Youth beyond seats at tables

I suspect few others noticed, before now, that the sharpest metaphor delivered at the 51st Caricom Summit in Saint Lucia came not from one of the political veterans, but from an eloquent participant in a largely overlooked Youth Dialogue.

I had been in active pursuit of alternative material for today’s dispatch - outside of the vexing, familiar themes of human rights blindness, racism, abundantly resourced online disinformation, steelpan disrespect, and overall official folly. They are all adequately covered elsewhere on today’s pages, I am certain.

Sunday, we had more than a small hint of what to expect when young Saint Lucian scholar, Rahym Augustin-Joseph, called on Caricom leaders to treat young people as partners in shaping the region's future rather than as passive beneficiaries of policy.

Then, on Monday, we heard Shakiah Lewis of Turks and Caicos at the dialogue. A teacher who serves as dean of the Caricom Youth Ambassador Programme, she delivered the telling line.

Emerging leaders, she argued, need to move from “asking for a seat at the table to building the table.”

I had followed much of what had transpired the previous afternoon at the launch of the summit and tried to capture as much as I subsequently could from regional media dispatches. Augustin-Joseph’s address continued to resonate as lasting memory not readily engraved in news pages.

While official attention shifted to Monday's contentious regional retreat and the plenary that followed, Lewis offered an arresting vision of constructive youth defiance.

Shakia Lewis, Turks and Caicos

Strengthening the youth voice, she argued, “isn't just about giving young people a microphone.”

She called for a shift from advocacy to executive power instead of “youth panels” whose recommendations are filed and forgotten. Ministries and regional bodies, she added, should embed young leaders directly into the work itself, with a real say when policy is being drafted.

Chiming in supportively was 23-year-old, Bahamas-born Guyanese Caricom Youth Ambassador and journalist, Shaquawn Gill.

Shaquawn Gill of Guyana

“When we establish boards and we establish committees, organising committees and special committees,” he argued, “it must be in every legislative effort that there is a youth representative as part of any conversation that we have.”

“It must not be a tokenistic matter,” he said. “It must not happen because we have to fulfil this responsibility and we want to make it look nice that young people are in the room, but it has to be about a specific and dedicated effort to make sure that (they) are involved.”

Other contributors included Sherwyn Stephenson (no youngster), Caricom Programme Manager, Crime and Security, Moesha Allen of Jamaica, and moderator Crista St Ange of Saint Lucia.

True, some of what was said is challenged by a few facts. Guyana President, Irfaan Ali, first entered parliament at the age of 26 and he is currently the youngest Caricom leader at 46. Dickon Mitchell of Grenada is not far ahead at 48 and Terrence Drew of St Kitts and Nevis is 49.

More than "giving young people a microphone"

So yes, younger people have reached positions of leadership. Sat at the head of the table. Roosevelt Skerrit of Dominica became Prime Minister in 2004 at 31.

So, it appears that the youth challenge does not occur purely as a concern regarding people and their ages but rather involves entrenched systems and a modus operandi that require dismantling. This has clearly not been our experience.

The panellists, however, appeared to agree that a distinction needs to be made between being heard and being empowered at a fundamental level.

The sluggish regional pursuit of digitalisation – for which young experts are uniquely positioned to lead – was cited as a glaring example of a refusal to part from tirelessly-navigated trails.

“The question is not whether or not young people are ready to lead,” Allen suggested. “The question is whether the systems are ready to trust, include, and allow for us to take our places rightfully where we belong.”

The picture that emerged from the discussion was that this generation is not waiting for permission. As Lewis put it, the young "will not wait for a formal invitation. They will not wait in the back of the line. They will start to create their own lines.”

This, in a sense, is what is already happening through the embrace of digital platforms for alternative sources and routes to information and informal instruction by the young.

Perhaps the region will finally discover that re-modelling the table matters more than simply finding another seat.

Our Haitian test

The resolution on Haiti adopted at the OAS General Assembly two weeks ago may eventually be remembered less for what it promises than for what it quietly acknowledges: that Haiti’s crisis has become inseparable from the future stability of the wider hemisphere.

Such broader recognition is long overdue, even as Caricom appears to have intimately engaged the journey for some time now. This is particularly so when it comes to nearby member states Jamaica and The Bahamas. But visa requirements for Haitians remain intact in a majority of Caricom states.

For many years, responses in the wider Americas have oscillated between expressions of solidarity and carefully managed distance, including complete silence.

Haiti has often been treated as a country somehow detached from the mainstream, despite sharing a history of colonial exploitation, economic vulnerability, and democratic fragility.

The latest OAS resolution abandons some of that pretence. For example, it accepts that Haiti’s multidimensional crisis cannot be addressed through security measures alone.

The OAS hosted its 56th General Assembly in Panama

Instead, it links security, political consensus, humanitarian relief, institutional reform, and long-term development within a single hemispheric framework while insisting that these efforts remain Haitian-led and respectful of national sovereignty. Those are not insignificant departures, provided the declarants are serious.

For Caribbean governments, the resolution also reflects responsibilities extending beyond diplomatic endorsement and posturing, though we too have had our share of negligence and/or incapacity.

Caricom has already assumed a prominent, if not under-resourced role in the current period. It continues to participate in the Standing Group of Partners overseeing the Gang Suppression Force while facilitating political dialogue through its Eminent Persons Group while working alongside the OAS and United Nations on the Haiti Roadmap for Stability and Peace.

This represents perhaps the most sustained, multi-dimensional, regional engagement with Haiti in decades. Yet, as hemispheric representatives conceded in Panama, the implications reach beyond Port-au-Prince.

If the hemisphere accepts that organised criminal violence can overwhelm a neighbouring state without a broad, coordinated response, it effectively lowers the threshold for similar instability elsewhere.

The OAS Secretary General, Albert Ramdin, is strong on that point as no country in the hemisphere remains untouched by the hand of transnational crime. This is manifest in domestic turmoil and instability.

Firearms trafficking, illicit financial flows, irregular migration, human trafficking, and transnational organised crime recognise neither maritime boundaries nor diplomatic sensitivities.

The resolution therefore serves another purpose. It is not simply about rescuing Haiti. It is about strengthening regional resilience before comparable pressures become unmanageable elsewhere. There is evidence this is already emerging, if not already the established case.

"Haitian Bus" - Wesley Gibbings watercolour

Equally significant is the resolution’s insistence that elections, while essential, are not sufficient. Democratic legitimacy requires security, functioning institutions, credible electoral administration, humanitarian relief, and broad political consensus. It rejects the comforting fiction that simply holding a vote automatically restores democracy.

That lesson deserves attention throughout the OAS landscape and perhaps beyond.

Across the region, political polarisation is deepening. Public confidence in institutions is weakening. Criminal organisations continue expanding their influence. Economic pressures increasingly test governmental capacity. And states have not always acted in accordance with accepted international human rights norms.

These may differ in degree from Haiti’s circumstances, but not necessarily in direction.

There is also another subtle message within the OAS resolution. It repeatedly emphasises transparency, coordination and accountability - not only for Haiti itself but also for the international agencies intervening there. It demands regular reporting, institutional review, and clearer coordination among the OAS, the United Nations, Caricom, and international partners.

This point represents an implicit admission that previous international interventions have often suffered from duplication, fragmented mandates, an absence of cultural awareness, and inadequate oversight.

People of the Caribbean should welcome that honesty.

Too often, external assistance has arrived in Haiti accompanied by competing priorities and short political attention spans. Sustainable recovery requires coherence rather than episodic interventions responding to successive emergencies.

Ultimately, this resolution asks governments to think differently about regional security itself.

Security can no longer be confined to military or policing responses. It now encompasses functioning democratic institutions, social inclusion, economic opportunity, humanitarian protection, and effective governance. Those elements reinforce one another.

Whether the new roadmap succeeds remains uncertain. Haiti has witnessed many ambitious international commitments before.

But failure this time would not belong to Haiti alone.