Statistical%20Report%20UWIUNDP

STATISTICAL REPORT FOR THE UWI/UNDP Democratic Governance Capacity Development: Caribbean Small Island Developing States (SIDS) Governance Assessments and Measurements (DGA) Project for Barbados & the Eastern Caribbean THE CASE OF ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA AND BARBADOS JUNE 19th 2012

Contents Acknowledgements

ii

SECTION 1: Introduction

1

SECTION 2: Perceptions of democracy

3

SECTION 3: Democracy and good governance

7

SECTION 4: Citizenship Law and Rights

10

SECTION 5: The Judicial System

12

SECTION 6: Political Pressure Climate

18

SECTION 7: Social Discrimination

21

SECTION 8: Representative and Accountable Government: Voting and Trust in Politics

24

SECTION 9: Access to Information from Institutions

31

SECTION 10: Corruption in public Institutions

33

SECTION 11: Interest in Politics

35

SECTION 12: Civil Society and Popular Participation

37

SECTION 13: NGOS and Participation

39

SECTION 14: Influential Groups and Decision-Making

41

SECTION 15: Safety and Security

44

SECTION 16: Democracy Beyond the State

46

SECTION 17: Conclusion

49

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The successful completion of this project was made possible through funding from the United Nations Development Programme and the University of the West Indies CaveHill Campus. The principal objectives of the UWI/UNDP democratic governance assessment project were to: Ensure that the democratic governance assessment exercise (DGA) is rooted in the various national development plans and or national governance strategies.

Contextualize the assessment exercise so that it reflects and focuses on national economic, social and cultural governance priorities.

Adopt methodologies which conform to the highest standards and scientific rigour with adaptation of global DGA practices.

Ensure that the indicators selected for use in the assessment are derived from transparent, inclusive and participatory processes supported by multi-stakeholder dialogues and consultations.

Make sure that there is an institutionalized procedure to collect data from a wide variety of sources and a national database for storing this information and making it publicly accessible.

Use poverty and gender sensitive approaches in the assessment to ensure sensitivity to all vulnerable population groups.

Adopt a targeted approach and utilizing the capacity development capabilities of national stakeholders including government policy makers, civil society, academia, the media, parliament, and political parties, as well as the national statistics agencies, especially with regards to governance data collection, storage and analysis.

Ensure that the assessment results are widely disseminated, communicated to broad groupings of stakeholders including vulnerable population groups to inform governance policy reforms.

All of these objectives were successfully achieved. The UWI is indeed fortunate and highly appreciative to have partnered with the UNDP to contribute towards growing efforts within the region in determining ways through which democracy and governance can be consolidated and advanced. The findings presented in this report can therefore ii

signal to these societies the critical areas for strategic intervention to strengthen the foundations upon which this goal can be realised.

iii

STATISTICAL REPORT OF UWI/UNDP DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT EXERCISE IN SMALL ISLAND DEVELOPING STATES THE CASE OF BARBADOS AND ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA 1. INTRODUCTION The UWI/UNDP DGA Assessment project emerged out of a longstanding problematique within the Eastern Caribbean, that is, the limitation and often lack of comprehensive statistical indicators of key facets of democratic governance. Such indicators are needed to guide dialogue within civil society with a view towards redesigning democratic systems to be more inclusive and sustainable for all citizens. Although an important exercise, determining the nature and quality of democratic governance more closely so that all actors can understand the challenge it presents is complex.

What should one measure? How should one measure? These are important questions.

It is equally important to consider the interpretation of such measurements, which can be contentious. We believe however, that it is only through the ventilation of contending perceptions, ideas and issues with reasoned and enlightened debate that the renovation of democracy is enhanced.

Participants in the wide-ranging focus-group discussions conducted in Antigua and Barbuda and Barbados signalled that democratic governance is under threat of erosion in myriad ways and is perceived by as inadequate. This report will show varying facets of governance responsible for these worrying trends by drawing on survey data collected in Antigua and Barbuda and Barbados. In almost every disaggregated category surveyed on the critical values essential for effective democratic governance, less than 40 percent of respondents viewed these markers of flourishing democracy as “good”, or “very good”. Less than 50 per cent of those surveyed generally considered the prevailing structures and systemic features in place for good governance as “average” (or were “neutral”). On a positive note, generally, outright dissatisfaction with democratic features was noted as “poor” or “very poor” by less than 30 percent of survey respondents. The general sentiment towards the functioning of democracy in the two countries under study can be encapsulated by the following comment from a respondent in Antigua and Barbuda: “we just dey (there), we just going ‘long.”

In the region, anecdotal evidence has recorded this strong sense of systemic powerlessness, resignation even, that Caribbean residents seem to feel towards the status-quo. This report prepared by the UWI/UNDP Democratic Governance Assessment team however, has conducted a systematic study in order to move beyond 1

anecdotes. Consequently, this project has fulfilled one of its key objectives, of generating comprehensive, comparable, country specific, disaggregated, and accurate evidence-based indicators to discern the quality of governance currently being experienced in Barbados and member countries of the OECS, principally Antigua and Barbuda in this first stage of the project. The UWI/DGA team drew its indicators from the critical pillars of governance which philosophical literature regard as fundamental democratic principles and shared common values that should be enshrined in the heritage of any civilized society namely: Perceptions of Democracy ď‚ž Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats Democracy and what constitutes good governance.

Citizenship Law and Rights Government ď‚ž Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats Government ď‚žThe Public Sector Representative and Accountable Government Legal and Judicial Institutions The Police Force/ Military Civic and Political Engagement Safety and Security Access to Information Democracy Beyond the State A society which does not pay attention to the quality of these institutional arrangements as well as political ideals and values can neither be democratic nor sustainable. In the final analysis, it is hoped that the data presented will shed light on the governance lacunae that exist in these countries to assist decision makers in policy formulation and implementation, institutional development, capacity building and performance improvement.

The following sections of this report present the data collected in surveys conducted in Antigua and Barbuda and in Barbados by the UWI/UNDP Democratic Governance Assessment team in efforts to assess good governance in the two countries.

2

2. PERCEPTIONS OF DEMOCRACY Although changing international realities have significantly impacted on the practice and challenge of democratic governance, in particular the prevailing Westminster/Whitehall model in the Caribbean to effect national development, respondents in Barbados felt a general sense of satisfaction with the development of democracy (46% satisfied, 11% very satisfied and 28% neutral) and practice of democratic governance (44% satisfied, 8% very satisfied, and 30% neutral).

1. Perceptions of Democracy

4% 11%

Very satisfied

11%

Satisfied Neither satisfied or dissatisfied Dissatisfied

28% 46%

Very Dissatisfied

Figure 2.1 : How satisfied are you with the development of democracy in Barbados? (n=1228)

3

4%

8%

14% Very satisfied Satisfied

30%

44%

Neither satisfied or dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied

Figure 2.2 : How satisfied are you with the way democracy works in Barbados? (n=1228)

Comparatively though, respondents from Antigua and Barbuda were less inclined to convey such expressions of a general positive attitude towards the evolution of democracy (31 percent satisfied, 6 percent very satisfied, 27 percent neutral) and the practice of democratic governance (30 percent satisfied, 4 percent very satisfied, 29 percent neutral) in their country as the below figures 2.3 and 2.4 have highlighted.

4

Figure 2.3 : How satisfied are you with the development of democracy in Antigua and Barbuda? (n=845)

35 30 25 20 15 10 How satisfied are you with the development of democracy in Antigua and Figure: Barbuda? (n=845) 5 0 Series1

Very Satisfied 6

Satisfied

Neutral

Dissatisfied

31

27

23

Very Dissatisfied 13

5

Figure 2.4 : How satisfied are you with the way democracy works in Antigua and Barbuda? (n=845)

30 25 20 15

Figure: How satisfied are you with the way democracy works in Antigua and Barbuda? (n=845) 10 5 0 Series1

Very Satisfied

Satisfied

Neutral

Dissatisfied

4

30

29

26

Very Dissatisfied 11

6

3. DEMOCRACY AND GOOD GOVERNANCE The rest of empirical results depicted in this report focus on the functioning of the state against a checklist of current scenarios and issues pertinent to the achievement of vibrant and inclusive democracies.1 Democracy cannot be realized without a culture that embraces tolerance and respect for other people, as well as pluralism, equilibrium and dialogue between and amongst the forces that make up a society.

The UWI/UNDP Democratic Governance Assessment team closely evaluated the quality of democracy in both countries under study focusing on an interrelated set of values integral to its realization along the following guidelines: Transparency: Access to information and the openness in the conduct of governance should be open to all citizens; The presence of just and fair processes: the role of government in assuring citizens equity in all facets of governance; Responsibility: the ability of the state to respond to the needs of the citizenry; Public participation: all sections of society should feel, enjoy and exercise the same rights to participate in all national social, economic and political endeavours. An inclusive participatory culture should exist that encourages women and the poor to be politically active; Responsiveness: governments’ sensibility to indiscriminately respond to citizens within a timely manner for policy formation, implementation and the delivery of goods and services; and Accountability: Ensuring that clear and effective lines of accountability (legal, financial, administrative and political) are necessary to safeguard judicial integrity, and to ensure honest and efficient performance by civil servants in the delivery of public services to women and low-income groups These indicators were also in keeping with similar views expressed by academic and institutional scholars such as the United Nations Development Programme (2002), IDEA (2002), Hall and Benn (2003), Ryan and Bissessar (2006).

Respondents in both countries found it difficult to register positive responses of “good” or “very good” for the administrative capacity of successive governments over the years in guaranteeing these values for the proper functioning of democracy in their state. The exception was in “public participation” in Barbados where 37 percent of respondents noted that Respondents in both countries were asked to evaluate the administrative capacity of both past and present governments.

1

7

successive governments have been “good” or “very good” at ensuring this value. In every other disaggregated value however, less than 35 percent of respondents surveyed from both countries did not feel that their governments have been “good” or “very good” at fostering a culture of these interrelated values as indicated in table 3.1; rather majority respondents 38 - 48 percent in both countries were more inclined to be “neutral” in their responses as reflected in the table 3.2.

Table 3.1 Antigua and Barbuda Barbados Ranking of Values by “Good”/ “Very Good” 1. Public Participation 25% 1. Public Participation 37% 2. Transparency 18%

2. Responsibility 33% 3. Just and Fair processes 32%

Responsibility 18%

4. Accountability to the People 31%

Responsiveness 18%

5. Transparency 29%

5. Just and Fair Processes 16% 6. Accountability to the People 15%

6. Responsiveness 26%

Table 3.2 Antigua and Barbuda Barbados Ranking of Values by “Neutral” 1. Transparency 38% 1. Transparency 51% 2. Just and Fair Processes 37% Responsiveness 37% 4.Public Participation 36% Responsibility 36% 6.Accountability to the People 31%

2. Responsibility 48% Responsiveness 48% 4.Accountability to the People 45% 5. Public Participation 44% Just and Fair processes 44%

8

This aside, one major feature stands out and bears mentioning, that is 38 percent - 54 percent, of respondents surveyed in Antigua and Barbuda when compared to Barbados’s 19 percent – 38 percent noted that successive governments have been generally “poor” to “very poor” in achieving these goals.2 Table 3.3 Antigua and Barbuda Barbados Ranking of Values by “Poor” “Very Poor” 1. Accountability to the People 1. Accountability to the People 31% 54% 2. Just and Fair Processes 45% 2. Responsiveness 25% Responsiveness 45% Responsibility 45% 5. Transparency 41%

3. Just and Fair processes 22% 4. Transparency 20% 5. Responsibility 19% Public Participation 19%

6. Public Participation 38%

2

It must be noted here that public opinion surveys must be interpreted with the caveat in mind that respondents will often respond to questions interrogating their knowledge of what ought to be common terms in the affirmative. Because such terms as democracy and good governance are usually in the parlance of mainstream society individuals will seek to associate themselves with socially approved norms and mores.

9

4. CITIZENSHIP LAW AND RIGHTS In order for a climate of democratic governance to prevail it must entail essential civic freedoms to ensure that rights of individuals cannot be superseded by government.

Such an environment cannot evolve without the rule of law and the requisite statutes to effectively reflect people’s input into what is happening in their lives and for proscribing restrictions that may curtail their freedom to participate regardless of their political, social and economic status in civil society. Insufficient experience with, and/or lack of knowledge of the constitution, as well as a reluctance by citizens to seek protection of their rights through courts are all obstructions to the full implementation of the rule of law. By default, these conditions also preclude the realization of essential human rights such as: constitutional guarantees of freedom of association and assembly, both preconditions for the freedom of thoughts and actions that enables civil society to participate in the process of defining the content of norms, mores and actions of governance.

The constitution details the rights and freedoms of the citizens within both countries under review. It is to the constitution that citizens must turn to test the legitimacy, and authority of laws and institutions, particularly if breached. The survey showed that less than half of the respondents in both countries had an “average” understanding of this document with Barbadians registering 46.6 percent and Antiguans and Barbudans even less with 40.9 percent (see Table 4). Cumulatively, the survey also revealed a worrying number of respondents (Barbadians 34 percent and Antiguans and Barbudans just under 34 percent) showed “poor” “very poor” or just “don’t know” anything about the constitution. Likewise, less than half of the respondents surveyed in both countries (46.1 percent of Barbadians and 42.4 percent of Antiguans and Barbudans) had “average” knowledge regarding human rights legislation.

Respondents in both Barbados and Antigua and Barbuda were also equivocal in their knowledge of central pieces of legislation to facilitate democratic governance such as the presence of electoral law. Moreover, 80 percent of Antiguans and Barbudans and 87.3 percent of Barbadians have never voiced their constitutional rights to a public official(s). This latter point is important particularly when considering citizens use of public officers such as the ombudsman in promoting democratic governance.

10

Table 4 Q. How good is your knowledge about the following laws and legal documents? (The Constitution) Antigua and Barbuda Very Good 10.4% Good 19.8% Average 40.9% Poor 14.7% Very Poor 6.6% Don’t know 10.3%

Barbados Very-Good 4.2% Good 16.0% Average 46.6% Poor 12.6% Very poor 4.9% Don’t know11.8%

Q. How good is your knowledge about the following laws and legal documents? (Human Rights) Antigua and Barbuda

Barbados

Very Good 10.4% Good 23.5% Average 42.4% Poor 12.6% Very Poor 4.9% Don’t know 6.1%

Very-Good 7.8% Good 24.7% Average 46.1% Poor 11.3% Very poor 3.8% Don’t know 6.4%

Q. How good is your knowledge about the following laws and legal documents? (Electoral Law) Antigua and Barbuda

Barbados

Very Good 7.0% Good 18.9% Average 39.9% Poor 17.1% Very Poor 8.1% Don’t know 9.8%

Very-Good 5.4% Good 18.1% Average 42.8% Poor 16.6% Very poor 6.0% Don’t know 11.2%

Q. Have you at any time voiced your constitutional rights to a public official(s)?

Antigua and Barbuda

Barbados

Yes 20.0% No 80.0%

Yes 12.7 % No 87.3 %

11

5. THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM The presence of a justice system with its institutional arrangements (the law courts, officials) as well as the institutional environment (trust, rules, norms) within which it is embedded are essential for the rule of law, a precondition for the functioning of a democratic state. If democracy is to be viable it ought to have a reliable and independent judicial system that serves to enforce the principle of equality before the law, the right of all individuals to express their opinion within the society to which they belong, as well as the right to be heard and to put their case. If human rights are to be guaranteed, all sectors of society must equally have access to justice and be aware of the law and to understand it. Dysfunctional democratic governance can be characterized by: insufficient enforcement of rules regulating independence of the judiciary; minimal participation of the public in the legislative process; the presence of political interference in the appointment of judicial officers; reliance on, class, status, hierarchy, and coercion; abuse of power; the lengthy and slow processes to have justice delivered in the courts of justice; ambiguity of legal provisions and inconsistency of such provisions; and the absence of detailed legal stipulations and their weaknesses making laws open to wide interpretations thus providing opportunity for arbitrary interpretation and the creation of conditions conducive to the corrosion of law.

The lack of, and/or miscarriage of justice directly, compromises good governance since it can lead to a citizenry distrustful of the state. Lack of, or low levels of trust can alter investment patterns, and can in various ways facilitate mismanagement of scarce resources leading to the corruption of institutions and people. Moreover, these deficiencies envelop within citizens a culture of cynicism, fear and systemic hopelessness. Such a climate may lead people to opt out of formal channels in preference to informal channels of assistance, particularly if they strongly perceive that their only hope of fairness and justice is circumscribed by the same institutions and institutional environment that were created to uphold and protect them.

12

In this regard the UWI/UNDP DGA team surveyed multiple aspects of the judicial system, not only the formal arrangements but the culture and attitudes within which these institutions are embedded, in order to ascertain the main challenges of having matters resolved by the legal and judicial institutions. Respondents were asked a series of questions which interrogated various aspects of the judicial system: a. In the case of legal problems, to whom do you turn for advice? b. What are the main obstacles to resolving matters at legal and judicial institutions? c. What are your attitudes towards the judiciary/judicial system?

The responses from citizens in both countries to the questions posed generally showed all aspects of the judicial system descending into a culture distrustful of this key pillar of democratic governance (see tables 5.1 - 5.3). To be fair, the majority of respondents noted that nepotism was not a key obstacle to having legal and judicial matters resolved through the established institutions (Barbados, 75 percent: Antigua and Barbuda 63.9 percent). Yet policy-planners cannot take comfort in knowing that at least a quarter of respondents surveyed in both countries still saw nepotism as an obstacle (Barbados 24.5 percent, Antigua and Barbuda 36.1 percent). The fact that over a third of the sample from Antigua and Babuda, and around a quarter from Barbados believe that miscarriage of justice occur because of nepotism within the legal and judicial institutions that were designed to protect them, is indicative of a system’s descent to cynicism.

Ambivalence about the judiciary was also noted in both Barbados and Antigua and Barbuda. As one might expect, individuals surveyed in both countries tended to consult first with extra-judicial sources such as friends and family for advice before representatives of legal institutions. Although respondents in both countries tended to consult representatives from legal institutions second out of all the proposed options (see table 5.1), the percentage of individuals who would seek recourse via legal institutions was not overwhelming. The data showed that citizens are choosing to consult with multiple sources such as the internet and interestingly, acquaintances in legal institutions, for their legal advice.

13

TABLE 5.1 Q. In the case of legal problems to whom do you turn for advice Antigua and Barbuda Barbados

1. Friends and Colleagues 50%

1. Friends and Colleagues 59 %

2. Representatives of Legal Institutions 46%

2. Representatives of Legal Institutions 49%

3. Internet 31%

3. Acquaintances in Legal Institutions 38%

4. Acquaintances in Legal Institutions 29% 5. MPs and High Ranking Officials 17%

4. The Internet 29.6 %

6. Local Community Group 9% 7. No one 6% 8. Don’t know 7%

6. Local Community group 7 %

5. MPs and High ranking Officials 15.2%

No One 7% Don’t Know 7%

9. Help support telephone line 4%

9.Help support telephone line 5%

Of the two countries, Barbados fared worse in terms of respondents’ perceptions of obstacles faced in the resolution of legal matters. This result perhaps obtained because of breaches of contractual obligations by members of the legal fraternity that have been highlighted in the media, raising a greater sense of civic consciousness towards these institutions. Respondents in Barbados (63%) were more negative about such obstacles as the presence of red tape posing a problem to the resolution of legal matters, compared to respondents in Antigua and Barbuda on the same matter (29 %). Other obstacles which posed a problem for the resolution of legal and judicial matters were the lack of trust in fair decision-making, unfriendly attitudes, and financial challenges (see table 5.2). These challenges are further compounded by citizens’ limited recourse to legal assistance in both countries (see figures 5.1 and 5.2)

14

TABLE 5.2 Q. What are the main obstacles to resolving matters at legal and judicial institutions?

Antigua and Barbuda Barbados

1. Lack of Trust in fair decision-making 40% 2. Financial / Economic Challenges 37% 3. Corruption 36% Nepotism 36%

1. Red Tape 63% 2. Inefficiency 45 % 3. Lack of trust in fair decision-making 43% Financial / Economic Challenges 43%

5. Inefficiency 34%

5. Corruption 39%

6. Unfriendly attitudes 30%

6. Unfriendly attitudes 35%

Red tape 30% 8. Difficulty in understanding the legal process 26% 9. Don’t know 7%

7. Difficulty in understanding the legal process 32% 8. Nepotism 25% 9. Don’t Know 9%

Fundamentally, in both countries, the most disconcerting results from respondents were their attitudes towards the judiciary which they felt was being undermined by varying interests inimical to equal access to justice such as the socio-economic group to which a person belongs. There was a belief by respondents from both countries that the judiciary serves those who have money and authority (Antigua and Barbuda 65 percent; Barbados 80 percent); that the judiciary can be influenced by officials (Antigua and Barbuda 64 percent; Barbados 75 percent); that the enforcement of legal verdicts can be manipulated (Antigua and Barbuda 66 percent; Barbados 74 percent); and that legal rules may not be followed when handing out sentences order to persons (Antigua and Barbuda 48 percent: Barbados 57 percent).

It should be pointed out that the notion of the primacy of law underpins the importance of judicial institutions to be conducted in a culture of legitimacy, transparency and accountability. The fact that these premier institutions sanctioned by the state are perceived to be embedded in a culture where they are held captive by socio-economic interests does not augur well for the democracy and development.

The corollary to all this is that the two countries continue to embrace a judicial system in need of urgent self-examination.

15

TABLE 5.3

Q. What are your attitudes towards the judiciary/judicial system?

Antigua and Barbuda

Barbados

1. Enforcement of legal verdicts can be manipulated 66%

1. The judiciary better serves those who have money and authority 80%

2. The judiciary better serves those who have money and authority 65%

2. An official can influence the decisionmaking of the judiciary 75%

3. An official can influence the decisionmaking of the judiciary 64%

3. Enforcement of legal verdicts can be manipulated 74%

4. The judiciary gives priority to state interests 59%

4. The judiciary gives priority to state interests 68%

5. The judiciary may not follow rules in order to sentence a person 48%

5. The judiciary may not follow rules in order to sentence a person 57%

16

ISSUES OF ACCESS TO LEGAL ASSISTANCE AND VIOLATION OF RIGHTS

26%

29%

Yes No Don't know

45%

Figure 5.1 : Do citizens have limited access to legal assistance in Antigua and Barbuda? (n = 845)

21 33

Yes No Don’t know

46

Figure 5.2 : Do citizens have limited access to legal assistance in Barbados (n = 1228)

17

6. POLITICAL PRESSURE/CLIMATE An uncomfortable climate of political pressure within state institutions in several Caribbean countries has been cited as one of the biggest threats weakening the foundation of democratic institutions and their ability to enhance democratic governance. This has affected the public’s confidence in representative institutions such as political parties, the public sector, and even the private sector’s ability to redress the endemic problems of poverty and corruption, victimization and political intimidation with integrity. The presence of negative institutionalized political pressure is also considered as a contributing factor to the marginalization of some sectors of society particularly the youth and women disabling their fundamental political rights.

Recognizing these challenges the UNDP/UWI DGA team sought to determine the levels of political pressure and the institutions most affected by it. The data reinforced the established view that civil servants in the Caribbean are generally affected by political pressure. Respondents in both countries concurred that civil servants are affected by political pressure, Antigua and Barbuda 59 percent whereas Barbadian respondents registered 53 percent (see table 6).

When questioned further to ascertain the degree of negative political culture and the institutions through which it is manifested, surprisingly, responses from citizens in both countries did not yield data to suggest that key areas of the public sector such as government administration, management positions, and the delivery of public services experienced political pressure in major ways (see table 6). Perhaps a reason for this result is due to the life-long tenured culture of public servants and their confidence in the knowledge that ministers come and go, they will interfere in the state apparatus, hence their general indifference. Respondents in both countries registered minimal political pressure on specific institutions, but they “know” it exists everywhere as indicated in (figures 6.1 and 6.2).

Of note though is that respondents in both countries believed that there exists a reasonably high degree of negative political pressure exerted on employees within the private sector. The reasons for this political pressure could be attributed to the nontenured nature of private sector employees and the heavy reliance of this sector in small societies such as these for major government contracts to sustain their existence.

18

TABLE 6 Q. Do Civil Servants experience political Pressure?

Antigua and Barbuda

Barbados

Yes 58.7%

Yes 53.0%

Don’t Know 25.6 %

Don’t know 30.8%

Q. Indicate which areas of the public sector experienced political pressure?

Antigua and Barbuda Barbados

1. Everywhere 34%

1. Everywhere 33%

2. Government Administration 25%

2. Government Administration 23%

3. Top Management 15%

3. Top Management 22%

Public Services 15% 5. Middle Level 9%

4. Public Services 11% 5.Middle Level 6%

Q. Do private sector employees experience political pressure?

Antigua and Barbuda

Barbados

Yes 46.5% No 18.9% Don’t Know 34.6 %

Yes 36.4% No 26.1% Don’t Know 37.6%

19

14%

8% 14%

4%

Very high High Average

16%

Low Not at all Dont know 44%

Figure: How much political pressure do you think there is on people's lives in Antigua and Barbuda? (n = 845)

14%

8%

4% 14%

Very high High Average

16%

Low Not at all 44%

Dont know

Figure: How much political pressure do you think there is on people's lives in Barbados? (n = 1228) 20

7. SOCIAL DISCRIMINATION Perceptual and real examples of social discrimination are negatively linked to selfesteem and life satisfaction, regardless of the discrimination. The exclusion of sections of the population from civic engagement will undermine their access to justice, freedom and the ability of these citizens to improve their quality of life. In this regard the UNDP/UWI DGA team examined incidences of social discrimination in both countries. The main emphasis was to establish whether, for example, people are living in an environment free from discrimination and intimidation regardless of their gender, age, ethnicity, economic, political and social background. Linked to this was also whether citizens have freedom of movement, expression, association and assembly in the decision-making process and governance of their country. The responses showed an alarmingly high degree of social discrimination in both countries with Antigua and Barbuda 79 percent and Barbados 79 percent (figures 7.1 and 7.2).

21

ISSUES OF SOCIAL DISCRIMINATION

0% 21%

Yes No

79%

Figure 7.1: Is there discrimination in Antigua and Barbuda? (n = 845)

0% 21%

Yes No

79%

Figure7.2: Is there discrimination in Barbados? (n =1228)

22

When respondents were asked to evaluate the areas of civic engagement where they felt social discrimination existed, when we combined the categories of “high” and “very high”, respondents felt that social discrimination was especially manifested in critical areas of civic life such as the provision of health care (Antigua and Barbuda 72%, Barbados 63%); within the education system (Antigua and Barbuda 74%, Barbados 62%); government administration (Antigua and Barbuda 64%, Barbados 62%); the delivery of social-welfare services and other areas of civic endeavour (see table 7).

TABLE 7 Q. Please evaluate the state of social discrimination in the following sectors: (percentages calculated from the addition of “high” and “very high”) Antigua and Barbuda

Barbados

1. Education 74%

1. Health 63%

2. Health 72% 3. Government Administration 64%

2. Education 62% Government Administration 62%

4. Social Welfare 60%

4.Social Welfare 59%

5. National Insurance 51%

5.National Insurance 54%

23

8. REPRESENTATIVE AND ACCOUNTABLE GOVERNMENT VOTING AND TRUST IN POLITICS Representative and accountable government was another major pillar of democratic governance surveyed in both countries by the UNDP/UWI DGA team.

Representation provides citizens, through the presence of political institutions, with the right to form a government in which power is invested in the people and exercised on their behalf by elected representatives. Accountability broadly refers to citizens having the right to seek redress of grievances through impartial administrative and judicial mechanisms. The presence of stable and responsive political parties is critical for the establishment of a political system that fosters the growth and self-fulfilment of its citizens by promoting and protecting their political and civil rights. These core principles however, cannot be achieved within a political party apparatus, which denies internal democracy and transparency; limits the representation of diverse interests; and stifles the individual’s right to political dissent.

It is within this context that the project team was interested in determining respondents’ views towards political parties in both countries. Issues of consideration focused on whether these institutions adequately dealt with citizens’ representation and participation in both the public and private sectors. In particular, the team also sought to find out the level of civic engagement facilitated by the party executive of political parties in making sure that all sections within society are included in public consultation, policy formulation, and the decision-making process when solving problems.

24

6. REPRESENTATIVE AND ACCOUNTABLE GOVERNMENT VOTING AND TRUST IN POLITICS

21%

Yes No 79%

Figure 8.1: Do you vote in elections in Antigua and Barbuda?(n = 845)

21%

Yes No 79%

Figure 8.2: Do you vote in elections in Barbados?(n =1228)

25

This survey revealed that there are high levels of political engagement through the electoral process of voting within both countries Antigua and Barbuda and Barbados registering a similar result of 79 percent (see figures 8.1 and 8.2). The team felt this was a positive sign as the general consensus from contemporary commentary is that democracy is increasingly being undermined by voter apathy. This however, seems to be a misplaced value.

Yet, when we peered more closely at the data however, respondents generally expressed negative attitudes regarding political parties’ abilities to adequately and fairly represent the interests of their constituents. In all categories surveyed, respondents registered political parties’ inability to engender a political culture which fosters inter alia transparency, the competition of ideas, integrity, respect for public interest, avoiding bribery and placing pressure on civil servants. The data from both countries paints a negative picture of political parties’ role in conspiracy, defamation, peddling empty promises, manipulating information and public opinion and setting a price on government positions (see table 8).

26

TABLE 8 Q. Do you have trust in the political parties in your country?

Antigua and Barbuda Barbados No 60% No 38.2% Yes 20% Yes 34.5% Won’t say 20% Won’t say 27%

Q. Which of the following characteristics are common to our political parties? (percentages calculated from the addition of “somewhat common”, “common”, and “very common”) Antigua and Barbuda Barbados

1. Empty promises 88% Bribery 88%

1. Empty Promises 94%

3. Manipulation of information 87% 4. Defamation 86%

3. Manipulating Information/opinion 87% Competition of ideas 87%

5. Conspiracy 85% Pressure on Civil Servants 85% 7. Political Culture 77% 8. Internal Democracy 76%

5. Defamation 84% Internal Democracy 84% Setting price on government positions 84% Rule of law 84%

9. Rule of law 75% 10. Competition of ideas 74% 11. Respect to public interest 69% 12. Transparency 68% 13. Setting price of government positions 63% 14. Integrity 62%

2. Political Culture 88%

9.Bribery 83% Respect to public interest 83% Pressure on civil servants 83% 12. Integrity 77% Conspiracy 77% 14. Transparency 75%

Based on the statistical results presented an inference can be made that if there is indeed voter apathy or disaffection, it stems from the need for political parties to selfcorrect their own philosophical and managerial deficiencies before reaching out to the public, rather than attributing the blame generally on individual voter attitudes.

8.1 Representative and Accountable Government 27

The UWI/UNDP DGA assessment team went further in their analysis by evaluating some of the principal institutions necessary for representative and accountable government. The team felt that to evaluate the strength of these democracies it was not only necessary to ascertain the presence of key institutional arrangements such as political parties, a system of government based on the principle of majoritarian decision-making, an independent judiciary; and an independent media capable of engaging an informed citizenry; but also that these arrangements cohere within an institutional environment that fosters a culture vital to an effective functioning democracy. In this regard respondents in both countries were asked to evaluate the performance of the following institutions: members of parliament, government, the office of the Prime Minister, the law courts, Ministries and civil agencies, political parties, police, electoral boundaries commission, mass media and non-governmental institutions,

along

the

continuum

“very

effective,”

“effective,”

“neutral,”

“ineffective,” “very ineffective” or “do not know.”

From a review of the profiles, the majority of respondents in Barbados were generally more positive in their assessments of these institutions, averaging slightly over 40 percent if the categories of “effective” and “very effective” are combined. Similar institutions in Antigua and Barbuda though generally evaluated positively, saw aggregate levels hovering around 30 percent with the exception of three institutions: the courts, 39 percent; the mass media, 46 percent; and the police force over 35 percent(see table 8.1).

While a look at the cumulative figures shows a reasonable positive evaluation of the institutions under review, respondents were still generally ambivalent in their 28

assessment of the institutions by registering the “sitting on the fence” response “neutral”. If the categories of “neutral” and “do not know” are combined and read as a single variable, there is a sizable minority (over 35 percent) of respondents in both Barbados and Antigua and Barbuda of non-committals (see table 8.1).

29

TABLE 8.1 Q. Please evaluate the performance of the following institutions at present? (percentages calculated from the addition of “effective” and “very effective”) Antigua and Barbuda Barbados 1. Mass media 46% 1. Mass media 62% 2. Courts 39%

2. Police 50%

Police 39%

3. Courts 47%

4. NGOs 32% 5. Office of the Prime Minister3 29%

4. Government 46% Electoral and Boundaries Commission 46%

6. Electoral and Boundaries Commission 27%

6. NGOs 44% 7. Office of the Prime Minister 42%

Government 27% 8. Ministries and Government Agencies 26%

8. Members of Parliament 41%

9. Members of Parliament 25%

9. Ministries and civil agencies 40%

10. Political Parties 24%

10. Political Parties 39%

Q. Please evaluate the performance of the following institutions at present? (percentages calculated from the addition of “neutral” and “don’t know”) Antigua and Barbuda 1. Ministries and civil agencies 50%

1. EBC 46%

2. NGOs 49%

2. NGOs 44%

3. EBC 47%

3. Ministries and civil agencies 42%

4. Members of Parliament 42% 5. Courts 41%

4. Political Parties 41% Office of the Prime Minister 41%

6. Political Parties 40%

6. Members of Parliament 39%

7. Government 38% Office of the Prime Minister 38%

7. Government 36%

Barbados

8. Courts 34%

3

9. Mass media 37%

9. Police 30%

10. Police 35%

10. Mass Media 28%

The Office of the Prime Minister in this survey is divorced from the incumbent in the office.

30

9. ACCESS TO INFORMATION FROM INSTITUTIONS The hoarding of information and the secrecy surrounding the diffusion of information within Caribbean society has always been contentious. There is the widely held view that unless one is connected to “someone in the know” valuable information is denied within the public sphere which could prevent for example, the equitable distribution of goods and services. Access to information is a critical pillar essential for the realisation of representative and accountable governance. Good governance can be hindered by systemic threats such as the sporadic flow of information; lack of information; in some instances no access to information; and sometimes when available, control of the information by persons with particular selfinterest and/or hidden agendas. Information is critical for citizens making informed decisions for the functioning and sustainability of open and competitive markets. Lack of such information can promote misinformation through rumour-mongering and such a threat can interrupt the efficiency of an organization and decrease its productivity.

For the individual his or her rights or the ability to make reasoned and informed decisions could be circumscribed by a flippant disregard by the state of the importance of information. Likewise, lack of, or inadequately presented information “from government agencies could be critical to life and death situationsi” for members of vulnerable groups in society such as the disabled community.

It is within this context that the UWI/UNDP DGA team surveyed the attitudes of the population regarding this critical feature essential for governance. Almost half of the surveyed respondents in both countries(Antigua and Barbuda 45 percent and Barbados 45 percent) stated that access to information on decisions and activities of 31

state decisions needed to be increased whereas 37 percent of respondents in both countries stated that access to information should remain at the same level.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION FROM INSTITUTIONS

18%

Should be increased 45%

Should remain at the same level Should be reduced

37%

Figure 9.1: Are you able to get the necessary information on decisions and activities of state institutions when needed in Antigua and Barbuda? (n = 845)

18%

Should be increased 45%

37%

Should remain at the same level Should be reduced

Figure 9.2 : Are you able to get the necessary information on decisions and activities of state institutions when needed in Barbados? (n = 1228) 32

10. CORRUPTION IN PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS Another critical area of focus for the UNDP/UWI DGA team was the degree of corruption in public institutions such as parliament and government, ministries and agencies, local administration and NGOs. The mitigation of corruption is sine qua non to democratic governance. Corruption can undermine trust in public institutions because it robs citizens of their expectations of social, economic and political development.

Corruption also inhibits improvements in the delivery of social services, undermining sustainable livelihoods particularly for the poor. From an economic perspective corruption hinders investments by increasing transaction costs when conducting business thereby perpetuating distrust in investment security. Politically, corruption envelops a culture of patron-client relationships by rewarding undeserving recipients with state gifts, which engenders apathy and social animosity within the wider society towards the beneficiaries of such largesse. It is no wonder then that some correlations can be made between a country’s degree of development and its corruption levels (insert footnote). It is not unlikely therefore that those nations with higher levels of corruption also have lower levels of development.

It is believed that although levels of corruption are not endemic to the point of derailing the functioning of society in both countries, it is still present to the extent that communities are denied benefits because of political patronage. For the purposes of this survey, corruption was defined but not limited to examples of: No proper legislation in place for campaign financing; Campaign donors expecting some form of entitlement for having contributed to their political parties; Stealing of money from the public sector ; Public servants use of public funds for personal spending ; Procurement and allocation of “off the books” government projects.

Respondents were asked to rate the levels of corruption from varying degrees of “very much,” “much,” “some,” “little,” or “none.” Respondents in Antigua and Barbuda stated that there is a high degree of corruption in the principal institution of parliament and government, 61 percent if the categories of “much” and “very much” 33

are combined. In the same category, 29 percent of respondents in Barbados registered that there was either “much” or “very much” corruption.

Of the four institutions surveyed in the two countries Barbados fared better than Antigua and Barbuda in its degree of corruption. Nonetheless, it is clear in both countries that almost half the respondents surveyed noted the presence of “some” form of corruption as a factor for concern as seen in the results below.

TABLE 10 Q. How much Corruption is there in the following areas? (percentages calculated from the addition of “much” and “very much”) Antigua and Barbuda

Barbados

1. Parliament 61%

1. Parliament 29%

2. Ministries and Agencies 47%

2. Ministries Agencies 26%

3. Local Administration 38%

3. Local administration 20%

4. NGOs 24%

4. NGOs 14%

Q. How much Corruption is there in the following areas? (percentages based on respondents who acknowledged “some” as a form of neutrality) Antigua and Barbuda

1. Local Administration 43% NGOs 43%

Barbados

1. Ministries and Agencies 51% Local Administration 51%

3. Ministries and Agencies 37%

3. Parliament 46%

4. Parliament 27%

4. NGOs 45%

34

11. INTEREST IN POLITICS In examining the threats to democracy there is general consensus that is in danger of being unsustainable, increasingly from citizens both young and old, becoming disengaged from the political process. One reason offered for this state of affairs is perhaps because of the low levels of political interest and knowledge which both cohere to determine how an individual conceptualizes and interacts politically. The UNDP/UWI DGA team surveyed respondents in both countries to determine first their level of interest in politics, and secondly to establish from them the reasons for their lack of interest.

Respondents in both countries registered generally low levels of interest in politics (Barbados, 39% and Antigua and Barbuda, 29 %) when the categories of “somewhat interested and “very interested� are combined.

Significantly however, over 90% of respondents in both countries stated that: a. they do not understand politics, b. that they are unable to influence the political process and c. that it has no relation to them.

Equally disturbing is that over 80 percent in Barbados and 67 percent in Antigua and Barbuda have no trust in politics (see table 11). These results paint a troubling picture of the political culture and what it means for the sustainability of democratic governance in the Caribbean. This general sense of indifference can be restrictive to the point where persons vote without critically analysing what, or who they are voting for. In this regard, rising systemic apathy can emerge as one of the foremost threats that characterizes our political landscape as seen in Table 11.

35

TABLE 11 Q. How much are you interested in Politics Antigua and Barbuda Barbados Very Interested 12.4% Very Interested 10.8% Somewhat Interested 16.7%

Somewhat Interested 27.6%

Neutral 23.9%

Neutral 19.3%

Moderately Interested 18.7 %

Moderately Interested 20.9%

Not Interested 28.3%

Not Interested 21.4 %

Respondents 813/845

Respondents 1217/1228

Q. Reasons for Lack of Interest in Politics?

Antigua and Barbuda Barbados

1. I do not understand politics 94%

1. I do not understand politics 94%

2. I do not understand politics 91%

2. Politics has no interest to me 92%

3. I’ve no influence in Politics 87%

3. I’ve no influence in Politics 89%

4. I’ve no trust in Politics 67%

4. I’ve no trust in Politics 80%

36

12. CIVIL SOCIETY AND POPULAR PARTICIPATION The ability of citizens to participate in national life through practices that encourage advancing a partnership with civil society towards building broader political consensus to explore ways to facilitate and incorporate new ideas aimed at resolving local problems are fundamental to an inclusive government and integral to democratic governance.

To promote growth and development, combat the ill effects of globalization on the economic health of the society, setting national priorities and seeking to meet them, and generating suggestions and recommendations towards a national development strategy with and by the people rather than development for the people would ensure that everyone understood and participates in an inclusive government. To achieve these objectives, citizens must feel free to be able to appeal and participate in a society where there is a supportive national framework of institutions that enables national policy making to provide public goods and services that are critical to the continuing democratization of their society.

If citizens perceive with suspicion that they are unable to express their interests and views as well as those of their respective constituencies because the structures and modalities in place are ineffective, this can lead to the lack of, or weak, political engagement. Such circumstances have far reaching implications for governance and can also open the door for the increasingly exploitative or intimidating institutions acting against other organizations or individuals on the basis of business or personal interests. Likewise an atmosphere which does not encourage open expression of individual interests and concerns can perpetuate controlling societies with little input from citizens on the ways in which they are governed. Controlling societies can house the seeds of authoritarian regimes if care is not taken.

In this regard, when respondents in both countries were asked whether they took part in political actions such as appealing to political parties, the mass media, members of parliament, and NGOs, the data revealed low levels of individual civic and political engagement. For example, over three quarters of respondents (Antigua and Barbuda, 78 percent, and Barbados 91 percent) do not appeal to, or engage the mass media. A similar result was also recorded for the lack of appeal to representative institutions such as political parties, with 71 percent in Antigua and Barbuda and 90 percent in Barbados, stating that they do not consult political parties (see table 12).

37

As for participatory actions, respondents (in Barbados more so than Antigua and Barbuda) were least likely to be involved in such activities as protests and demonstrations, solving local problems, and political campaigning, as the data shows.

A review of the results below will show the extent of participation and engagement in various categories of both countries: TABLE 12 Q. Have you ever taken part in the following political actions? (percentages based on respondents who said “No�)

Antigua and Barbuda Barbados

1. Appealing to Mass Media 78%

1. Any interested in demonstration 92%

2. Solving Local Problems 73%

2. Appealing to Mass Media 91%

3. Appealing to Political Parties 71%

3. Appealing to Political Parties 90%

4. Campaigning in elections 68%

4. Campaigning in elections 89%

Appealing to MPs 68% 6. Any interest in demonstrating 64%

5. Solving Local Problems 88% 7. Appealing to MPs 64%

As with other categories reviewed in this report by the UWI/UNDP DGA team, multiple extrapolations can be made from such revelations concerning the present and future quality of democratic governance. For example, weak participation could suggest an electorate distrustful of a civic culture of decision-making that remains suspicious of sharing information, authority and power. If so, such a socio-political environment does not augur well for sustainable development in both societies.

38

13.NGOs AND PARTICIPATION A number of developing countries pledged at the 1992 Summit and Small Island Developing States (SIDS) conference held in Barbados, various commitments towards building partnerships with civil society in a participatory approach for policy-making and implementation for improved governance. This partnership was to take place with the NGO community serving as a vehicle for representation and those through which citizens can inter alia participate to improve the effectiveness, collaboration and accountability in the delivery of social policies.

In recent years, as demands for the effective delivery of public goods and services have become more complex and demanding due to the highly centralized management of government organizations, the necessity for NGOs has become integral in assisting the state partly because of their flexible and rapid ability to strategically respond to forgotten or neglected sections of society. In these instances, the state-NGO nexus has been effective in devising plans of action to influence national policymaking and in some instances strategically coordinating with government to implement these plans. Still, there is prevailing public opinion in some quarters that the capacity of NGOs to express public opinion and influence decisions of central government is weak. In other instances, in spite of their work, NGOs are not taken seriously or given the “recognition as that complimentary sector to help government and private sector� deliver on their promises.4 This latter attitude was expressed in both countries examined where respondents generally took a neutral position of NGOs’ influence in decision-making at the state and local levels. This aside, the results also revealed that respondents were more positive than negative in their attitudes towards NGOs in their role as participatory and representative institutions. For example, in Barbados respondents surveyed on whether NGOs protect the public interest registered a respectable 43 percent, whereas in Antigua and Barbuda their positive rating) was close to a 50 percent positive public approval (48.7 percent). Importantly, respondents were more likely to agree that NGOs play a positive role than a negative role. The attitudes have been identified below for ease of reference (see table 13).

4

Response from participants at a focus group facilitated by the UWI/UNDP DGA team.

39

TABLE 13 Respondents Attitudes towards NGOs (percentages conflated of who” agree” and “strongly agree” to arrive at a ranking of various attitudes) Antigua and Barbuda Barbados

1. NGOs have influence on local decision-making 40%

1. NGOs have influence on local decision-making 41%

2. NGOs have influence on state decision-making 35% 3. NGOs protect public interest 31%

2. NGOs protect public interest 38%

NGOs protect interest of a limited group of people 31%

3. NGOs protect interest of a limited group of people 38% 4. NGOs have influence on state decision-making 37%

Respondents Attitudes towards NGOs (percentages based on those who were “neutral” to arrive at a ranking of various attitudes) Antigua and Barbuda Barbados

1. NGOs protect public interest 49% 2. NGOs have influence on local decision-making 47%

1. NGOs have influence on state decision-making 43% NGOs protect public interest 43%

3. NGOs have influence on state decision-making 46%

3. NGOs have influence on local decision-making 42%

4. NGOs protect interest of a limited group of people 45 %

4. NGOs protect interest of a limited group of people 39%

40

14. INFLUENTIAL GROUPS AND DECISION-MAKING The review team also surveyed another contentious area of democratic governance, that is, the effectiveness of social groups in influencing government decisions. A functioning democracy for all must ensure the creation of an environment that ensures all sections within society are included in public consultation, policy formulation, and the decision-making process when solving problems. It is essential that these principles be best facilitated by a parliamentary system representative of all parts of society founded on the primacy of law serving as an effective guarantor for independent, impartial decisions.

In practice however, although several Caribbean countries boast of a presence of elective parliamentary systems, there is the often expressed view that these democracies are being “held captive” by special interest groups and privileged individuals within society perpetuating unsustainable corrupt patron-client relationship. Invariably, such relationships deny citizens access to economic justice and social rights as well as political rights to the extent that entire communities or groups are denied benefits because of political association. These patron/client relationships in some instances also encourage social discrimination based on gender, sex, age, ethnicity, economic, political and social background. Moreover, the disenfranchised are more often than not unable to express their grievances via established channels of communication because they too are in similar patron/client relationships. When conditions of socio-economic inequality and popular disempowerment vis-a-vis powerful oligopolies are left unattended by the state, they foster disaffection with the quality of democratic governance.

The team surveyed respondents to determine the influence the following social groups: women, the church, businessmen, the poor, foreign aid organizations, minority groups, the youth, the elderly, journalists, political party leaders, other religious groups, the disabled, and NGOs have on government’s decision-making.

Respondents were also asked to note whether this influence was “very effective,” “effective,” “neutral,” “ineffective,” “very ineffective,” or “don’t know.”

The results from this specific democratic pillar surveyed, foretells the pressing need for policy planners to address the entrenched polarisation trends that were identified in both countries. The results from the survey align with evidence from earlier qualitative assessments conducted in both countries. One result was crystal clear from the survey which reinforces the earlier commentary that is, within both countries, businessmen are seen as the predominant interest group wielding the most influence on governments’ decisions whereas the poor are the least influential of the groups 41

surveyed. In this instance, the team calculated the numeric values of “neutral”, “effective” and “very effective”, as one composite category and “ineffective”, “very ineffective” and “don’t know” as the next. Seventy-Seven percent (77%) of respondents from Antigua and Barbuda noted that businessmen are the most influential. A similar calculative approach was used for Barbados with 90 percent of respondents agreeing that businessmen have the most dominant influence on government’s decisions; whereas a smaller percentage 23 percent in Antigua and Barbuda and 11 percent in Barbados respectively stated they were not effective (see table 14).

In the normal course of things, the results also confirmed a general consensus from respondents that the poor (38 percent in Antigua and Barbuda and 45 percent in Barbados) were the least effective in influencing government’s decisions; whereas a disproportionate number (42 percent in Antigua and Barbuda and 54 percent in Barbados) stated that the poor were most likely to be ineffective.

Besides the dominant influence of businessmen on government’s decision making and the poor at the extreme of this spectrum, the results also revealed that the most vulnerable groups in society the disabled, minority groups, and the elderly are ranked in descending order as ineffective interest groups also seen in table 14:

42

TABLE 14 Q. How effective are the following groups in influencing government decisions?

Antigua and Barbuda Barbados

1. Businessmen

1. Businessmen

2. Political Party Leaders

2. Political Party Leaders

3. The Church

3. The Church

4. Foreign Aid Organisations

4. Foreign Aid Organisations

5. Women

5. Journalists

6. Journalists

6. Women

7. NGOs

7. NGOs

8. Youth

8. Youth

9. Other religious groups

9. Other religious groups

10. The elderly

10. The elderly

11. Minority Groups

11. The disabled

12. The disabled

12. Minority Groups

13. The Poor

13. The Poor

43

15 SAFETY AND SECURITY The principles of good governance cannot be achieved within a cavalier state characterized by fear, intimidation, harassment and a general lack of a safe and secure environment. It is within a stable, safe and secure environment through which the individual can realise his/her various freedoms of assembly, association, press, participation, religion etc. and human rights to life, liberty, justice, equality, and so on, thereby ensuring a high quality of democratic governance. The UWI/UNDP assessment team surveyed respondents for their view on the individual’s right to life and their exposure, or lack thereof, to police harassment, and the general safety within the respective states.

Respondents from Antigua and Barbuda were less positive about their country’s ability to guarantee an individual’s right to life with 44 percent returning a positive evaluation, compared to Barbadian respondents who registered a higher level of trust (64 percent).

Over 60 percent of respondents surveyed in both countries (Antigua and Barbuda, 63 percent; Barbados, 67 percent) registered that they were free from police harassment. Although these results provide positive assessments of the police forces in both countries, there is still room for improvement as over a quarter of respondents (see table 15) still noted that there is the presence of harassment that must be contained or eliminated.

This latter comment is clearly borne out in the case of Antigua and Barbuda where 49 percent of the respondents noted that they do not feel safe in their country. On the other hand, 83 percent of Barbadian respondents surveyed felt safe in their society.

44

TABLE 15 Q. Is your right to individual safety (the right to life) guaranteed in your country?

Antigua and Barbuda Barbados Yes 44.3% Yes 64.2% No 28.3% No 18.0% Unsure 27.4% Unsure 27.4% Q. Have you or family members been subjected to police harassment/brutality?

Antigua and Barbuda Barbados Constantly 4.0% Constantly 3.1% Several Times 9.5% Several Times 7.9% Once 11.8% Once 10.4 % No 63.0% No 66.9% Do Not remember 3.7% Do Not remember 5.8% Do not know 8.0% Do not know 5.9% Q. Is your right to individual safety (the right to life) guaranteed in your country?

Antigua and Barbuda Barbados Yes 51.3% Yes 82.8% No 32.8% No 10.5% Unsure 15.9% Unsure 6.7%

45

16. DEMOCRACY BEYOND THE STATE The final pillar of this democratic assessment exercise focussed on the regional and international dimensions of governance because small island states exhibit significant economic, social, environmental and political vulnerabilities. In an increasingly globalized world, major challenges such as the global economic recession, the environment, terrorism, international crime, security threats, diseases such as HIV/AIDS and SARS, as well as multinational and transnational actors impact on the ability of the state to effectively frame policies to guarantee certain core principles such as economic, social and political justice are shared by all citizens.

These powerful external influences on the state combine to make its participation in global affairs challenging, creating an electorate who often feel that independence has not brought the intended benefits of control of one’s own destiny. Democratic governance therefore can no longer be determined by nation state activities alone but are integrally connected to state involvement in, intergovernmental organizations such as the World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank.

Such intergovernmental organizations exert, often times, undersirable influence on the democratically elected national decision-making institutions of these countries. For example, the imposition of sometimes stringent conditionalities for access to foreign aid by extra-regional institutions without an established balanced cooperative framework can be counterproductive to these countries democratic exercise of sovereignty. Ironically, respondents from both countries recorded similar views on the role of foreign aid to their respective countries as seen from figures 16.1 and 16.2:

46

DEMOCRACY BEYOND THE STATE ATTITUDES TOWARDS FOREIGN AIND AND DEMOCRACY ABROAD

Should be increased 29%

35%

Should remain at the same level Should be reduced

12%

24%

Do not know

Figure16.1 : What is your opinion about foreign aid in Antigua and Barbuda? (n = 845)

Should be increased 35%

29%

Should remain at the same level Should be reduced

12%

24%

Do not know

Figure16.2 : What is your opinion about foreign aid in Barbados? (n = 1228)

47

Respondents from both countries were better able to record generally more definitive answers on their perception of the role of foreign aid and its value in their respective countries.

The same however could not be said for their country’s role in the promotion of democracy abroad. Whereas respondents were more assured in their responses, negative or positive, on the several national issues provoked by the respective pillars under review in this study, there was a general sense of individuals’ lack of knowledge regarding their country’s role in external relations. This manifested itself with 47 percent of respondents in Antigua and Barbuda and 40 percent of Barbadian respondents respectively not knowing of their country’s role in supporting external democratic governance as table 16 shows.

TABLE 16 Q. How actively does your country participate in supporting democracy abroad?

Antigua and Barbuda Barbados Very Actively 6.7% Very Actively 6.2% Actively 12.5% Actively 15.5% Somewhat Actively 18.9% Somewhat Actively 15.4% Passively 7.7% Passively 12.2% Not at all 6.9% Not at all 10.3% Do not know 47.4% Do not know 40.5%

This statistical finding was no different from that observed in the focus group sessions where there was little debate amongst participants, on their country’s external relations regarding the policies and practices of external institutions and their impact on local governance processes. It can be accepted that this muted response from the focus groups could be attributed to respondents seeming lack of knowledge on such matters which was manifested here in this statistical survey by the number of “don’t know” responses.

48

17. CONCLUSION The results presented in this report exemplify that, although democracy does indeed function in Antigua and Barbuda and Barbados, all is not well with the quality of democratic governance. But what is new? There is a widely considered and accepted view that there is chronic voter apathy within Caribbean society which in turn has led to serious deficiencies in the exercise of good governance. The UWI/UNDP DGA assessment team was heartened by the fact that the survey results from both countries specifically showed this feature not to be so. However, in spite of the positive result of voter participation (79% in both Antigua and Barbuda and Barbados) it must not be squandered by the institutions of governance and their refusal to correct the deficits in several other areas in need of social, economic and political sponsorship which could indeed lead to the apathy. Another critical revelation of importance was the role of political parties in repairing the damage of every institutional facet of their existence if they are to derive and retain some element of legitimacy and authority.

The survey found that political parties are weak in their management, choice of representatives, inclusion of all sectional interests, and their philosophical moorings.

Similar self-correcting mechanisms to repair the somewhat damaged image of the judicial system must be employed and acted upon too.

The comprehensive analysis of key democratic indicators presented here can provide policy-planners with a more incisive focus of areas for improving the quality of democratic governance. In this regard, a review of the pillars here needs no further commentary for clarity. Fundamentally though, one critical observation needs restating. This report has indeed shown that there must be an urgent and committed approach towards redressing the prolonged polarisation between the power-brokers (businessmen and political leaders) and the vulnerable groups within the respective societies who believe that their holistic personal development is undermined and undervalued within a political, economic and social climate that is inimical to their immediate needs. This was best demonstrated by the data which showed the poor and other vulnerable groups such as the disabled, the elderly, and minority groups, being least likely to be able to influence government decisions regarding their plight (see table 14). This continuation of the status quo cannot be treated as normal “par for the course�. Genuine efforts must be made to act on this recommendation.

Democratic governance is in need of innovative thinking to correct its decline if we are to foster sustainable development within our societies. This UWI/UNDP DGA assessment report has sought to ensure that the indicators presented in this assessment were derived from transparent, inclusive and participatory processes supported by and involving all vulnerable population groups in the societies surveyed.

49

In addition, national stakeholders including government policy makers, civil society, academia, the media, parliament, and political parties, as well as the national statistics agencies, were also consulted to inform the reform of areas for governance policies.

The results are captured in this report. In this regard, the issue ought not to be any longer of what is to be reformed? But rather, when will the reform begin. i

Member of the disabled community criticizing government/s ability to provide information on the available of social services.

50