SINCE MY ARTICLE Whose Company? – which was written in response to what I felt was a false nationalism shaping public responses to the news that Barbadian drinks company, Banks Holdings Limited (BHL), was facing the possibility of takeover by a Latin American company Ambev – much has happened to confirm my warning against a property-less public assuming ownership claims in companies in which they have no stake.
The main thrust of my argument was that under the condition of globalisation, and in a context where there is “universal” commitment to capitalism, larger and larger slices of “domestic” economic life will be controlled by global concerns.
The alternative to this would be to pursue policies of “economic nationalism” and temper the “free market”, a course of action which very few are willing to take, including those shedding tears about the potential Ambev takeover.
My approach therefore has been to express “unconcern” about the loss of “Barbados’ beer”, since this is the natural behaviour of global capitalism. Further, Caribbean capitalism has never been informed by notions of economic democracy or the principle of “widespread small shareholder ownership” among the majority. Remember Hilary Beckles and the “Mutual Affair”?
Instead, Caribbean capitalism has always acted out its historical origins of existing for a “privileged” minority only. This is why the “hucksters and higglers” are not seen as entrepreneurs, although they best fit the definition of the term.
In contrast to my perspective on the BHL-Ansa-Ambev issue, other commentators have focused largely on the absence of a shareholding culture in Barbados, or the absence of “risk-taking” among Barbadian invertors, which from their perspective, has increased the likelihood of “foreign takeovers”.
They also see weaknesses in the Barbados Stock Exchange, the financial regulations authorities, the poor business “knowledge and culture” of the people, but not in the particular mode of insertion of the Caribbean into global capitalism.
It is, however, the historical evolution of Caribbean capitalism which has determined who the local winners are, and more importantly, who are the losers. The fault, dear Brutus, is in our history, not in our selves.
Thus, when the news broke about potential buyer Ansa McAl’s concern that BHL had not been open with shareholders about a “poison pill” agreement which privileged Ambev in any future takeover, this fitted perfectly naturally within the historical modes of behaviour of Caribbean capital. The “success” of a few directors on the BHL board can also be understood within this perspective.
However, until such time that there is a qualitative shift in the existing social relations of the society, the dream of a democratised capitalism, in which a large number of empowered, knowledgeable investors are participating freely and equally in the buying of shares and in “ownership” of domestic companies, shall remain but a fleeting illusion, to be pursued but never attained. Forward ever.
• Tennyson Joseph is a political scientist at the University of the West Indies, Cave HillCampus, specialising in regional affairs. Email [email protected].
