Current Political Status
For the past 115 years
Puerto Rico has been a territory of the United States of America governed and
subject to the provisions of Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the U.S.
Constitution. The territorial clause grants Congress the Power to dispose of and make all needful
Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to
the United States. As an effect, the sovereignty of the people of Puerto Rico
lies in the hands of the United States Congress.
Political Title
There are multiple
ways in which one can refer to Puerto Rico. First of all you have the name of
“territory”, which is politically correct since the island is under the jurisdiction
of the territorial clause of the U.S. Constitution. The term of “territory”,
unlike the other titles with which one could refer to the island, directly
designates and defines a form of status for Puerto Rico. Other than this we
have the “Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto
Rico” (Free Associated State of Puerto Rico, in English) which is the
official name of the island as designated under the Constitution of Puerto
Rico. It is imperative to specify that this “Estado
Libre Asociado” does not define any form of status for island but rather is
the political name for the territory of Puerto Rico. Lastly, some people refer
to the territory as a “commonwealth”. This term is not wrong, Puerto Rico is in
fact proclaimed as a commonwealth at the state level. However, the term
“commonwealth” does not specify any form of political status for the island.
This is proven as Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia also bear
the title of commonwealth in their respective state names.
Current Political Status for “Commonwealthers”
In Puerto Rico there
are two main political parties, the New Progressive Party (PNP, for its acronym
in Spanish) and the Popular Democratic Party (PPD, for its acronym in Spanish).
The PNP is the party that believes that statehood is the best option to resolve
Puerto Rico’s political status problem while the PPD is the party that believes
in maintaining the political status we currently have in the island. For the
members of the Popular Democratic Party, Puerto Rico has a status unique from
any other as it is neither territorial nor colonial. In the minds of the
status-quo supporters, Puerto Rico’s status changed in 1952 with the drafting
of the United States constitution and became a new kind of state, with the same
powers the states have to organize themselves for purposes of local government.
In short, for those who believe in the commonwealth, Puerto Rico has its unique
form of government that is neither territorial nor colonial but has the
potential to stay the same and become better through amendments. Lastly, they
believe that the commonwealth should not be subject to the plenary powers of
the United States Congress.
What do “Commonwealthers” want the status to be?
The Popular Democratic
Party, main political entity in support of the status-quo, states that the
ideal solution to the status problem is maintaining the Estado Libre Asociado while carrying it to completion. This form of
government is often referred by them as the “enhanced commonwealth” and
consists of the following ideals:
· Mutually-binding
consent between Puerto Rico and the United States
· Sovereignty rests
with the people of Puerto Rico
· The transfer of
Puerto Rican lands from the U.S. to Puerto Rico
· Maintain common
defense and market, U.S. currency, Nutritional Aid Program, and Educational
Pell Grants
· Have the capacity
and authority to enter into trade and tax agreements with other countries and
belong to regional and international bodies
· An annual economic
block allotment with corresponding inflationary adjustments from the U.S. to
Puerto Rico to cover the costs of:
o
social benefits
o
public works
o
infrastructure
o
incentives for the opening of jobs
o
special incentives programs for investment on the island
Is this view realistic?
In a word, no, this
view of an “enhanced commonwealth” is in no way realistic. The basis for this
answer is the fact that every proposal that has ever been introduced has been
rejected by both the members of Congress and the executive branch of the United
States under democratic and republican administrations alike. An example of
this is H.R. 4751, a bill presented into the United States House of
Representatives on June 26th, 2000 by the Hon. Doolittle of
California and referred to the Natural Resources Committee. The committee
celebrated one hearing on this bill and, in the end, managed to find a total of
zero (0) congressional cosponsors.
2012 Plebiscite
On November 6th,
2012, on the same day as the general elections, a status plebiscite was held in
the territory of Puerto Rico. This plebiscite was composed of two questions in
the same ballot: (1) Do you agree that
Puerto Rico should continue to have its present form of territorial status? Yes
or No. (2) Please mark which of the
following non-territorial options would you prefer? Statehood,
Independence, or Sovereign Free Association. The official results of the status
plebiscite where as follows:
· Question 1:
o
No- 53.97% (970,910
votes)
o
Yes- 46.03% (828,077 votes)
· Question 2:
o
Statehood- 61.16% (834,191 votes)
o
Independence- 33.34% (454,768 votes)
o
Free Association- 5.49% (74,895 votes)
Why is it different from all
past plebiscites?
Throughout
Puerto Rico’s history, a total of 4 plebiscites have been held: 1967, 1993,
1998, and 2012. The plebiscite held this past November 2012 is different and
distinct from all others for various reasons. For example, this query had the
highest voter turnout in status plebiscite history with a 79% of voters filling
out the ballot. However, the main reason for which the 2012 plebiscite was so
transcendental and distinct from any other previously held status consultation was
that it gave the people an opportunity to vote on their opinion of the present
form of territorial status that Puerto Rico holds with the United States of
America. In the 1993 and 1967 status referendums, where the choice of “Estado
Libre Asociado” option came out victorious, the definition of such was not that
of our current territorial status but rather a variant form of it with a series
of enhancements such as:
· Making the relationship between the U.S. and Puerto Rico a
permanent one with inviolable common citizenship
· Mutually-binding
consent between Puerto Rico and the United States
What are the main PPD
arguments against this plebiscite?
Since
the days before the rejection of the “Estado Libre Asociado” in the 2012
plebiscite, the Popular Democratic Party already had an argument against
various elements regarding the plebiscite. As mentioned, this consultation was
the first one in history in which Puerto Rico’s current political status was
considered as it should legally be, a territory of the United States. The
“commonwealthers” fiercely opposed the mere event of holding a plebiscite, and
for various reasons. First of all, in the Resolution of the Governing Board of
the PPD rejecting the status query in February 11th, 2012, it was stated
that they would not tolerate the fact that a plebiscite be held on the same day
as the general elections as it was “a
mechanism to hide their [incumbent PNP administration] ineptitude, abuses, and
lack of substantive work. It's a ruse to distract the people on an important
issue, knowing that this alleged consultation lacks all legitimacy and thus
prevent the people from judging him [incumbent PNP Governor Luis Fortuño] by his
government.” Secondly, they created
another argument in which they reclaimed, through the same document, that “Neither the current Free Associated State
nor the Free Associated State in its development are on the ballot and that the
Commonwealth is not and should not be subject to the plenary powers of the
United States Congress”. Lastly, they protested against the consultation
for the absence of the option of “None of the above” as one of the available in
the ballot, which was the one they did campaign for in the 1998 plebiscite,
where it came out with 50% of the votes while the “Estado Libre Asociado” got
0.3% of the votes.
What is the
foundation/root of their arguments?
The
main argument the Popular Democratic Party uses to oppose the plebiscite is that
they do not recognize the inclusion of the apt definition of the Free
Associated State or the Free Associated State in its development. The root of
this argument comes from the establishment of the “Estado Libre Asociado”.
Since that very day in July 25th, 1952 the PPD has failed to
recognize a common definition for the ELA or a path to follow in the future for
its “development”. Also since that day, the PPD has proclaimed that the
island’s status was no longer a territorial one and that it shouldn’t be
subject to the plenary powers of Congress, specifically the “territorial
clause”.
Is this argument
valid? Why or why not?
The
argument presented above specifies that Puerto Rico as an “Estado Libre Asociado”
is a change from the territorial status we were proclaimed as before 1952 to a
new kind of state that is neither colonial nor territorial and, consequently,
should not legally be referred to as a territory. Oddly enough, this
asseveration is not validated with any statement, fact or legal resolution
released by anyone other than the very members and supporters of the Popular
Democratic Party. In the Law 600 permitting the creation of the Puerto Rico
Constitution it is clearly stated that “Puerto
Rico will remain a territorial possession of the United States, as expressed in
sections of the Jones Act.” Also, Antonio Fernós Isern, the Resident
Commissioner and leader of the PPD at the time Public Law 600 was approved in
Congress, stated in a hearing on the S. 3336 (eventual Law 600) that “S.3336 would not change the status of the
island of Puerto Rico relative to the United States. It would not commit the
United States for or against any specific future form of political formula for
the people of Puerto Rico. It would not alter the powers of sovereignty
acquired by the United States over Puerto Rico under the terms of the Treaty of
Paris.” This argument, without a doubt, is not validated in any way.
No comments:
Post a Comment