In Defense of Boldness: Allen Chastanet's Call Wasn't Folly—It Was Leadership

 In its June 21 editorial, The Jamaica Gleaner painted St. Lucia’s Opposition Leader Allen Chastanet as a political maverick lost in a “twilight zone” for merely daring to question the effectiveness of CARICOM. But if asking uncomfortable questions that reflect the lived frustrations of many CARICOM member states is “folly,” then perhaps we need more of that so-called madness.

Let’s be honest: CARICOM, for all its noble ideals, has underperformed. Its well-documented “implementation deficit,” glacial pace of integration, and habit of overlooking the concerns of smaller member states are not myths—they are recurring frustrations. Mr. Chastanet, in speaking to fellow OECS leaders, voiced the silent discontent many leaders are too diplomatic—or too fearful—to utter. That is not recklessness. That is leadership.

The Right to Question

The editorial insists that Mr. Chastanet’s question—“Would we be better off negotiating bilateral agreements rather than remaining in CARICOM?”—is dangerous. But is it really? Asking whether CARICOM still works as intended is not the same as calling for its destruction. In fact, it is a necessary question that any responsible leader should be willing to examine—especially given the deepening challenges of regional inequality, climate change, food insecurity, and global political shifts.

Let us not forget that institutions must evolve or risk irrelevance. CARICOM was formed in 1973. Today’s geopolitical landscape, economic dynamics, and youth expectations are not the same. If CARICOM is beyond criticism, then it is already beyond saving.

A Voice for the Marginalized

Mr. Chastanet’s recollection of feeling disrespected and ignored during CARICOM deliberations is not an isolated complaint—it is a reflection of a structural imbalance in the regional bloc. Smaller states like those in the OECS often feel like silent partners in a conversation dominated by the more populous countries. If the voices of smaller members are not being taken seriously, what incentive is there to remain bound to a structure that doesn’t evolve?

Rather than attack the messenger, regional leaders and commentators ought to examine the message. Instead of dismissing Chastanet’s words as irresponsible, the region should ask why he—and many others—feel this way. Ignoring the problem doesn’t make it go away.

The Real Risk: Complacency

The Gleaner rightly points out that CARICOM is

 an “imperfect institution”—but then uses that as a shield against change. That logic is exactly why regionalism has stagnated. If not now, then when is the time to evaluate the usefulness of our institutions? And who better than someone who has sat at the highest levels of CARICOM decision-making to raise those questions?

Let’s also not overlook the irony: the same editorial admits Jamaica once withdrew from the West Indies Federation—yet still feels entitled to scold others for contemplating similar paths. Jamaica, too, knows what it means to question regional alliances when national interest is at stake.

A Wake-Up Call

Far from being a loose cannon, Allen Chastanet is acting as a catalyst for an overdue conversation. The Caribbean doesn’t need cheerleaders for the status quo. It needs leaders unafraid to challenge institutional inertia and spark debate about how we actually move forward—together or otherwise.

So no, Allen Chastanet hasn’t lost his way. He’s just walking a road fewer have the courage to tread.