Westminster in Small States: Comparing the Caribbean and Pacific Experience

Author

Taylor & Francis

Release Date

Monday, May 2, 2016

Share

Small states, and those in the Caribbean and Pacific regions in particular, are among the most stubbornly and disproportionally democratic countries in the world. And yet, they are rarely studied comparatively, despite sharing seemingly obvious similarities – aside from being small island states with developing economies they also tend to share a British colonial heritage and Westminster-inspired political institutions. This omission is all the more puzzling if we consider that the group does not conform to the standard battery of explanations developed by democratization theorists.

To pave the way for further research across these two regions, this article provides a synoptic comparison of the process of democratization in Caribbean and Pacific small states. We highlight important similarities and differences that stem from the interaction between formal institutions and informal practices. We conclude by reiterating the benefits for scholars of democratization by looking at these significant yet hitherto rarely compared cases.

Introduction

Democracy promotion has become an important feature of international relations over recent decades, as evidenced by the influence of rankings like Freedom House and the flow of aid money to organisations that undertake this type of work. For supporters, democracy is a universal good whose instrumental virtues are illustrated by the attainment of ‘democratic peace’, among other things (for discussion see Burnell & Intro: Schlumberger, 2010). For critics, interventions undermine state sovereignty and indigenous efforts to maintain political order (for discussion see Burnell & Schlumberger, 2010). Putting these normative discussions aside, the agenda rests on attempts to explain why certain countries and regions are more likely than others to be democratic. The world’s smallest states, many of which are located in the Caribbean and Pacific regions, represent an anomaly for democratization scholars.1 On the one hand, Freedom House ranks them as stubbornly and disproportionately democratic (Anckar, 2002; Diamond & Tsalik, 1999; Ott, 2000; Srebrnik, 2004). On the other hand, as a group they do not conform to the standard preconditions – economic growth, educated middle class, social homogeneity etc. (see Barro, 1999; Przeworski, Alvarez, Cheibub, & Limongi, 2000) – typically identified by modernization theory as necessary for sustained democratic transition (Veenendaal & Corbett, 2015).

To read the full paper CLICK HERE

Latest Stories