In this June 11, 2017 file photo, supporters of Puerto Rico’s statehood wave U.S. flags and pro-statehood banners at the New Progressive Party headquarters in San Juan, Puerto Rico. (AP Photo/Carlos Giusti)
SAN JUAN — Opponents of political change often argue that consensus is needed whenever they want to obstruct change. That is why those who oppose Puerto Rico statehood appeal to a mythical “consensus,” even though voters have chosen statehood three times within the past eight years.
This utopian vision of democratic governance requires that solutions to problems must satisfy everyone. However, democracies function through majority or plurality votes and proceed from the fact that whomever wins an election is considered to have a mandate not only to run the government, but also to implement their policies. This, to be sure, is an imperfect system, but it permits democracies to function.
Throughout American history, majority votes and consensus have at many times been in conflict in the admission process of states. For example, several states saw close referendum results in which statehood won by small margins. Some territories even voted against statehood. For example, Wisconsin voters rejected statehood by 75% in 1842.
Interestingly, even after defeat, statehood activists continued to fight for statehood. That work pays off; the historical record shows that once Congress drafts an admission act —where the terms of admission are stated clearly for the people of the new state— an overwhelming majority of voters favors statehood. That is how voters in Wisconsin after rejecting statehood, later supported it with 83% of the vote.
This historical record is important. As we can see, sometimes statehood was rejected by people and statehooders had to make their case anew in order to win their political rights. Being a political process, the admission of states is usually a messy affair. A statehood bid often requires various plebiscites, and efforts to spur action in Congress frequently fail. However, once citizens vote for statehood, statehood eventually happens. If there is insistence.
This is why the discourse on Puerto Rico’s status exclusively as “self-determination” is flawed. Curiously, some groups sabotage legitimate acts of the Puerto Rican people in creating their own state, all in the name of performing an “inclusive process” for all status options, usually in the form of a status assembly where all options are represented.
Some, like Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer, have even argued that Puerto Rico’s vote for statehood merely demonstrates that Puerto Ricans are divided on statehood. This ignores the fact that politics, by nature, is a divided field. This is why majorities or pluralities win; a universal consensus is, in most cases, impossible.
Similar to other states, we can see how the Puerto Rican statehood movement has fought through the years to grow support for statehood. Last Election Day, there was a plebiscite that was not boycotted by any party, with a simple yes or no question on whether Puerto Rico should be a state. Statehood won by an absolute majority. This fact must also be taken together with the understanding that historically, Puerto Ricans have favored permanent union with the United States. The major political parties support the union, and in all plebiscites, there has only been a miniscule margin favoring independence. Moreover, there has never been —as former Puerto Rico Governor Rafael Hernández Colón explained— a community composed of American citizens that separated itself from the Republic.
However, if some in Washington believe the issue is so divisive, I propose the enactment of a federal statehood v. independence plebiscite as a solution. Puerto Ricans, it must be emphasized, have never favored secession. The debate has been more on how union would evolve.
Furthermore, with statehood having won a majority, there is no need for an “inclusive process.” The point is settled locally, and rehashing the issue in an assembly where status options that have little support are represented simply to make activists feel happy is absurd.
Statehood won. We must proceed from that fact. To insinuate the contrary or support other votes for options consistently rejected by Puerto Ricans is to disgrace democracy. Sadly, the view of ignoring Puerto Ricans’ vote for political equality seems to be winning. Statehood has won the battle, but so far it is losing the war. In any case, who counts more? A minority status view for independence seeking to be imposed on a free community of American citizens? Or the vote of Puerto Ricans for equality?
***
Rodney A. Ríos-Rodríguez is an attorney and writer for the Puerto Rico Star Project, a nonprofit organization that advocates statehood for Puerto Rico. Twitter: @rodney_rios95.
[…] latinorebels.com/2021/02/01/consensuspr/ […]
This is totally false, about “statehood” having won three times. Those plebiscites, and they writer should know, were constructed and led by the PNP (Partido Nuevo Progresista). But that is their narrative.
The “consensus” that is needed is a consensus for a way out in a process that represents all the options that Puerto Rico in international law and constitutionally. The PNP thinks they can exclude have of the island Puerto Ricans in that process.
First, as Alberto Medina pointed out in his recent article for Latino Rebels, the most formidable obstacle to statehood is -has always been- the American government. After 123 of not considering statehood desirable -much less necessary- American political actors can always point to this or that factor stemming from Puerto Rican political and electoral scenario. In the end, the unwilling has no deficit of excuses. Second, the Velázquez/AOC Bill is not incompatible with electoral democracy. On the contrary, it relies on it. If Congress passes that bill -some version similar to the current bill- what option does the statehood faction have, but to participate in the process and send members from their ranks to the status convention? Third, the statehood faction has historically contributed to the longevity of colonial status. Barbosa, Martínez Nadal, García Méndez, Ferré, all have died -soon Romero Barceló will die- dreaming of statehood, but were never taken seriously by the powers that be in the empire. Colonialism, a variant of power as domination, has not been altered by 120 years of dashed expectations. Coming from a worldview of powerlessness, the main tactic displayed by the Puerto Rican people and politicians has been claiming decolonization -or, more modestly, additional governing powers- by invoking the moral and democratic principles on which the American polity is supposedly built. That has never worked, of course. The thing is that asymmetry of power yields inertia. The statehood faction has historically been content with the US as the dominant power in a empire-colony relationship, which it has seen as the preamble to reaching their promised land of statehood. That is why Medina urged it to be ethical for once, and “take seriously the idea that the status quo is a moral and political dead-end,” by putting “an expiration date on their demand for statehood and summon the willingness to get up from the table and walk out the door.” It won’t happen, of course, because the statehood movement has never been about courage or self-esteem.