Recess Reflections '22 - On Respectability Politics and Their Impact on St. Maarten

Author's Note: Recess Reflections is going to be a weekly series (postings on Thursdays) throughout the 2022 Parliamentary recess, which is six weeks long. It will cover a variety of topics regarding the political, financial, socio-economic and geopolitical situations on St. Maarten. It is also a challenge to myself, to write my thoughts in long-form more often. With this latest in the series, I hope you're enjoying the journey so far!

Being one of the "new kids on the block" in Sint Maarten politics, you tend to hear criticisms about yourself that you wouldn't hear as a regular civilian. A recent mention, and the motivation behind this week's reflection, is that my online posts regarding my experience, views and outlook on the direction of Sint Maarten (whether on Facebook or Twitter) have been "bullying," especially towards the government. I find this statement interesting, as my tone on how I've criticized the workings of the country has been the same both in person and across social media, prior to and since being elected. I'm pretty straightforward and express my insights to the best of my ability so that all persons are able to comprehend. Sometimes, this can come across in a very sarcastic “well, duh” manner, and I’m fully cognizant of this. I’ve never debased myself to personal attacks, like many in our Parliament and Government apparatus. I prefer to focus on someone’s professional performance, and their actions within that capacity. Somehow, but not unsurprisingly, that is bothersome to many. Then it dawned on me. 

Culturally, it is expected that we must wrap our critiques of those in higher positions in a nice bow, to temper criticism with a “but they did this one minor thing right.” This is akin to the Feedback Sandwich, the management training that those who have completed such a trajectory receive. The concept of the Feedback Sandwich is that you start off an employee evaluation or conversation with a positive statement (“You’ve done really well at A”), mention and discuss the negative (“you were late completing B three times last week”) and then ending on a positive (“I see you’re always willing to improve and we need more of that around here”). In private sector especially, this may or may not work.

But St. Maarten has, consistently, applied this “yes, but” approach to governance and turned it into an excuse-pill. Anyone who deviates from embracing this excuse-pill is labeled as a bully or as having some kind of ulterior motive for raising the questions and concerns they have. I don’t blame them; in the past, politicians have typically cast aspersions on their colleagues because they desperately wanted to be the ones benefiting from the status quo. It’s only natural to believe that every new kid on the block wants the same. Alas: I do not. 

I’m here to tell you that the decades-old tradition of sugar-coating our criticisms is the reason why we are here today. Respectability politics is the term that describes this behavior.  Dictionary.com defines this as a set of beliefs holding that conformity to prescribe to mainstream standards of appearance and behavior will protect a person who is part of a marginalized group, especially a Black person, from prejudices and systemic injustices. It is comical to see that the same people that are wanting me to conform to this specific type of behavior, in attempts to censor my words, are the ones who are always speaking about changing the status quo. 

The conflicting messaging that is presented here is the reason why much hasn't changed for the betterment of the people and the country, why we have not evolved. If we are pushing to change the status quo on one side but must only express certain ideologies in a certain format, we are creating an environment that breeds chaos. I believe, and have said, that respectability politics gets us nowhere. Historical game changers were the ones who challenged people regularly to learn, criticize and grow. If we aren't allowing ourselves to grow and are quick to state that every single criticism that is mentioned is from people who do not want to see you change the status quo, are you actually changing it or are you simply repackaging the same old story in new gift wrapping? Manipulating circumstances so that you appear to be changing things but are actually benefiting from a new version of the status quo?

The "yes, but" approach to governance has been the norm for us. I once said at a forum of young professionals from both sides of the island that "it seems we are constantly bargaining with our officials, trying to balance the bad with the good. But the impact of the bad will always overshadow the good." And that remains true. Make-up only covers the bruises temporarily, as they say.

We have to begin to say the hard parts out-loud.

Respectability politics is performed in a way where you must confine yourself to a certain box, but the person above you can do whatever you want. This is seen regularly on St. Maarten, as many of the same persons that would reference me as a bully would be quick to spew hateful bigoted messaging to anyone they think is "overstepping" their boundaries. A clear example of such was during the Government Press Briefing of Wednesday, 13 July 2022, where the Minister of VROMI and a journalist had a back and forth during the questioning period. Supporters of the minister were quick to question how dare the journalist question the minister, as it is not his job, incorrectly stated that the journalist was being unprofessional, then proceeded to leave a series of xenophobic comments under the briefing. The comments implied that the journalist could not and should not do his job because of his Haitian ancestry. The right thing to do would have been to denounce such statements as being anti-Sint Maarten and counter to the type of country we want to build. We have to begin to say the hard parts out-loud.

Yet somehow, they claim that they are changing the status quo. Really?

Make no mistake: respectability politics will always be used as a tool to oppress persons who are truly ready and willing to question and radically change the systems they live in. It is a tool that will be used by any ethnicity, religion, and gender. It doesn't bring any valuable change and it paints a pretty picture of an ugly reality to those who aren't aware. One does not have to be nasty in your remarks about the people you criticize, but never let them guilt-trip you into thinking that what you're feeling is wrong just because you presented it to them in a way that hurt their ego.

And if you, the one who is ego-hurt, are pressed about it, you have the same options we all do when navigating the Internet: unfollow and block.