The Caribbean Community’s inconsistent record on democratisation

Q3 Social Sciences
Leonardo Di Bonaventura-Altuve
{"title":"The Caribbean Community’s inconsistent record on democratisation","authors":"Leonardo Di Bonaventura-Altuve","doi":"10.1080/00358533.2022.2147266","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Within the Commonwealth, few collections of states encompass such a democratic grouping as the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). Established in 1973, 13 of its 14 sovereign members are considered open, liberal democracies that hold regular free and fair elections and respect most civil liberties. Given their liberal-democratic nature, it is plausible to think that CARICOM states would honour their democratic commitments, exemplified in the Inter-American Democratic Charter (IADC) and Charter of Civil Society, to steadfastly condemn instances of autocratic reversions. This school of thought is in line with liberal and constructivist theories in International Relations. The former expects democracies’ unwavering commitment to cooperate against common authoritarian challenges. The latter maintains that well-established regional democratic norms would compel signatories to abide by those principles and values. The reality, regrettably, is different. Far from being reliable democratic allies, CARICOM states are hesitant partners who would side with autocracies or democracies, depending on their own material and political interests, not their democratic character and identity. Take Venezuela’s authoritarian regime first. Amid domestic protests against the Nicolás Maduro regime in 2014, the Organization of American States (OAS) attempted to convene a meeting to discuss human rights violations in Venezuela. Unsurprisingly, Maduro got his way by blocking the meeting from occurring and approving instead an ineffectual declaration insulating his regime from any democratising measure with the support of 12 CARICOM democracies. However, after fiercely repressed protests in 2017, the OAS took a more active approach to promote democratisation in Venezuela, thanks to the support of several CARICOM states. They supported a 2018 resolution asserting that Venezuela’s presidential elections ‘lack[ed] legitimacy’ and reaffirming the country’s ‘unconstitutional alteration of the constitutional order.’ Remarkably different from previous years, Maduro only garnered the unfaltering support of five highly democratic Caribbean nations: Antigua & Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, St. Kitts & Nevis, and St. Vincent & the Grenadines. Distinctly, the","PeriodicalId":35685,"journal":{"name":"Round Table","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Round Table","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00358533.2022.2147266","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Within the Commonwealth, few collections of states encompass such a democratic grouping as the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). Established in 1973, 13 of its 14 sovereign members are considered open, liberal democracies that hold regular free and fair elections and respect most civil liberties. Given their liberal-democratic nature, it is plausible to think that CARICOM states would honour their democratic commitments, exemplified in the Inter-American Democratic Charter (IADC) and Charter of Civil Society, to steadfastly condemn instances of autocratic reversions. This school of thought is in line with liberal and constructivist theories in International Relations. The former expects democracies’ unwavering commitment to cooperate against common authoritarian challenges. The latter maintains that well-established regional democratic norms would compel signatories to abide by those principles and values. The reality, regrettably, is different. Far from being reliable democratic allies, CARICOM states are hesitant partners who would side with autocracies or democracies, depending on their own material and political interests, not their democratic character and identity. Take Venezuela’s authoritarian regime first. Amid domestic protests against the Nicolás Maduro regime in 2014, the Organization of American States (OAS) attempted to convene a meeting to discuss human rights violations in Venezuela. Unsurprisingly, Maduro got his way by blocking the meeting from occurring and approving instead an ineffectual declaration insulating his regime from any democratising measure with the support of 12 CARICOM democracies. However, after fiercely repressed protests in 2017, the OAS took a more active approach to promote democratisation in Venezuela, thanks to the support of several CARICOM states. They supported a 2018 resolution asserting that Venezuela’s presidential elections ‘lack[ed] legitimacy’ and reaffirming the country’s ‘unconstitutional alteration of the constitutional order.’ Remarkably different from previous years, Maduro only garnered the unfaltering support of five highly democratic Caribbean nations: Antigua & Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, St. Kitts & Nevis, and St. Vincent & the Grenadines. Distinctly, the
加勒比共同体在民主化方面的不一致记录
在英联邦内部,很少有国家集合包括加勒比共同体(加共体)这样的民主集团。成立于1973年的14个主权成员国中有13个被认为是开放、自由的民主国家,定期举行自由公正的选举,尊重大多数公民自由。鉴于加共体国家的自由民主性质,有理由认为加共体国家会履行其民主承诺,坚决谴责专制倒退的事例,这在《美洲民主宪章》和《民间社会宪章》中得到了体现。这一学派与国际关系中的自由主义和建构主义理论是一致的。前者期望民主国家坚定不移地致力于合作应对共同的威权挑战。后者坚持认为,既定的区域民主规范将迫使签署国遵守这些原则和价值观。令人遗憾的是,现实情况不同。加共体国家远非可靠的民主盟友,而是犹豫不决的伙伴,他们会站在独裁或民主一边,这取决于他们自己的物质和政治利益,而不是他们的民主性格和身份。以委内瑞拉的独裁政权为例。2014年,在反对尼古拉斯·马杜罗政权的国内抗议活动中,美洲国家组织(OAS)试图召开一次会议,讨论委内瑞拉侵犯人权的行为。不出所料,马杜罗阻止了会议的举行,而是批准了一项无效的宣言,在加共体12个民主国家的支持下,将他的政权与任何民主化措施隔离开来。然而,在2017年激烈镇压抗议活动后,由于加共体几个国家的支持,美洲国家组织采取了更积极的方式来促进委内瑞拉的民主化。他们支持2018年的一项决议,该决议声称委内瑞拉的总统选举“缺乏合法性”,并重申该国“违宪修改宪法秩序”与往年明显不同的是,马杜罗只获得了五个高度民主的加勒比国家的坚定支持:安提瓜和巴布达、多米尼克、格林纳达、圣基茨和尼维斯和圣文森特和格林纳丁斯。显然
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Round Table
Round Table Social Sciences-Geography, Planning and Development
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
77
期刊介绍: Founded in 1910, The Round Table, Britain"s oldest international affairs journal, provides analysis and commentary on all aspects of international affairs. The journal is the major source for coverage of policy issues concerning the contemporary Commonwealth and its role in international affairs, with occasional articles on themes of historical interest. The Round Table has for many years been a repository of informed scholarship, opinion, and judgement regarding both international relations in general, and the Commonwealth in particular, with authorship and readership drawn from the worlds of government, business, finance and academe.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信