As Saint Lucia celebrates the 2025 Nobel Laureate Festival, aimed at celebrating our Nobel Laureates, Sir W. Arthur Lewis and Sir Derek Walcott, who received the Nobel Prizes for Economics and Literature respectively, it would mark 45 years, since Sir W. Arthur Lewis received the Nobel Prize.
It is not oft though that our celebrations significantly pay consideration and seek to apply what democracy meant through the lens of Sir W. Arthur Lewis.
For most of our celebrations, Sir Arthur Lewis has been painted solely as a Developmental Economist, with his most celebrated works being, ‘The theory of Economic Development and Unlimited Supplies of Labour’ and ‘The Industrialisation of the British West Indies. Essentially he argued that we must jettison the neoclassical assumption that the quantity of labour is fixed, and that there is an unlimited supply of labour, which will keep wages down, produce cheap products and ensure high profits.
As a result, there will be a dual sector economy, where one part is a reservoir of cheap labour for the other, and the unlimited supply of labour derives ultimately from population pressure, as a phase in the demographic cycle. Moreover, developing economies such as ours, was characterised by a traditional agricultural sector with its surplus labour and a modern industrial sector with higher productivity. There would be however in the early stages of development, the industrial sector absorbing the surplus labour from agriculture leading to economic growth and structural transformation.
At the core though, Lewis saw the Caribbean as more than a colonial backwater, renowned only for production of raw materials for industrial expansion of the metropole or developed countries, but as an untapped potential and haven for economic transformation, capital accumulation, and industrialisation.
Beyond the empiricism of economics though, where Lewis’s ideas on trade, capital accumulation, labour and the institutional frameworks conducive to growth and modernisation shaped the world of ideas, he was also a social and political thinker who believed at his core that democracy was the sine qua non, for economic development. As such, democracy is a pre-requisite for economic development.
But what was democracy through the lens of W. Arthur Lewis, and how can his views be applied to the 21st century challenges we face in our country? What would W. Arthur Lewis make of our democracy and what possible prescriptions would he provide?
For W. Arthur Lewis, in his book Politics of West Africa, the primary meaning of democracy was that “all who are affected by a decision should have the chance to participate in making that decision either directly or through chosen representatives.” It was the inalienable right of the human being and citizen that they should be able to participate in the decisions that affected their lives. The conduit however through which democracy must be actualised according to Lewis was and must always be through free and fair elections ensuring that the will of the majority prevails. The Governor must always have the consent of the governed. For Sir Arthur, it was only the ballot box and not the bullet or divine rule that must determine legitimate rule. Democracy for him meant “that people must be willing to accept the results of fair elections; the will of the masses of the people, fairly ascertained through the ballot box, as supreme in determining who will govern.”
However, this does not provide a carte blanche to governing parties who win majority or all of the seats to make all the governmental decisions and relegate the ‘losers’ as mere critics who are not part of the government apparatus. For Lewis, the ‘losing’ group must not be excluded from participation in decision making as that clearly violates the primary meaning of democracy.
For Lewis, democracy was not characterised by merely aggregating individual votes into rule by a majority, or even the divine right of majority, of which he abhorred, or what Maurice Bishop called ‘two second democracy every five years’ or what the French Philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau described as ‘the vote as being a simultaneous exercise in, and surrender of, sovereignty.’
For Lewis, the moment we make the ‘x’ on the ballot paper should not be the same moment we surrender our sovereignty to our representatives, patiently awaiting our next opportunity for a ‘Ti Kwa’ in the next five years as we feel the travails of governance. Lewis, aimed for a form of democracy that allowed us to retain our sovereignty while actively participating in the political lives of our societies, without fully surrendering our power to the representatives in this limited notion of representative democracy.
For him, the citadel of democracy was in the culture and art of compromise, power-sharing, consensual and give-and-take. It is where opinions must be freely expressed in an open system, but there was also a culture of tolerance and giving-and-taking within the political architecture. Lewis noted that there must be the articulation of differences, which must be factored into policy making and governance, which must also reflect compromise, accommodation, and tolerance as mechanisms to contain social conflict and ensure buy in. He noted quite accurately, that “the case for democracy is not that it prevents tension, but that open discussion creates a healthier society than is achieved by suppression, and the diffusion of responsibility diffuses conflict.”
Scholars interpreting his work such as Ralph Premdas, has therefore believed that for Lewis, this “culture built the institutional pillars of entrenched minority rights and opposition parties as being vital to the legitimacy as well as vibrancy of the political order.” From early on, W. Arthur Lewis, had noted that the Anglo-American democracy and its ingrained built in zero-sum competitive electoral system was ill-suited and incompatible for the third world, particularly with its multiple diverse interests. He famously noted that “politics is what the mathematicians now call a zero-sum game, what I win you lose. You have the wealth, and I have to take it.” This ‘zero-Sum’ and ‘gotchu’ moments that the political sphere has been relegated to was antithetical to the concepts of compromise, bargaining and consensual politics which Lewis believed must be incorporated in decision making to accommodate divergent interests. Lewis was ardent and idealistic, that democracy was not supposed to be focused on the concept of somebody prevailing over someone else, of politics as a zero-sum game, and noted that “words like winning and losing should be banished from the political vocabulary of a plural society.”
Albeit Lewis was writing for pluralistic multi-ethnic societies in West Africa in his famous book ‘Politics of West-Africa’, his normative assessments are equally relevant within the Caribbean, as ethnicities can be replaced with interests. And as a matter of fact, notwithstanding our ‘homogeneity’, there are many competing interests among peoples within the society.
Applying W. Arthur Lewis Today and For Tomorrow
When we apply a Lewisian lens today, it is clear that the electoral system i.e., the first past the post as practiced within Saint Lucia and the wider Commonwealth Caribbean would be antithetical to his concept of democracy, as while he recognised the will of the majority to elect their Governor, he also abhorred the practice that the ‘losing group’ would be annihilated from the decision-making process. For Lewis, the underlying philosophy of the framers, i.e., to ensure strong government would be an anathema to his concept of democracy, as its strength would not be counterbalanced or permit accommodation, compromise and an opportunity for dissenting voices to be part of the decision-making process.
As such, Lewis would abhor that the first past the post system, systematically annihilates Opposition Political parties, as they provide disproportionately large majorities for the winning party, even in circumstances where they have lost the popular vote but win control of the Parliament.
Instead, he would and has possibly favour proportional representation, as it provides a more level playing field which more accurately reflects the voting preferences of the people. Peter A. Jamadar, was therefore on point when he noted that the first past the post system, “regularly and repeatedly fails to create a Parliament in which the image of the feelings of the nation are truly reflected and there is a general tendency to exaggerate the representatives of the largest party and to reduce the smaller ones.” Further, he noted that a “a parliament elected on the basis of proportionality increases the opportunity for third parties or even the opposition by providing the party with legislative seats roughly in accordance with the percentage of votes it wins, and it would also create a representative body which mirrors the distribution of opinion within the electorate.” Professor Cynthia Barrow-Giles is accurate therefore when she suggested that in parliamentary democracy, an electoral system should create a Parliament which reflects the trend of opinion within the electorate.”
The disproportionality of the system has been evident in Barbados in their two most recent elections when the winning party, the Barbados Labour Party led by Hon. Mia Mottley received all 30 seats, or in Grenada during the past terms of Dr. Keith Mitchell. But, closer to home, one must remember the General Elections of 1997, and even most recently in 2021, where the Saint Lucia Labour Party received a 16-1 majority in the house, with the percentage of votes as 60% for the SLP & 35% for the UWP, but with a 94% allocation for the SLP and 5% for the UWP.
When political parties receive such majorities in Parliament, it ostensibly provides what Lewis warned against, i.e., providing a carte blanche to governing parties by virtue of the sheer allocation of seats, intensifying prime ministerial and party dominance, and engendering in terms of both electoral calculations and behaviour in office – intense parochialism and particularism with the end result being as noted by Midget, the legislature in which the governing party enjoys an insurmountable majority and behaves as a rubber stamp in the legislature with the Prime Minister being free to act in a largely unilateral fashion. This is particularly present in our political system, because of the inability of the legislature i.e., the Parliament being able to perform its role as a check and balance over the executive arm of government due to the lack of separation of powers. Parliamentarian as Parliamentary Representative and as Minister!
As such, Lewis would abhor the system, questioning the excessive powers of the Prime Minister but also the reduced role of the Opposition’s as a check and balance, particularly in circumstances in countries like Barbados and Grenada, where have been left without any seats in Parliament, notwithstanding the percentage of votes they have received. As such, their office i.e., the Leader of the Opposition and the wider democracy is rendered paralysed, as they are unable to appoint Senators who can scrutinise legislation, unable to receive their budgetary allocation to engage in programmes and provide support for their constituents, receive a stipend, receive resources for the development of their party relegating them to corporate financing interests, unable to be consulted on key positions in the governance machinery and ensuring that the voices of dissent, which are indispensable to good governance are active and able to register their discontent. For Arthur Lewis, this would be undemocratic, as it meant that the Opposition forces were unable to actively participate in the governance of the country. He has buttressed this point albeit speaking on West Africa, when he noted that “elections truly are a zero-sum game, and those who vote the wrong way are penalised, the roads in their area are left to deteriorate, contracts are placed elsewhere and so on and so forth.” A politician’s approach as noted by Lewis should not be in essence to “capture the government in order to benefit one group at the expense of others.” It is as if Lewis was looking over the Caribbean, while writing about West Africa.
Further, even in circumstances where there was ‘consultation’ Arthur Lewis would shun this fictional exercise, as it was merely ‘informing’ clothing as consultation with the Opposition political forces.
In certain instances, even where there is a legitimate Parliamentary Opposition, which is apposite in Saint Lucia, there are lack of institutional guardrails and mechanisms to ensure that Opposition Political Parties and their representatives receive their fair share of resources from governmental budgets and allocations. As such, the opposition parties and constituents are penalised for voting for opposition representatives through starving of state resources, in the hope that these voters would choose the ruling party in the upcoming elections, as the opposition political parties are unable to represent their constituent interests. On the flip side, opposition political parties, upon assuming office reverse the trend, and even during opposition promise these constituents that their day would soon come.
However, even beyond these institutional shortcomings, Arthur Lewis, would also contend that our narrow application of liberal democracy i.e., the view that government by the people must only make decisions on behalf of the people as opposed to permitting the citizenry to be active participants of the decision-making process was also undemocratic. For Arthur Lewis, those who are potentially affected by particular decisions should have an opportunity to participate in making that decision directly.
Albeit, not in these exact terms, but his views were similar or rather a moderate version of CLR James & Jean Jacques Rosseau, wherein the former believed that representative “government was a farce, as the moment one gives the political party their vote, they begin to represent themselves or their own interests and not the interests of the people. Representative democracy and political parties thus deceived the people as they start to quarrel with each other with all sorts of private and special interests and the interest of the people are lost.” Put another way, CLR James, which I have often quoted is instructive when he lamented in Party Politics and the West Indies, that the “modern political party, whatever its policy or program, the moment it takes hold of any government, whatever its democratic intentions, becomes a system and a method and an organisations which is opposed to the masses of the people.”
For Arthur Lewis therefore, he would be supportive of referenda, and other forms of direct citizen engagement, particularly utilising the proliferation of technology, which albeit has not been utilised effectively, but has made it possible for ordinary citizens to have an input into governmental decisions. The advances in communications and technology has made it possible to bring information to the public as quickly as their representatives receive it. Arthur Lewis would contend therefore as noted by Benjamin Barber, that the “technologies can ensure equal access to information, tie individuals and institutions to networks that will make real participatory discussion and debate possible across great distances and engage in artificial townhall meetings across demographics and populations on particular issues.”
In our context, democracy through the lens of Lewis is not limited to merely informing citizens of governmental decisions by posting sporadically on social media, muting and ignoring their comments because they may be too ‘crude’, merely live airing of Parliamentary debates on select channels, proliferation of talk shows and call-in programmes, town hall-meetings, among other forms of participation. Instead, it is maximising the use of these platforms to engage, consult and actively solicit the participation of citizens.
When last or ever has a Government consulted with ordinary people via technology on a Bill being brought before Parliament, or the Annual Budget? Is it that these major decisions are solely the ambit of technocrats and special interests’ groups who seem to be the only ones who have a stake in governance? Or better yet, when last have you seen a Government consult and actively engage citizens in a town-hall meeting, which is not limited to members of Parliament talking to supporters as opposed to with them? A genuine case can be made therefore as noted by Dr. Tennyson Joseph, in his work CLR James and the 21st Century Caribbean, for example for the popular call-in programmes to be used more fundamentally as mechanisms for genuine public participation in decision making rather than as entertainment talk shops, or as fodder for popularity ratings. And if the privileged argument is that the ‘ordinary people must be further educated’ to be actively engaged, then not only is that argument untenable, as who feels it knows it, but that there has been a continuation of the lessening of the gap between educated and uneducated as a prerequisite for engaging in one’s democracy.
Arthur Lewis would therefore be supportive of the view that our democracies must maximise the internet platforms such as Zoom, Skype, Facebook, WhatsApp and even the most basic forms of the radio talk shows which have now created mechanisms for mass meetings and decision-making procedures and processes which can result in moving beyond the closed and exclusive parliaments which have been the domain of the specially chosen. Further, democracy in the lens of Lewis would also embrace the view that technology has allowed for new voting mechanisms on particular issues, direct people participation, reformation and transformation in local government, plebiscites and direct decision making which have not been considered in the Caribbean due to the obsession with liberal democracy.
For W. Arthur Lewis, the genesis of this problem is that the nascent Caribbean states such as Saint Lucia, and countries in West Africa were not formed and crystallised in a democratic tradition, such that he condemns the political class at the turn of independence for inheriting from the colonial masters a political system that is ill-suited to the circumstances of Saint Lucia. Arthur Lewis was keen on noting that the weaknesses of this democratic tradition was not unique to Africa but was shared by all states facing the difficulties of building new institutions and move beyond their horrific, oppressive and authoritarian past.
Arthur Lewis, unlike the Fathers of their nations, Sir Eric Williams, and Alexander Bustamante, did not believe that because the British Constitution was good for Britain, it meant that it was good for us in the Caribbean. Closer to home, Sir John’s view at the turn of Independence in his independence speech, of our immediate alliance and natural affinity to the West, such that we gladly inherited the political system, could definitely be seen at odds with Arthur Lewis’s view. Instead, Arthur Lewis in his democratic model for plural societies, which has been called ‘consociational democracy’ by Lijphart was concerned with surpassing the inherent limitations of British or European democratic prescriptions and traditions. It is this same philosophical view of consensus building which advanced Lewis’s ardent call for a Federation.
Arthur Lewis would therefore be disappointed that our states, even after important exercises of Constitutional Reform, have not altered the basic structure of the political system in order to make it more democratic and reflective of the needs of our people. Again, he would lay blame at the feet of the political class, who ultimately rejected the hybrid political model suggested by the Constitutional Reform Commission, which would ensure that members of the House of Assembly would not be members of Cabinet, except the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, as they would have to resign upon immediately being nominated by the House for Ministerial positions. Arthur Lewis would have been pleased that special Parliamentary Committees should be created to oversee the executive arm of Government, with the legislature having a more profound role to oversee Government ministries, departments, agencies and service commissions.
Even if Arthur Lewis has been seen as a pragmatist and reformist, I’m certain that on this point he would agree with Bob Marley that ‘total destruction is the only solution.’ Further, he would agonise that the British democracy has further deepened their democracy by discontinuing some of the more undemocratic traditions within Westminster while we [our political leaders] still follow them like ‘Westminster choir boys’ as suggested by Mighty Gabby. Further, even the ‘best practices’ of Westminster, such as Individual Ministerial Responsibility have been sidestepped and ignored by our political elite. Instead, we see instances of democratic renewal within the United Kingdom, as political instability.
It is again perhaps why CLR James had warned us that “we should not take too seriously our claims of being a democratic society, beyond free, fair and integrity-based elections, because the crude authoritarianism on the part of leadership, were habits formed and learnt in the plantation slavery and the current age demands the careful nurturing of new democratic instincts.” James noted that, “the greatest danger in the whole of the West Indies is that no class in the islands has ever been able to make the conception of democracy an integral part of their existence, and the experience of upper and lower classes in the West Indies was the tradition of power and obedience or terrified silence or rebellion.”
Our exercises have therefore ignored the low hanging fruits and constant calls from the people for a system that does among other things; agitate for Republicanism by removing the vestiges of colonialism through the Governor General as the local representative of the King in Saint Lucia, reduce the significant powers of the Prime Minister as it creates autocratic government, create a system where there is ‘genuine’ separation of powers as opposed to a fusion of powers, introduction of a robust local government system to encourage greater public participation in the democratic process, ensure fixed terms for political leaders, fixed dates for elections, revisit the mechanisms utilised to select parliamentary representatives and Senators, abolish the first-past-the-post electoral system, address corruption and lack of accountability of elected and public officials and address the doubts about the effectiveness and independence of the judiciary. These would be important in Arthur Lewis’s lens of democracy and must be put back on the table if we are to honour his legacy.
For us in Saint Lucia, W. Arthur Lewis, because he was a committed regionalist, as seen in his work for a Federation, scholarly work on the region and more importantly his positions held at the UWI and CDB, would have supported our transition to the Caribbean Court of Justice, jettisoning the British Privy Council. Because he was also a democrat, he may have wanted to see the people have a greater say in the decision, through a referendum or in lieu of, greater consultation and engagement on the particular decision. The consultation and engagement would ensure that the people who are to benefit from the particular decision would be acutely aware of the rationale, nature and effect.
Arthur Lewis was also unrelenting in his view that the persons within the society with specialised knowledge, relevant training and expertise should engage in debates and solutions on public issues. He noted in 1983, that “good government being dependent on the existence of a well-informed and articulate public opinion.” As such, Arthur Lewis would agonise over the comatose state of public debate in Saint Lucia, such that, while a plethora of issues face our country, there seems to be a disquieting and chilling effect, among those with the specialised knowledge. There seems to be a lessening of public scholarship, reduction of highly important debates to partisan taglines and rhetoric, control of important conversations by fringe media outlets, lessening of the important role of the media as the fourth estate, and the ever-constant inner fears of victimisation and nepotism in circumstances where these individuals engage in debate. Arthur Lewis, albeit opining on West Africa, which is applicable in the Caribbean, suggested one of the reasons is that there has been suppression of independent criticism by individuals and other groups outside the political parties.
Arthur Lewis would also be concerned at the comatose state of civil society, who above all else should be critical part of the conversation of national development, in their respective areas of expertise. He would understand however that there continues to be institutional challenges facing these agencies, including but not limited to, lack of capacity, lack of financing, among others. But, more importantly, for a long time, there seems to be a lack of a coordinated approach to the active engagement of civil society, in order to listen and actively factor in their views and perspectives on the development of Saint Lucia. Arthur Lewis would be insistent that we transcend the engagement of civil society in silos, and only when a policy on the respective interest has arisen. Even in these instances, it may not be done. But Arthur Lewis would be keen on creating a ‘social partnership’ which brings together all of civil society in order to contribute towards good governance, while assisting in reducing their vulnerabilities.
As we reflect on the legacies of W. Arthur Lewis, it would be important for our country to pay homage to his contributions and underlying philosophies which are aimed at deepening our democracy. If we are to honour his legacy, there must be as he once said, “a fundamental change in the political philosophy of those who wield power.”
