Many Americans are unaware that Puerto Rico is a commonwealth of the United States. That status may soon change, however.
Photo: Oscalito
The status of Puerto Rico is one of the most complicated, confusing, and fascinating political arrangements in the world.
Puerto Rico, formerly a Spanish colony, was ceded to the United States in 1898 as a consequence of the Spanish American War. For several decades afterward, the status and identity of the island were in limbo as the United States and islanders attempted to arrive at a viable political arrangement that would satisfy the interests of both parties.
The result was a strange compromise in which Puerto Rico became a commonwealth, or “free associated state,” of the US. The status granted some–but not all–of the benefits of US citizenship and left many Puerto Ricans wondering what, exactly, being a commonwealth meant.
It’s an issue that remains the focal point of politics on the island, with referenda being held every few years to determine what islanders want their status to be. There are those who favor statehood, others who favor complete independence, and still others who would be content to let the commonwealth continue as is.
Yesterday, the Associated Press reported that the US House of Representatives approved the island’s proposal to allow Puerto Ricans to hold a new referendum to vote on the island’s political future. Under the proposal, titled the Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2009,
“[v]oters would choose between keeping the island’s commonwealth status, adopted in 1952, or to opt for something different. In the latter case, a second plebiscite would let them decide whether they wanted statehood, independence or independence with a loose association to the United States.”
Though no date has been scheduled for a vote, anxiety about the potential referendum is already high. The last referendum was held in 1998.
About the Author
More By This Author
- Matador Meets the New York Times & The Sunday Telegraph (5 comments)
- Meet a Matador Editor: Carlo Alcos (15 comments)
- Anna Brones Launches a Social Media Start-Up (8 comments)
Related Posts
4 Comments... join the discussion!
-
-
It only takes one referendum to change things. Which means it has to happen sooner or later, given that they hold these votes every 10 years or so. There’ll come one plebiscite when one side or the other has a leg up for some reason…and there you go.
What I’m wondering is what exactly “independence with a loose association to the United States” is.
↵ -
There were plebiscites (organized by Puerto Rico itself) in 1993 and 1998. At that time there was no commitment from the U.S. to pay attention to the results. That’s the one positive thing now: perhaps this becomes a “binding” vote, with Washington DC honoring the results. (Though I’m sure any statehood plan would need to be voted by the legislative branch eventually.)
The bigger problem is what Hal has pointed out: what do these options really mean? In the 1990s (under a pro-statehood governor), the government wanted to eliminate the ambiguous options. The vote would (and should) have been statehood vs independence. But one of the two big political parties (the PPD, which is pro-Commonwealth) managed to lobby for a third (ambiguous, in my opinion) option. It has been called “commonwealth” since the 1950s and some have recently been calling for a “republica asociada” (independence with a loose association). In 1998 it was simply “none of the above”, because that party (PPD) didn’t agree with the definitions that were on the ballot. They won. Go figure.
Then when the PPD was in power (8 years) there was little discussion on the status, of course. Now that the pro-statehood party is back in power, the discussion is reborn.
But the “commonwealth” is an obsolete status, a product of the 1950s and not a true option today. The “republica asociada” is a made up term, mostly undefined until today, which is now taking away votes (because it is a gray area between commonwealth and full independence). Statehood probably won’t be accepted by the US without an overwhelming vote for it (over 90% in the case of Hawaii, which is an island with a different culture, just like Puerto Rico). Independence has never reached 10% in any vote.
Now the vote is structured differently, which is a strategy by the current government (pro-statehood) to FORCE out the commonwealth option and FORCE change. So the first vote will ask for “current” vs “different”. In other words, this pits the pro-Commonwealth people vs EVERYONE ELSE (the statehood people + the independence people + the ‘republica asociada’ people). It seems obvious that the three groups will band together, because then, on the second vote, Commonwealth won’t be an option.
The interesting thing to watch is what the PPD (the pro-Commonwealth party) does in that second vote. Will it push towards independence (the original wish of its founding father)? Towards “republica asociada” (and perhaps define it in the process)? Will some jump into the statehood camp?
I really can’t wait until the Commonwealth option is killed. It only leads to conformism: “things are ok now, so why change?”
↵ -
Ernesto- Excellent points, especially your mention of the fact that the plebiscite has never really meant anything (at least with respect to the US). You’re right: the House’s “endorsement” of the new plebiscite seems significant. And one has to wonder whether “independence with a loose association” is really just a code word for modified commonwealth.
I think what might make the next plebiscite particularly interesting is the recent emergence of a new political party during the last gubernatorial election. This party is advocating a pro-Puerto Rico platform, yet refuses to take a definitive stance on PR’s status, which has always really been the focal point of each of the parties here. In any case, I’m interested in continuing to follow this story!
↵
