c Structural Marginalization.

Not only did respondents from Suriname and Belize feel personally marginalized, but they also felt like victims of structural marginalization. They pointed out that institutionally and symbolically, their countries are often overlooked in CARICOM. For example, they pointed to the fact that CARICOM institutions are rarely set up in either Belize or Suriname. As a result, there are not many visible symbols of these countries being a part of this community. Table 5.15 shows that 80 per cent of CARICOM’s institutions are headquartered in the big four countries (Barbados, Guyana, Jamaica and Trinidad & Tobago,), primarily within Barbados and Trinidad & Tobago. Conversely, Belize and Suriname each has only 1 CARICOM institution

145

headquartered in their countries, while St. Lucia and Grenada have a total of three, which

includes the Secretariat of the OECS headquartered in St. Lucia. It is interesting that Barbados is home to eight (8) CARICOM institutions while Belize and Suriname each has only one (1) considering that both have populations greater than that of Barbados. This seems to support respondents from Belize and Suriname who point out that there are few visible symbols of CARICOM in their countries.

Table 5.15

Headquarter Locations of CARICOM Institutions and Institutions Recognized in the Treaty

COUNTRY 2007 Population22 _{# of CARICOM CARICOM}

(‘000) Headquarters Institutions Region

Barbados 274 8 Big Four

Trinidad & Tobago 1,333 8 Big Four

Guyana 752 2 Big Four

Jamaica 2,700 2 Big Four

St. Lucia 166 2 OECS

Belize 311 1 Outlying

Suriname 504 1 Outlying

Grenada_______________________ 106 1_______ OECS_____

Total 25

Source: CARICOM Secretariat (2011) Institutions of the Community. Georgetown: Guyana. Retrieved November 18, 2014 from

http://www.caricom.org/jsp/community/institutions.jsp?menu=community

The idea of symbolic representation was an important theme arising from the interviews, particularly among members from outlying countries. Respondents believed that inadequate

22 _{Populations reported in ‘000s. Source: CARICOM SECRETARIAT (2007) CARICOM’s Mid-Year Population Estimates}

2002-2007. Bridgetown: CARICOM. Retrieved 28 January 2015 from:

146

institutional presence signified marginalization, which inhibits the development of a regional identity. As Tables 5.12 and 5.13 indicate, Belizeans and Surinamese (outlying countries respondents were more attached to CARICOM than respondents from the other regions. The absence of symbolic integration in these countries (in terms the presence of CARICOM

institutions) was a cause for concern for Belizean and Surinamese respondents. For example, B3, who is a Belizean student studying in Barbados presumed that the presence of more CARICOM institutions in Belize would legitimize it as a bona fide member of CARICOM. She explained:

You know that we would be placed, um to be better known, um, as well, um, I think that it would be a good idea for a university to be built within Belize as well so that we could have integration going over into Belize instead of coming out (B3).

The above quote illustrates the importance of institutional representation to respondents. B3 saw institutional representation across member states as important to regional integration. For her, regional institutions could foster the development of a shared identity by creating spaces for people across the different CARICOM countries to interact and learn about each other. Institutions also serve as avenues through which the visibility, goals and knowledge about CARICOM can be disseminated to local populations. B3 thus professed that the absence of CARICOM institutions in her country hindered both integration and a shared identity by averting social interaction. Similarly, S4, now a lawyer who pursued her studies in Guyana, explained that the lack of institutional diversity, negatively impact the ability of her home country – Suriname, and its people from having a voice in CARICOM. She stated:

And a way [for Suriname] to get involved is also facilitating the CARICOM institutions. That [those institutions] has to come, you know, and if you don’t

147

facilitate, participate actively…. I am proposing this, be there, fully be there, voice, give your voice. When you are there, you know give the people or tell the people…..voice or what the people of Suriname thinks about an issue so that means you have to do the brainstorming at home before you go there: this is what Suriname is thinking about that issue. We can’t do it or we will do it in this way or that way. So I think we have to manifest ourselves more in the regional institutions if we can’t facilitate them at home (S4).

This quote underscores the perception that regional institutions are symbols of integration and inclusion. While it would have been interesting to examine the correlation between national involvement (at the country level) and attachment to CARICOM, it was outside the scope of this research. Nevertheless, individual perceptions of their county’s involvement/representation shed light on how individual marginalization and exclusion are rationalized. For S4, regional

institutions are symbols of membership and identification with CARICOM. Even more interesting, S4 conceived CARICOM institutions as voices through which the positions of different countries can be broadcast to the other community members. In other words, they represent avenues through which the diversity of the community can be expressed. The absence of these institutions from her home country, thus signified a loss of voice, membership and belonging. Importantly, while S4 suggested that this loss of voice affected Suriname’s

representation in CARICOM, she did not personalize concerning her attachment to CARICOM. Given their strong attachment to CARICOM, it appears that respondents from the outlying states were able to detach their feelings of exclusion from their commitment to the regional identity. As the two respondents above (B3 and B4) suggested, better institutional representation can both improve attachments to CARICOM and social relations between people. Smith (1992) stipulated

148

that symbols convey meanings to people, and transmit particular understanding about the institutions and the people they represent. In addition, they have the power to bind people together towards a common goal, ideal, aspiration or sentiment (Smith 1992). Thus, the lack of symbolic representation, though regional institutions robs outlying citizens of integration opportunities.

Examining Anderson’s (2006) concept of the imagined community, the importance of symbols in identity construction becomes clear. He stipulated because “members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow members, meet or hear them” (2006:6), they must develop communities around friends, families and other symbols of association with the nation. In the absence of direct contact, individual depend on symbols to maintain that sense of shared belonging. The institutions of CARICOM are perhaps the most important supranational symbols of belonging, as they represent integration, process, unity and the character of the region. They also are powerful because they regulate and provide stewardship over all aspects of CARICOM such as health, education, economy, security, disaster management, etc. In essence, they contribute to the deepening of regional identities.

Even though the unequal distribution of regional institutions in the outlying countries did not directly impact their citizens’ attachments to CARICOM, it raises questions about the

integration of these countries and their citizens as CARICOM members. It also means that they have little influence in the governance of the community. In addition, because CARICOM negotiate internationally for the community on policies that affect all member countries, unequal representation in the institutions could mean the loss of a voice in affairs that affect these

149

To illustrate the importance of regional institutions, consider the Caribbean Examinations Council (CXC), which is headquartered in Barbados. It exerts power over the region by being the sole organization responsible for the curriculum design, educational assessment and the issuance of certification to citizens up to the end of secondary school for countries in the region23.

Barbados, through the CXC therefore has considerable influence over the educational outcomes of citizens throughout the region. Thus, the scarcity of CARICOM institutions in Belize and Suriname represents a symbolic loss of regional power and influence. Furthermore, as B3 hinted, institutions are sites for integration, thus, the shortage of institutions in Belize means that

integration is always “going out”, in other words, integration is a privilege that only those who are able to travel outside of Belize can afford. This adds to the paradox in that respondents from these outlying countries were so strongly attached to CARICOM, despite their exclusion.

However, it appears that outlying respondents’ attachments to CARICOM are unaffected by their displeasure with the ‘institutional marginalization’ that they believe disadvantage their countries. In other words, their beliefs in the benefits of regional integration outweigh the difficulties they encounter integrating.