This is the first in a three-part series on Independence. Part One analyses Independence from an international, economic and historical perspective; Part Two examines other relevant issues that flow from examining the topic, and Part Three sums up the discussion and reaches certain conclusions. This paper is not intended to cover all aspects of the subject and opinions expressed here are personal. I have tried to use a different perspective from most discussion I have heard and seen on the subject of Bermuda's Independence to date.

INDEPENDENCE. What does this mean? My first memory of this issue takes me back over 36 years: I hear a local politician ask the question, presumably rhetorically, "Independence, Independence from what? Independence from whom?"

That politician was my father, then E.T. Richards, Member of Colonial Parliament. The rhetoric was greeted with a rousing standing ovation from the audience; and most of Bermuda of the late 1960s, across all political and racial lines, appeared to agree with that general sentiment. His words have been echoed by other politicians over the years. As a member of the baby boom generation I disagreed with his view. Many years after that speech, he did allow that "Independence is probably inevitable".

Inevitable because a colonial status is an anachronism in this modern age.

A colony, or dependent territory or overseas territory, appears to have no place in today's world. Why has Bermuda, which is modern in so many other ways, been reluctant to modernise its political status?

Bermuda has set a record in the history of the world because it is now undertaking a national debate on Independence for the third or fourth (depends how you count it) time in three decades. I am not aware of any country that has engaged in this debate any more than once.

COLONIALISM

COLONIALISM in Bermuda has been very different from most of the other former British colonies around the world.

After World War Two Britain was victorious but economically shattered and could not afford to administer her far-flung colonies. Most of the people in these colonies had never voted before there was a general election to decide on independence. None of the black African countries had ever had the vote, they had been ruled directly from Whitehall. Their British Governors were absolute rulers.

Neither had Britain made any significant investment in infrastructure to develop these countries. Under colonialism colonies were there strictly to provide materials, mainly raw materials, to Britain or the rest of the world via British companies; and also to provide markets for British manufactured goods. Little thought and few resources were devoted to making these countries better places for the indigenous peoples to live, particularly if such efforts got in the way of commerce. All the power, influence and control in the territories lay with representatives of the Crown or their favourites.

So Independence was not only seen as an avenue for liberation, freedom, and self-determination for most of the former British empire, there was also an overriding economic imperative for Independence, as Independence was seen as the initial access point on the highway leading from underdevelopment and poverty to economic growth and prosperity. That's why these countries (unlike Bermuda) never had to debate the subject of Independence more that once (if at all). Clearly, Independence was the way to go.

Many of them had a terrible time managing their new countries:

While most political leaders were well educated, (mainly lawyers) they had little previous experience at running a government.

Most major local businesses were 'Empire Companies', British companies like Tate & Lyle (sugar), British Petroleum and Shell (oil), Cable & Wireless (telecommunications), British Tyre & Rubber (rubber), Barclays Bank and banks that are now part of HSBC (finance) etc. These companies' allegiances were to the home country and they carried on economic colonialism long after the colonies became Independent.

Upon Independence some of these companies were nationalised but locals had little or no previous experience in running businesses and many nationalised companies failed or became mired in corruption. (Alcan in Guyana and Kaiser Aluminum in Jamaica) Besides, the nationalised companies did not have the international marketing and distribution networks that the Empire Companies had.

Their economies were highly dependent on the export of raw materials and commodities which were undifferentiated in the world marketplace. As such they were hostages to the wide swings of global commodity prices. If commodity prices fell their exports sold at a loss and there were no financial resources to modernise ageing plants to lower their costs. (Examples include sugar, bauxite, tin, copper). Under such conditions there was also no money to invest in infrastructure, education and health care. Moreover, many new nations found their exports encountered tariff barriers that did not exist before Independence (bananas, for instance).

Many of these countries sought financial help at the IMF and World Bank. The record of these institutions in helping developing countries has ranged from abysmal to scandalous. They have provided financial assistance while imposing so called 'economic adjustment programmes' that have left many countries worse off than they were before.

Many ex-colonies were synthetic countries, the product of arbitrarily drawn lines on a map, without regard to ethnic, cultural and, yes, tribal rivalries that existed. There lay the seeds for internal strife and instability, seeds that in the past 50 years have sometimes yielded a very bitter harvest.

There was no tradition of democracy in most of the former colonies; democratic institutions had not had time to take root, therefore, dictatorships were more easily accepted by the general population. After all, colonialism, especially a Crown Colony, was a form of dictatorship.

The state of the infrastructure and living standards for the average citizen was very low. Therefore they were starting out from a position of weakness.

The foregoing description covered all of Africa, excluding South Africa, most of the Caribbean and most parts of Asia.

Britain treated its colonies that had the potential to be ruled by whites differently from those that would be likely ruled by non-whites. Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and South Africa, all had internal self governments long before Independence.

THE THREE Bs

WHAT happened in the islands of the Atlantic basin? There one could find 'The three Bs': Barbados, Bahamas and Bermuda.

Of the majority black colonies in the entire British Empire the Three Bs were the first ones to be granted a form of internal self-government, along with elected parliamentary assemblies, etc., all the while still being colonies. Some of the other islands followed later. What was different about the three Bs?

The three Bs shared one peculiar characteristic: they had a group of white resident citizens, mainly descendants of Britons, who were in full control of these territories and loyal to the Crown. In Barbados they were members of the plantocracy, in the Bahamas they were known as the 'Bay Street Boys' and in Bermuda they were called the 'Forty Thieves'.

BERMUDA

OF the three Bs Bermuda is the only B not yet Independent. The ugly truth is that colonialism is an institution that is intrinsically bound up with the enslavement of generations of Africans and subsequent systematic racial exploitation and discrimination of their descendants after the abolition of slavery.

This is the essence of the dichotomy of perception between the black and white communities in Bermuda. The elimination of colonialism for blacks is the shattering of the last (albeit metaphorical) fetter of an institution that enslaved our forefathers and discriminated against our parents and many of us. For whites, it appears to be principally an economic issue, more specifically, an issue of cost.

So long as our whites in Bermuda dismiss the black attitude towards this issue as mere emotionalism or false pride, as someone wrote in a recent edition of the daily, we will never resolve this issue. Such attitudes demonstrate a complete disregard, disrespect and insensitivity to issues that are intrinsically important to every black person in this island.

Are we as blacks wrong to think this way?

We look around us and see the skewed distribution of wealth, income, opportunity and power between the races in Bermuda and the Western World and we know it is the legacy of racial discrimination, slavery, and ultimately colonialism (either that or blacks are intrinsically inferior, take your choice). So maybe whites are right: it IS an economic issue, but not in the way they mean it. It is an economic distribution and opportunity issue. Colonialism and its legacy are the essence of what divides the races in Bermuda.

Today, of course, Bermuda's economic circumstances in no way resemble those of the ex-colonies just before Independence in the 1960s. Luckily (contrary to conventional wisdom), we had few commodities to export, so we have had to invent less tangible ways to make our way. These less tangible exports, exports of services like international business and tourism, have not suffered from uncontrollable price swings, have been highly differentiated in the marketplace (we have brand recognition) and have developed us as a labour force like no other. Our service industries have put us at least a generation ahead of our counterparts to the south. So today:

We have experience at running our own government (both parties).

There are those of us who have experience in successfully managing business enterprises.

We have long established institutions which are necessary to run an independent country and ensure the continuance of democracy.

Unlike those ex-colonies that had the desire for self-government but few of the tools, Bermuda has all of the tools for Independence. There has never been a colony more prepared for Independence than Bermuda is right now.

But there's the rub. It is because we are ready, it is because we have the experience, it is because we have seen the pitfalls of others; ironically, it is because we have all these things, that we PAUSE. We ask "why?", instead of "why not?"

It is also because we are NOT a less developed country. It is the complete lack of an underlying, undisputed economic imperative that we PAUSE.

Those ex-colonies never spent much time considering the risks of Independence, because they didn't have very much to lose. When considering any strategy, if you want to want to find out what the risks are, just ask someone who has a lot to lose. We Bermudians have a lot to lose! That's another reason why we PAUSE.

Part Two next week will consider several other important aspects of Independence for Bermuda.