations and Political Change’, in A. G. Ramos and A. I. Rivera (eds.), Islands at the Crossroads: Politics in the Non-Independent Caribbean (Kingston: Ian Randle Publishers 2001).89. Aldrich and Connell (note 3) p. 24.