By: Julio Figueroa Nuñez, student of PUCPR Law School and member of PRSSA.
Abstract:
In the following comparative analysis I attempt to show how colonialism skews the semblances of democracy in the United States. When the relationship between the United States and its colonies is considered, the United States’ democratic institutions significantly break down both in meaning and in practical character. Because the colonial subjects lack the basic democratic principles the US promotes throughout the world, understanding colonialism is important if we are to be successful in advancing democracy and other US interests.
Since the United States and its colonies are not considered politically separate countries within a ‘region’ as the “Comparative Political Analysis” question requests, their political and economic “separate and not all-together equal” relationship warrants the omission of a regional comparative analysis in favor of a colonial one.
______________________________________
During the 20th Century, the United States established international institutions designed to serve its interests long after its global prominence is faded. From time to time, powerful nation members of international institutions such as the WTO, World Bank, IMF, NATO, and the UN among others, have used them to promote a particular ideology in the world. From investment and monetary relief to peace-keeping and war, advocates seeking political or economic intervention through international institutions seem to always manage to insert the word democracy and freedom in their pleas. Unfortunately, many countries advocating international intervention on political and economic matters, whether of global benefit or not, have at some point sidestepped essential democratic tenets. Seduced by the advent of territorial and economic expansion, many democracies abandon the principles which they once genuinely stood by and defended.
When the United States expanded its political dominion and territory in acquiring colonial possessions, democratic representation was not extended to their colonial subjects. Thus American imperialism did not spread and strengthen democracy as some wanted to believe; on the contrary, expansion deteriorated the democratic institutions of the United States and limited the freedoms of the new subjects. Hence, one is compelled to ask how can one country declare preeminent war with others on the grounds (among several) to establish for them the freedoms provided by democratic regimes when it deprives those same privileges and rights to its own citizens in its colonies?
To show the moral, political and legal challenges colonial possessions represent to our democratic institutions I will explore the relationship between the United States and its colonies. Several factors in the relationship I will analyze are: the implications of the US colonial relationship with its territories; colonial representation; and culture.
1. Understanding Colonialism
Colonialism is a methodological system of oppression superimposed on the less powerful, historically rationalized by benevolent and patronizing claims of one group of people over another. A showcase of the once rampant pro-colonial fervor that engulfed many Europeans after the “discovery” is exemplified by Jules Harmand, a French proponent of colonialism, when he declared, “The basic legitimation of conquest over native peoples is the conviction of our superiority, not merely our mechanical, economic, and military superiority, but our moral superiority,” (Said, 1993, p. 17). The imperialist fervor was also present in the United States as well. The difference was the hesitation that expansion beyond our continental borders would lead to implications far more costly than their worth. I believe the implications of imperial expansion and how it has atrophied the development of many nations will clearly show why understanding colonialism is still relevant and ought to be important to political scientists.
Traditionally, the United States has invoked democratic principles such as liberty and civil rights around the world as the best possible form of government despite denying those rights to its colonial subjects. Hence, the claim of being the great global proponent of democracy has not always been genuine or true. Our interest in advancing democracy becomes more difficult when we have to account for, for example, our interventions in foreign soils where we have often deposed democratically elected leaders in favor of totalitarian ones. Contradictions such as these show how the pursuit of US global interests and the promotion of democracy would be a hard sell to some. As long as democracy is used as a tool to conquer and oppress peoples and not the tool that can liberate them, US interests will always be more difficult to achieve.
Consider that in 1800 the West claimed to have 55 percent of the world’s territory when in actuality their borders only held about 35 percent in real terms, (Said, 1993, p. 8). The percentage claimed would later grow to 85 percent by 1914 with European claims alone, not counting the emerging American territorial expansion, (Said, 1993, p. 8). Just a few decades before 1914, the United States had claimed several territories: Hawaii, Alaska, The Philippines, Guam, Cuba, Puerto Rico, minor outlying Pacific islands and atolls and later, the Virgin Islands and the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands. Such vast claims of lands by western powers are indicative of the quantity of native peoples from all over the world that have been victimized by colonialism and its consequences. It is therefore no stretch to suggest that vast numbers of nations are still affected by colonization long after their apparent decolonization.
As a system of conquer and control, colonialism imposes on colonial subjects the establishment of institutions that organize their territories in order to secure their “governability.” Because these institutions are almost always established by the conquering metropolis, they bear the characteristics of the metropolis that establishes them thereby creating “patterns of practice” that “affect state behavior” akin to their creators, (Keohane, 2005, p. 8). Thus, institutions established by the metropolis are designed to mold the colony to the colonist political, social, and economic likeness. Hence, the Constitution of Puerto Rico for example, was approved only after it met the Congressional requirement of resembling the US Federal Constitution. The same Congressional requirement has been imposed on other US territories like Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. For reasons I will later explain, I worry that the process of colonial assimilation will lead our territories towards the same dire socio-political and economic consequences many former European colonies are experiencing should they secede from the US.
Colonial institutions are also designed to become what Edward T. Hall calls extension transferences. By extension transferences I mean institutions designed to influence subjects and shape local cultures long after their independence (or after any change to the status quo is made). The institutions established by the colonists have almost always taken the place of the process of colonization through colonial-institutional appropriation by colonial subjects, (Hall, 1981, p. 28). When appropriated culturally, politically, and economically, institutions established by a foreign power would no longer be seen or identified as foreign by the native people. From the way the legal and justice system is set up, to what subjects are taught in schools, all are designed to continue assimilation with or without close supervision from the metropolis.
In Power and Powerlessness: Queiscence and Rebellion in an Appalachian Valley, John Gaventa shows how the ‘foreign power’ assimilates some aspects of the culture only to shape and influence it later. The ‘foreign power’ then proceeds to impose its will by giving its subjects the sense that they have the freedom to participate and the freedom to have a choice when they in fact do not, (Gaventa, 1982, p. 63). In this sense, political and economic decisions in the colonial regime are already made because they are determined by the institutions established by the metropolis. In a sense, colonial subjects play a game not of their choosing with rules not their own. After a few generations, they appropriate and assimilate the game and the rules, and often passively play to serve their determined roles. Colonial institutions thus perpetuate the process of colonization because it shapes the conditions for eventual appropriation of native peoples.
Native appropriation further secures the conditions necessary for neocolonialism to occur should the colony secede. Neo-colonialism is hard to identify because unlike colonialism, the metropolis is seldom visibly involved. As I have alluded to before, many former colonies have fallen victim to institutional extension transference. As such, neo-colonial nations may find it difficult to create the cultural, political and economic stability required to succeed as a nation because colonial institutions have become integral to the political, economical and social framework of the country. Some institutions that are remnants of colonialism become so assimilated into the local institutional apparatus that identifying them becomes hard and making their eradication difficult.
According to Mark Bray, neocolonialism is used to describe “the control of states by external powers despite the formal appearance of constitutional independence,” (Bray, 1993, p. 334). Kwame Nkrumah, first president of Ghana, describes a neo-colony as being a “State which is subject to it is, in theory, independent and has all the outward trappings of international sovereignty. In reality its economic system and thus its political policy is directed from outside,” (Bray, 1993, p. 334). One important difference between colonialism and neocolonialism however, is that under modern colonialism as practiced by the United States, the colonies have access, albeit limited, to political and legal institutions of the metropolis. Under neo-colonialism, exploitation of the powerful over the weak is not always as apparent, and the weak are usually left voiceless as their governments either betrays them or fall powerless against the metropolis. Should the nation under neocolonialism wish to address any grievance, their resources become limited and their claims hard to pursue. Only those willing to know history can bear witness to their painful colonial past and their equally painful neocolonial present.
Because their colonial condition is acknowledged by US law, the limited access to political and legal institutions provides US colonies a space where they can address their grievances. As we shall see in the following section, without adequate representation, the legal and political rights colonies have do not necessarily mean much. Because they have political and economical disadvantages, colonies are often ignored by a Federal government that is not held accountable to its possessions.
2. Colonialism & Representation
When Alexis de Toqueville visited the young US republic in 1831, he was impressed by the advancement of equality and the respect the American people had for democracy. Although he romanticized the US, he nevertheless provides us incite to how the country was then compared to how it is today, (Collins & Makowsky, 1993, p. 55). Today we have a country where people spend tens of millions of dollars in political campaigns that if elected, will only earn them a 400 thousand dollar a year position. Billions are poured every year in campaigns and lobby groups by corporations and organizations seeking to sway or buy the vote of members of Congress. Those are dollars neither the poor or average middle class person has. If the middle class ever ruled the country as Toqueville thought, those days seem long past.
Because of the important role money has in Washington, some analysts frequently argue that gaining access to the governmental decision making process by ordinary citizens and activist groups in the US has become more difficult. If it is true that political access to Washington, D.C. has become more difficult over the years, then imagine the prospects colonies have in gaining any access. For the colonies, gaining even half of the access ordinary citizens and activist groups may have is close to null considering their political and economic disadvantage. By the mere condition of being colonies, no US territory has the same kind of access in Washington, D.C. as States or their residents. The fact they are colonies means they lack real political representation. While it is true US territories can send non-voting delegates to the US House of Representatives (with the exception of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands), they seldom have any real effect, (Thornburgh, 2007, p. 30). The amount of money territories have to spend on lobby firms and campaign contributions to make up for the lack of representation has become a very lucrative source of income for many in Washington over the years as well. However, because they do not have voting representation, members of Congress do not have to worry about being accountable to territorial residents or worry about winning elections because territorial residents cannot vote.
Delegates US territories send to Washington, D.C. have the right to speak on the House floor, but cannot vote for any legislation considered there. Instead, delegates rely on the good will of any voting House member willing to help their causes. Territories have to also spend millions of dollars in lobby groups and in campaign contributions to help sway members of Congress to make up for their lack of political power. As mentioned before, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands is the only US territory that does not have a delegate in Congress. Instead, it sends a “resident representative” to Washington, D.C. in order to promote “good relations between the federal and territorial governments,” (Thornburgh, 2007, p. 30). Given that there is no significant difference between having a delegate officially represent a territory and having a “resident representative,” one can conclude that territories with no delegates are not missing out on much. Especially considering that all territories, whether they have delegates or not, have to spend millions of dollars on lobbying firms and campaign contributions anyway.
Territories that do have delegates can only send one elected official to represent the territory “at-large.” In the case of Puerto Rico, the largest of all US territories with almost 4 million American citizens, having just one delegate to represent the island defeats the practical purpose of representation in the House. Adding insult to injury is the fact that by virtue of living in a territory, American citizens cannot vote for the President of the United States. The denial of the right to vote for president is usually reserved for those who are either non-citizens or who have committed serious Federal crimes. It is uncanny that US citizens are being denied voting rights or any form of just representation by virtue of residing in a Territory while at the same time the US advocates the virtues of democracy around the world. While colonialism itself is a system of discrimination and exploitation, it is not the only type of discrimination territories endure. In the next section, I discuss the fact that many colonials celebrate their distinct cultures and are often treated unfairly for it. Various groups in the US view their cultural enthusiasm as either a threat or as an expression of contempt towards the US when in fact their culture is one of the few things they have left after surviving colonialism.
3. Colonialism & Culture
In Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity, Samuel P. Huntington worries about the future cohesion of the US union. In the book he warns of a US identity crisis caused by the threat of immigrants who are failing to assimilate to the dominant Anglo culture. Referring to the Mexican immigration wave, Huntington writes: “As [Mexican] numbers increase, Mexican-Americans feel increasingly comfortable with their own culture and often contemptuous of the American culture, (Huntington, 2004, p. 254). He continues, “They demand recognition of their culture… [and] they increasingly call attention to and celebrate their Hispanic and Mexican past,” (Huntington, 2004, p. 255). He then cites a 1999 report that indicated how the growth of the Mexican and Hispanic community has facilitated their ‘Latinization’ and the affirmation of their heritage, (Huntington, 2004, p. 255). For colonial peoples who were conquered by a foreign super-power (a category Mexican-Americans in the Southern Border States may qualify for in many respects), their heritage, customs and their celebration may be all they have to hold on to.
Through conquest and opportunity, the acquisition of colonial possessions ensured the multi-cultural character of the United States. In many respects, our greatest strength is our multiculturalism. The diversity of cultures almost guarantees the flow of fresh and innovative ideas into our national political discussion. To ask all Americans to disregard their cultural background and assimilate into one, especially when colonial subjects did not have a choice to be part of the culture that conquered them is preposterous and obscene.
Today the United States is invigorated by the Chamorro culture of Guam, the Polynesian culture of American Samoa, the Latin culture of Puerto Rico, and the Afro-Caribbean culture of the Virgin Islands. All these territories mirror American society because they have already been heavily assimilated. The only thing residents of territories have that they can call their own is the unique culture that in essence remains somewhat intact after colonization. Although I understand the concern some have regarding identity and language, for me, being American has always been about ideology and love for our country and its peoples, not about race. The preservation of our unique individuality however, is for me also part of being American. Because I would certainly not rely on Samuel P. Huntington to preserve my distinct cultural character as a Puerto Rican, it is up to me and others to do so. Preserving a cultural distinction and celebrating it does not mean a lack of love, contempt, or disinterest for the rest of the US as some seem to believe.
Colonization has also brought us to a place where there is no way back because there is no past to go back to. Puerto Rico for example, has never been an independent country in its more than 500 years of ‘discovery.’ In the more than 100 years under US colonial rule, Puerto Ricans have become a hybrid culture of Latin and Anglo customs. Never fully included to either culture, but never fully excluded. They talk Spanish, English, and some even speak Spanglish. And yet they preserve their heritage wherever in the US (and the world) they choose to settle. Aurora Levins Morales expressed the Puerto Rican experience in her poem Child of the Americas:
I am not African. Africa is in me, but I cannot return.
I am not Taina. Taino is in me, but there is no way back.
I am not European. Europe lives in me, but I have no home there.
I am new. History made me. My first language was spanglish.
I was born at the crossroads
And I am whole, (Levins Morales, 1995, p. 79).
I would hope Samuel P. Huntington would agree that if there is any culture that has genuinely struggled with an identity problem, it has been US colonial peoples such as Puerto Ricans. With no political representation, a limited political voice, and often falling victim to Congressional neglect, US colonies continue to develop the chunk of culture that has survived the colonial experience. Their cultures have survived not only by virtue of their geographical distance from the metropolis, but by virtue of their will to not be totally ‘disappeared’ by assimilation.
4. Colonialism and the Future
In Who Rules America? Power, Politics, & Social Change, G. William Domhoff provides an analytical critique on power in the United States. In the book, Domhoff asks the reader to consider three questions: Who benefits? Who Governs? and, Who wins? (Domhoff, 2006, p. 13). While one must acknowledge that there is no singular answer for these questions, it is clear colonial peoples are not the ones who benefit, govern, or win within the US colonial system. As a colonial subject, I have witnessed how interest groups, politicians, and corporations often work to keep the status quo intact. Colonialism itself has become quite a lucrative enterprise for the few at the expense of the many.
While I believe they should not be absolved from any responsibility, these interest groups, misguided politicians, and corporations are not solely to blame for our ills or our colonial condition. I have come to the realization that there are institutions that provide the right environment that allow special interest groups, politicians, and corporations to become the kinds of problems Domhoff describes and that also perpetuate our colonial condition. Like the other US territories, my island of Puerto Rico remains a conquered land, paradoxically, out of apparent choice. After 500 years, Puerto Rico remains the oldest colony in the world. For over 100 years the island has been a US colony. For 50 years of the 100 years, Puerto Ricans have ‘chosen’ to remain a colony. But the reality is that the system is set up so territories like Puerto Rico think they have the option to choose to remain colonies or change if they wish, when in fact they do not. However, results of plebiscites and referendums always seem to favor contented colonial subservience. Not surprisingly, these results are used by members of Congress as convenient pretexts to take no action at all.
US territories also face the increasing difficulty of trying to find their place inside the US Federal system (being part of the nation and at the same time preserving their distinct culture from the rest of the country). Their lack of political power, among the many colonial disadvantages I have mentioned throughout the essay, makes them easy targets for prejudiced and misguided groups. Without equal and just representation, territories are left almost defenseless against groups pushing for the complete assimilation of their cultures and the eradication of their languages.
On the other hand, the burden of possessing colonial territories has come at a very high price for the US; costly for its democracy, and for its global credibility. The unresolved colonial relationship, primarily the Constitutional challenges of citizenship without representation shows colonialism’s incompatibility with the US democratic system. With the acquisition of overseas territories in 1898, the US departed from its practice of incorporating territories and instead experimented with various forms of colonial arrangements. Territories such as the Philippines and Cuba were prepared for independence. Other overseas territories were prepared for statehood as in the case of Hawaii, while others sadly became neo-colonies like the islands of Palau and Micronesia. Others like Guam and Puerto Rico remain ‘unincorporated’ US possessions whose citizens are Americans by birth.
It seems clear that the need to make other arrangements is long overdue. Without Congressional action, colonies are left to have apparent choices between false alternatives for a future already determined by colonialism. Establishing the right to vote in Federal elections, and providing delegates with voting rights in the House of Representatives would be a step in the right direction. To provide colonies the means to defend themselves against those who do not serve their interests, is to provide them the means to preserve their cultures while also ensuring their engagement in the national political discussion. A real process of decolonization by providing the territories the means to engage the national body politic would undoubtedly give the US the opportunity to reestablish its dignity and the dignity of its colonial subjects – a dignity that both lost during the colonial experience.
Cited Works
Bray, M. (1993) Education and the Vestiges of Colonialism: Self-Determination,
Neocolonialism and Dependency in the South Pacific. Comparative Education. Vol. 29, No. 3. retrieved 29 September 2007 from JSTOR from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici 03050068%281993% 2929% 3A3%3C333%3AEATVOC%3E2.0.CO%3V2-7
Collins R. & Makowsky M. (1993) The Last Gentleman: Alexis de Toqueville. The Discovery of
Society. Fifth Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Domhoff, G. W. (2006) Who Rules America? Power, Politics, & Social Change. Fifth Edtion.
Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Gaventa, J. (1982) Power and Powerlessness: Quiescence and Rebellion in an Appalachian
Valley. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Hall, E. T. (1989) Beyond Culture. New York: Anchor Books.
Huntington, S. P. (2004) Who Are We? The Challenges of America’s National Identity. New
York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks.
Keohane, R. O. (2005) After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political
Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Levins Morales, A. (1995) Child of the Americas. Boricuas: Influential Puerto Rican Writings
– An Anthology. Edited by Roberto Santiago. New York: The Random House Publishing Group.
Thornburgh, D. (2007) Puerto Rico’s Future: A Time to Decide. Washington, D.C.: Center for
Strategic and International Studies Press.
Said, E. W. (1993) Culture and Imperialism. New York: Vintage Books
