“Where political sovereignty has been conceded but economic power remains untouched, equality remains a myth, social justice proves unattainable and even freedom becomes an ambiguous phenomenon”

by Quaine J. Palmer University of the West Indies, Mona, Jamaica

The relationship between the Core and Periphery is deeply rooted in socio-economic and political processes and reflected in certain disparate social and spatial outcomes. Speaking at the International Conference in Support of the Peoples of Zimbabwe and Namibia (1977), Michael Manley stated profoundly that, “Where political sovereignty has been conceded but economic power remains untouched, equality remains a myth, social justice proves unattainable and even freedom becomes an ambiguous phenomenon” (emphasis added). This discourse examines the relationship between Jamaica and the Core from the colonial era to its post-independence period in an attempt to assess Manley’s statement. The context of the discussion will also explore the past interactions of southern Africa, namely Angola, Namibia and Zimbabwe (which were addressed in Manley’s speech) with the Core; and their relationship with Peripheral Jamaica.

Like all other Caribbean societies, Jamaica has been shaped by three institutions during the triangular trade – colonialism, the sugar plantation and slavery. Colonialism implies that towns were transplanted entities from Europe. The plantation economy, based on primary exports, had a sole purpose to enrich the mother country. It entrenched a plural society in colonies characterised by a racial hierarchy, social inequality and inequity, leaving many marginalised and vulnerable (Clarke, 1989, 2006; Smith, 1981).

Emancipation (1838) resulted in freed-slaves either occupying/cultivating marginal lands, for instance Sligoville, settling on abandoned plantations or as a large landless peasantry selling their labour to the plantations for food or for small plots of land for subsistence farming. The large estates were controlled by the White (and Coloured) elite with the majority of the Blacks left landless. Unequal distribution of agricultural land persists with 71 per cent being less than five acres but representing only 12 per cent of total farm acreage. Plantations on the other hand represent about 1 per cent of all farms but occupy 56 per cent of total farm acreage (Beckford, 1972; Pantin, 2003).

The urban elite comprising politicians, businessmen and bureaucrats substantially controlled the distribution of resources. Their power over the Black majority was determined not only by their economic strength but also by their ability to organise, centralise and control the political environment.

Producing for others

According to Manley (1982, p. 25) the contemporary issues of the Periphery are inherent in the fact that “There was never any attempt to produce what was needed but only to produce what someone else needed.” The surplus which could have been reinvested to increase production was largely exported to the colonial power. The coloniser’s intent was never to develop the colonies but to exploit what was needed (sugar, tobacco, banana) for the advancement of the mother country.

By the 1930s there was general awareness by the educated class in the colonies of exploitation of territorial economies and the need to agitate the masses towards political and economic independence for material betterment. Opposition to the pervasive socio-economic structure by Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, Azikwe of Nigeria, Jomo Kenyatta of Kenya, Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia, Julius Nyerere of Tanzania, Marcus Garvey and Norman Manley of Jamaica, and Eric Williams of Trinidad & Tobago represented the dissatisfaction of the people against colonial rule and the drive towards political independence (Manley, 1974, 1982, 1991).

Norman Manley expressed that “Independence had not been won for bread alone; but bread, in the sense of the hope and the reality of material betterment, was always the largest part of the equation” (Manley, 1982, p. 11). However, soon after independence Norman Manley became “aware of the limitations upon political power and freedom that are imposed by economic structures” (Manley, 1982, p. 6). He noted that “Political independence confers no magic of its own other than the benefits of the national psyche.,” where “…[n]ational aspirations were not likely to be realised in Jamaica or elsewhere in the Third World unless and until their economies could be modified and restructured.” (Manley, 1982, p. 12).

To achieve development, different economic models were implemented, in particular the Puerto Rican model of import substitution industrialisation. As the plantation economies became unprofitable, investment in the manufacturing sector was seen as the avenue for development in Jamaica. However, colonialism resulted in a lack of accumulated capital within the island to develop and sustain the manufacturing sector. Consequently, “…[T]he only way to finance [the] building of factories and the diversification of the stunted economies was through the harnessing of overseas capital.” (Manley, 1982, p. 28). To reduce investment risks, raw materials were imported to develop the manufacturing sector. This ‘industrialisation by invitation’ perpetuated the vicious cycle of dependency on foreign technology and capital and the repatriation of surplus value, a replication of the processes and outcomes of colonialism.

The economic indicators were positive. Jamaica had an annual growth rate of 6.5 per cent during the first 10 years after independence with an estimated 15,467 new jobs being created. Total new investments during that period were $629.4 million, 80 per cent from United States investors (Manley, 1982; Clarke, 1989).

Adverse social indicators

Yet social indicators failed to reflect this economic prosperity, as profits were repatriated. In 1962 the unemployment rate was 12 per cent and by 1972 this was 24 per cent, with the unemployment rates for youths and women in excess of 30 per cent. In education only 15 per cent of children who left primary school at the age of 15 were able to secure a job. In addition, an estimated 40 per cent of the adult population was deemed functionally illiterate. Child malnutrition exceeded 30 per cent (Manley 1976, 1982, 1991). These outcomes of industrialisation by invitation were not unique to Jamaica but seen throughout the newly independent states. The economic dependency on the Core countries by the Periphery remained intact. Social inequalities persisted as populations grew and social justice was yet to be realised.

Michael Manley (1982, p. 13, emphasis added) adapted the views of his father when he expressed that “The powers which built the empires when they conceded political independence did not lie idle. As quickly as the tide of imperialism in its implicit, political form retreated, just so quickly did it put in place new institutions which would ensure the survival of the economic system which it had created. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) were established after World War II. The IMF was created ostensibly to manage the world’s monetary system. The World Bank, as the IBRD was popularly known, was to provide development capital for the less developed countries from the surpluses of the more advanced economies, but by working with favoured private capital and facilitating the flow of private investment. Both bodies were dominated by the US from the outset.”

The capitalist system of the Puerto Rican model served to reinforce the elitist colonial plantocracy, strengthening the middle class ties with the capitalist, thereby further excluding the growing Black majority. Under this reformed capitalist system worker exploitation was common, with employees working between 12 and 15 hours at $J5 per day. The surplus value of labour was still geared towards building the elite capitalist. Overall, in spite of the “two-party democratic system the society was still firmly elitist and those elements of the economy which were in local hands were controlled by a tight oligarchy” (Manley, 1982, p. 40).

With the shortfalls of this capitalist model, it was necessary to explore alternative ideologies towards egalitarian development. The shift in political ideology towards socialism was seen not only in Jamaica but also in Ghana, Nicaragua, Guyana, Grenada and Chile. For Manley and the People’s National Party (PNP) this ethos would be reflected in the policies of democratic socialism throughout the 1970s. They aimed to “create an economy that would be more independent of foreign control and more responsive to the needs of the majority of the people” (Manley, 1982, p. 39). Economically this meant greater industrial linkages to increase jobs, greater demand for good corporate citizenship and the nationalisation of public utilities. Socially, policies were to encourage worker participation in decision-making, address the issues of law and social justice, and promote equitable service provision. Politically, he saw that a person’s ability to vote every five years was insufficient, and therefore he promoted the advantages of the ‘politics of participation’. (Manley, 1982). However, Manley’s vision was short-lived as global finances were in crisis, with domestic implications for Jamaica.

Structural adjustment

Global recession resulted in the institutionalisation of Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs) by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank within the Caribbean and Africa in the 1970s, in the name of regulating and better managing overseas capital for self-interest, profit-making. This halted the endeavours of social democracy. SAPs, reduced government involvement in nation affairs, required Peripheral countries to open their economies to the forces of the free market, provided funding only in areas that were viably export-oriented, and caused inflation and currency devaluation (Riddell, 1992; Stromquist, 1999). This perpetuated irreversible social inequalities and inequities in the Periphery. Hence, the social democracy movements of the Periphery were stifled by the hands of the capitalist Core.

These experiences were not indigenous to the Caribbean but also seen in Africa. Michael Manley spoke a great deal about the political and economic struggles in southern Africa. Angola, Namibia and Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia) were under colonial rule for centuries supplying minerals and agricultural commodities to their respective mother countries. Though formal colonialism ended between the 1950s and 1980s, these territories remained under generally ‘white minority rule’ which enforced apartheid regimes, constantly suppressing the pro-African movements which retaliated violently over decades with the aim of true political independence. These movements included the Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU) under the nationalist leadership of Joshua Nkomo and their rivals the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU, a Marxist organisation) led by Robert Mugabe (merged in 1988 to form the Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front- ZANU-PF); the South-West Africa People’s Organisation (SWAPO, a Marxist organisation) led by Sam Nujoma in Namibia and the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) led by Agostinho Neto (Central Intelligence Agency, 2007; BBC, 2007a, 2007c).

Though political sovereignty was conceded in the southern African states (Zimbabwe -1980; Namibia – 1990, Angola -1975) the economic structures remained. In Zimbabwe, land, vital in the means of production, was still in the hands of the white occupiers. “Approximately 4,400 whites owned 32 per cent of Zimbabwe's agricultural land (10 million hectares) while about one million black peasant families farmed 16 million hectares or 38 per cent.” (BBC, 2002) The majority Blacks were limited to marginally productive lands in drought-prone regions while the Whites claimed the fertile plantation lands in climatically favourable areas (BBC 2002, 2007c).

The Mugabe regime

The President of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe, leader of the present-day Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF), came to power in 1980 when the country gained independence. He stated that “The colonialists did not compensate Africans when they first took the land.” (BBC, 2002). Consequently his regime continues to seek through rigid, violent land acquisition methods the redistribution of the fertile plantation lands to the Black majority. However, challenging the hegemonic global geopolitical regime to bring about economic restructuring in the Periphery and therefore egalitarian social outcomes has always been met by economic ramifications by multilateral financial institutions. “Zimbabwe is completely cut off from aid support after defaulting on its loans. It no longer has a working relationship with the International Monetary Fund or the World Bank, and most western donors have frozen all aid” (BBC, 2000). There is little foreign exchange for fuel imports, electricity is rationed and inflation surged to over 3,731.9 per cent in May 2007 (BBC, 2007b). The international community blames the nationalisation of institutions and the land acquisition tactics of the Mugabe regime for the economic downfall of Zimbabwe. Others state that the sanctions imposed by multilateral agencies helped to create the crisis seen today.

The Namibian economy is heavily dependent on the extraction and processing of minerals for export; for instance, diamonds, uranium, lead and silver contribute 20 per cent to the GDP). However, the mining sector employs only 3 per cent of the population, while subsistence agriculture, which forms the basis of livelihood strategies, accounts for about 50 per cent of the population. Despite this 50 per cent of its cereal requirements is imported (Central Intelligence Agency, 2007).

Angola, yet another example in southern Africa, gained independence from its colonisers in 1975 but engaged in a 27-year civil war. It is a supplier of crude oil to the United States and China. Oil production and its downstream industries contribute half of the GDP and 90 per cent of exports. Revenue is used to fund construction but one which is limited in access to the poor majority. Subsistence agriculture provides the main livelihood for most of the people, but half of the country's food must still be imported. In 2005, the government started using $2 billion in aid from China to rebuild Angola's public infrastructure (BBC, 2007a).

Angola and Namibia are examples of Peripheral territories of Africa that are still dependent on the capitalist Core countries, unable to challenge the global regime. Zimbabwe, however, represents the attempt of the once suppressed colony to challenge the hegemony but with severe implications by the international community who seek to maintain compliance with the imperialist order. Cuba and Jamaica’s unwavering support for Namibia and Zimbabwe’s pro-African wars against the White minority-led forces, such as the Ian Smith regime of Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia), by providing armed forces and political advice, were also met with disapproval by the imperialists (Manley 1977, 1982). The intervention of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in the affairs of southern Africa, Cuba and Jamaica were not unheard of. Scathing remarks on the relationship between Jamaica and Cuba and the socio-economic state of these territories were written about in the international media. This was however not the first time that either Cuba or Jamaica had challenged the United States. The increase in Jamaican bauxite levies in the 1970s resulted in the threat to reduce United States aid to Jamaica. The long-standing United States embargo on Cuba extends nearly 50 years due to the unrelenting Communist Castro regime.

Economic hegemony remains

It is fair to conclude that within contemporary Peripheral states it is still evident that though political sovereignty has been conceded by the Core, very few have successfully challenged the economic hegemony to claim their rights to economic power. The failure to successfully challenge the imperialists was expressed by Michael Manley when he stated, “If we speak of South Africa [it] is denounced but the transnational corporations remain free to build her economy and reap their profits.” (Manley, 1977, p. 13).

In the eyes of Michael Manley (1977) and our forefathers “Human rights are to deal with majority rule” and removal of inequalities, yet to be seen in the Periphery. Manley also called for a restructuring of international governance. For instance, he saw the challenging of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) towards a fair system of distribution of resources as necessary and that the reform of IMF policies should entail a better responsive operation “…[t]o the social aspirations and the economic needs of developing countries. In addition, the role of commodity producer associations must be fully recognised and the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources must be universally accepted” (Manley, 1977, p.7).

Although stated throughout his life Manley’s ideology is still pertinent today as globalisation is championed through intensified capitalist regimes over the decades, isolating and punishing those who challenge it, for instance, as seen in Cuba, North Korea and Iran. It can be reiterated that, “All lasting human progress occurs when mankind harnesses the political process to moral purposes,” calling into question, as Manley did, global economic justice and the establishment of [a] new international economic order (Manley, 1977). “This new order requires conceptual changes to the current model of global development. This requires a restructuring of economic and political relationships which exist between states.” (Manley, 1977). As Manley wrote, “The workings of the market economy system of international capitalism as between nations can only deepen the present contradictions in the world.” Current trends in today’s capitalist Peripheral economies reflect similar findings. Hence, an alternative view is still required and, as Manley (1977) contends, “Only through the search for moral answers could mankind hope to survive, much less progress.

REFERENCES

BBC News (2000).World Edition: Zimbabwe: Economic Melt-down. London: British Broadcasting Corporation. Available from: [Accessed on: 28th October, 2007].

BBC News (2002).World Edition: Who owns the land? London: British Broadcasting Corporation. Available from: [Accessed on: 28th October, 2007].

 BBC News. (2007a). Country Profile: Angola. London: British Broadcasting Corporation. Available from: < http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/country_profiles/1063073.stm> [Accessed on: 28th October, 2007].

BBC News. (2007b). Huge rise in Zimbabwe inflation. British Broadcasting Corporation. Available from: < http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6665749.stm> [Accessed on: 29th October, 2007].

BBC News. (2007c). Zimbabwe: The Battle for Land. London: British Broadcasting Corporation. Available from: [Accessed on: 29th October, 2007].

Beckford, G. (1972). Plantations in Third World Economy. In Persistent Poverty: Underdevelopment in Plantation Economies of the Third World. London: Zed Books. pp. 3-29.

Central Intelligence Agency (2007). The World Factbook: Namibia. USA. Available from: [Accessed on: 28th October, 2007].

Clarke, C. (1989) Jamaica. In Urbanization, Planning and Development in the Caribbean, ed. R. B. Potter. London: Mansell Publishing. pp. 21- 48.

Clarke, C. (2006). Decolonizing the Colonial City: Urbanization and Stratification in Kingston, Jamaica. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 1-298.

Manley, M. (1974). The Politics of Change: A Jamaican Testament. London: Andre Deutsch Limited. p. 123.

Manley, M. (1976). Not for Sale: Michael Manley and Jamaicans; with a Supplement by C.L.R. James. San Francisco Editorial Consultants Inc.pp. 10-13.

Manley, M. (1977). Proceedings of the International Conference in Support of the People of Zimbabwe and Namibia held on 17th May, 1977, in Maputo, Mozambique.

Manley, M. (1982). Jamaica: Struggle in the Periphery. Oxford: University Press. pp 1 -117.

Manley, M. (1985). Global Challenge: From Crisis to Co-operation; Breaking the North-South stalemate. Proceedings from the Socialist International Committee on Economic Policy. London: Pan Books Limited. pp 65-193.

Manley, M. (1991). The Poverty of Nations: Reflections on underdevelopment and the world economy. London : Pluto Press, pp. 12 – 38.

Pantin, D. (2003). The Economies of the Caribbean. In Understanding the Contemporary Caribbean, eds. R. Hillman and T. D’Agostino. Kingston: Ian Randle Publishers. pp. 129-145.

Riddell, B. (1992). Things fall apart again: Structural Adjustment Programmes in Sub-Saharan Africa. The Journal of Modern African Studies, 30 (1). pp. 53-68.

Smith, M. (1981). Pluralism, politics and ideology in the Creole Caribbean. New York: Research Institute for the Study of Man.

Stromquist, N.P. (1999) The Impact of Structural Adjustment Programmes in Africa and Latin America. In Gender, Education and Development, eds. C. Heward and S. Bunwaree. London: Zed Books Ltd. ”