I find it difficult to understand the reasoning behind concerns that the Supreme Court decision of October 18, 2007, a decision that affirmed the rights of Mayan communities to own their land according to the customs of their culture, is a negative for non-Mayan Belizeans. I can see the government trying to create that impression because that decision has thrown a big monkey wrench into their plans to sell off all the resources of the Toledo District, but I don’t see the decision being a threat to my rights or to the rights of any non-Mayan Belizean.
“Balkanization” is a word that owes its existence to the politics of that part of Europe.
Ethnicity, nationalism and religion have long been an explosive mixture among the Serbs, Croats, Albanians and others who live together – often unwillingly – in the geographical area called the Balkan Peninsula. Each group constantly tries to dominate and/or eliminate the others when the opportunity arises. Similar rivalries occur everywhere, but the Balkans can probably claim some kind of “prize” for the high level of intensity that fuels their rivalries.
The assassination of the Austrian Archduke King Ferdinand by a Serb nationalist in 1914 triggered off World War I. During World War II, fighting with each other continued right alongside the resistance against the German occupation. The early 1990’s ushered in a vicious round of ethnic and religious warfare replete with atrocities that brought back memories of Hitler’s “final solution.” It took the combined efforts of the United Nations and NATO to finally force an uneasy truce between the combatants before the conflagration spread throughout Europe – again.
The Balkans have been so volatile that the term “Balkanization” – the sacrifice of national interests in favor of ethnic interests that can and has resulted in the breakup of nations, and “ethnic cleansing” – genocide along ethnic lines, has now become a part of the English language.
“Balkanization” as a result of that Supreme Court decision can only occur if the state, the Government of Belize, is the “legitimate” representative of all Belizeans. This government claims “legitimate” status because it was elected in 2003 to a second five-year term, but the twenty-six years of Belizean independence in the Belizean version of the Westminster system have made us realize that once a government is elected, it can simply ignore its manifesto, doing whatever it wants to do regardless of its pre-election promises to the voters. Can a government that does this, and few Belizeans would deny that this present government has ignored more promises than any other government during the history of our very short period of independence, represent itself as “legitimate?”
That depends on your frames of reference. If the criteria for defining “legitimate” are limited strictly to whether elections were “free and fair,” – this means that election fraud and voter intimidation were not factors in that election – then this government can claim “legitimacy” within the context of that narrow frame of reference. If the criteria are broadened to include, for example: whether that government has honored its campaign promises, whether that government has respected and upheld the Constitution and, whether that government has seriously considered the wishes of large segments of the population as its term progressed, then the answer might be very different!
Given that the broad criteria appear to be a more accurate indicator of “legitimacy,” what Henry Gordon has written in his article about “Balkanization” in the November 11th Amandala; “whenever anyone takes the State to Court, since the State also represents-‘the rest of us’, any such person is in effect taking ‘the rest of us’ to Court,” doesn’t appear to fit within that broader and more accurate frame of reference. The square peg just won’t fit in the round hole!
Mr. Gordon continues as follows, “And, after all, the State did not consult with ‘the rest of us’ either; yet it has the responsibility to defend the rights of ‘the rest of us’.” And that’s the whole point! This version of the State never consults with the Mayans or “the rest of us.” This government doesn’t defend people’s rights; it takes away people’s rights! This government has not respected nor upheld the Constitution or many of the laws that are subordinate to, but in harmony with, that Constitution.
When the Constitution or a law conflicts with the “needs” of special interests to ensure that they will be allowed to operate without any legal restrictions to protect the people from their greed, it is simply ignored! And, this government doesn’t give a damn about the wishes of the people.
The only time there is even a pretense of “listening to the people” is when dissatisfaction becomes so open and vocal that it becomes prudent to appear to be listening in order to buy time. Then, government tries to “fly below the radar” while quietly proceeding with its original intent!
We have all been victimized by the State, no matter what our ethnicity and therefore, the decision of October 18, 2007 is a positive one for all of us! The Mayan people are not the enemies of other Belizeans; the State, that same State that should have been defending all of our rights but which has used us as a means for self-enrichment instead, has at times become the enemy of all of us; all except that tiny minority that have profited unjustly from government policies!
I don’t see why we should be worried about the problems that the new landscape created by the Court decision will cause for those “investors” who signed contracts with the government prior to the decision being rendered. Sure, there should be continuity in contracts as governments come and go and Court decisions obviously can change conditions, but this would only apply if we were referring to the conditions created by a level playing field and to real investors, not to some of the “investors” that are attracted by the kind of “deals” that this government offers on playing fields that are obviously anything but level. Legitimate investors shouldn’t have any problems incorporating Mayan rights into their business plans. Besides, the government has been well aware of this pending case and its possible ramifications.
The Mayans have been challenging the Government’s land policies in the Toledo District through first attempts at negotiation and then through the courts for ten years! Government conducted what could only be called a weak defense of its claim that the way Mayan land was shared by an entire community, instead of being owned by individuals as it is in European culture, was incompatible with the needs of a modern state. The defense was so weak that it drew notice from the Chief Justice, who actually instructed Government to do better!
Perhaps Government was not enthusiastic about appearing in front of the international media as opponents of Native American rights. Government has a responsibility to disclose facts like these to prospective investors, and those same investors also have a responsibility to exercise due diligence as to the condition of the playing field before they choose to play on that field, not after.
The Mayans haven’t been the ones who have victimized legit investors by inviting them in and then changing the rules in mid-stream. Certain elements inside this very same government have hung many of those investors out to dry. When businessmen have invested significant amounts of money into a venture, they can easily be squeezed without mercy by endless waits for the permits and other documents that they must have in order to operate.
Of course, some of these businessmen are partners in their own demise. Lured by “offers” that should have been recognized for what they really were – if it looks too good to be true it probably is – they find out what they are dealing with when it’s too late and nobody should feel too sorry for them. Others know what they are dealing with from the get go and they have no trouble at all getting started. These guys are invariably exploiters who are “investors” in name only, and what they get from government is protection, protection from laws that are supposed to protect Belizeans from exploitation.
These so-called “investors” have nothing to offer in the way of national development, and if the power the Mayans have acquired over their land discourages people like these from trying to make deals in Belize, well then the Mayans have done “the rest of us” a huge favor! Look at what is happening to the Mennonites in Spanish Lookout! BNE employees walk right into their front yards, knock down fences and generally behave as though they are the owners of the land, regardless of any existing titles! They have apparently received assurances from somewhere that they have the right to operate this way! It looks as though the Mennonites had better seek relief from the Supreme Court too, using the decision of October 18, 2007 as precedent.
If anything, the Mayans may have succeeded in slowing Belize’s headlong rush down the path towards becoming a “banana republic.” The “rest of us” might take this opportunity that we have been given to learn some valuable lessons. The Mayans, long stigmatized in some quarters as “simple people”, the poorest in Belize, have managed so far to resist the kind of attempts to Balkanize them that have worked all too easily on “the rest of us.” They have stuck together and have demonstrated commitment, endurance along with a resolve that appears to be sadly lacking among “the rest of us.” Is it maybe just possible that “the rest of us,” not the Mayans, are the real “simple people” of Belize?