Last December, the world watched as Barbados, a Caribbean country of roughly 300,000 inhabitants, established itself as a republic and removed Queen Elizabeth II as its head of state. Many celebrated what was perceived as Barbados breaking free from the last vestige of British colonialism. Barbados’ newly elected president, Sandra Mason, even stated in her inaugural address that “the time has come to fully leave our colonial past behind.” While I am not Bajan, I am always inspired — as a Black man — to witness Black nations like Barbados break the yolks of European exploitation.The removal of a British monarch as head of state cannot be overemphasized. Nearly 400 years after King James I established the island as a British colony, the Royal Family has been replaced by a Black woman –– a descendant of the very African slaves brought to the island to process sugar and enrich the Crown. However, as I scrolled through Twitter, reading an unending and homogenous stream of praise for the new Bajan Republic, I couldn’t help but ask: “Has Barbados truly left their colonial past behind?”
My skepticism with what many saw as a wholly emancipatory event stems from my academic background. I am a History & Literature concentrator studying anti-colonial literature and neocolonial relations, which renders me familiar with modern Euro-African/Caribbean interactions and their complexities. Using my studies as a framework to understand the Bajan context, I analyzed Barbados’s transition from a realm of the Crown to a republic within the broader history of the latent — but equally as insidious — relations between former metropoles and their territories. This analysis led me to revisit the work of the prolific anti-colonial writer Frantz Fanon. His seminal work, “The Wretched of the Earth,” addresses the nuances of decolonization and the many pitfalls that can ensnare a nominally independent nation into neocolonial tendencies. Fanon cites a 1961 address delivered by the president of a newly decolonized Gabon, Léon M’ba, who declared: “Gabon is an independent country, but nothing has changed between Gabon and France, the status quo continues.” This bolsters Fanon’s overarching argument: All too often, independence for former colonies is only titular.
Although the context in which Fanon wrote “Wretched of the Earth” is much different from our own, I believe that his logic still applies today. The fanfare of “independence” continues to hide its nefarious undercurrents. For example, more than 60 years after its independence, Gabon is still inextricably linked to France. Gabonese presidents have been backed by French military forces against popular uprisings, and France still maintains a military presence at Camp de Gaulle in Gabon’s capital city. From an economic standpoint, France continues to rely on and extract from extensive oil and uranium reserves in Gabon. Observing this troubling historical trend, I wondered if it applied to the 21st century Caribbean context as well. What has tangibly changed now that Barbados is a Republic with a Bajan as its head of state? Is this more than a symbolic removal of a figurehead, or will “the status quo continue?”
An important addendum that was lost in the brouhaha of independence and Rihanna’s presence at the republic ceremony is that while Barbados may have removed Queen Elizabeth as its head of state, it remains a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. The Commonwealth, which formed against the backdrop of the British Empire’s decline, is a conglomeration of former British territories and presents itself as a promoter of economic prosperity, democratic values, and international peace. Although members of the Commonwealth are purportedly equal and no longer considered “dominions” of the Crown, they continue to swear allegiance to it. Since the era of decolonization, many former African, Asian, and Caribbean colonies have integrated themselves into this new Commonwealth of Nations.
So, what is the relevance of this condensed history lesson? It is important to map this history to understand the colonial roots of this modern institution. However, while history informs the present, it does not define it. One should be careful in characterizing an institution as neocolonial simply because of its colonial past. Therefore, we must dig a little deeper into the nature of the Commonwealth.
As colonialism was largely an economic project, the economics of the Commonwealth are extremely relevant. While all nations in the Commonwealth are technically equal, this equality is called into question when you consider the fact that British companies control roughly $1 trillion worth of African gold, diamonds, oil, and other natural resources. And while one of the Commonwealth’s official economic goals is to “boost trade,” Afro-British writer Afua Hirsch argues that Britain has used the Commonwealth to promote “extractor friendly regimes, low corporate tax rates, and tax havens.” Essentially, Hirsch argues that Britain uses this historic institution to legally plunder Africa. And the data bears out Hirsch’s assertion: a 2017 study by a coalition of UK and African equality and development campaigners found that even with international charity, Africa loses an average of $40 billion a year due to predatory debt policies and tax avoidance by multinational European-owned companies. Due to these objectively unequal monetary practices, it is not difficult to understand why Hirsch refers to the Commonwealth as “nothing but the British Empire 2.0.” While the African and Caribbean nations in the Commonwealth are no longer under direct rule, many argue that they are still being exploited by rapacious economic practices.
How does this history and understanding of the Commonwealth’s economic imbalances inform the recent events in Barbados? Simply put: we should be critical. This is not to say that there shouldn’t be celebration. While removing Queen Elizabeth may have been a largely symbolic gesture, symbols are important. A symbolic event like the removal of a foreign monarch as head of state sends a powerful message. I firmly believe that seeing a Black woman as head of state will inspire the younger generation of Bajans. However, we should not allow symbols to cloud our judgment or analysis because this can all too easily lead to complacency and acceptance of an inequitable status quo. Former empires like Britain and France have built their wealth at the expense of these territories, and they continue to profit off of their economic dependency. Yes, Queen Elizabeth may no longer be its head of state, but Barbados has yet to fully escape the grasp of its former colonizer. Thus, it is imperative that we hold a nuanced view. We can simultaneously laud Barbados for taking a huge step forward while also acknowledging that there is still much work to be done.
Image by sbj04769 is licensed under the Pixabay License.
