Dear Editor,
Mr Osafo Modibo in a recent letter offered incisive comments/observations of a critique I made on the PNCR’s recent symposium held to commemorate the 85th birth aniversary of its founder leader and Guyana’s first Executive President, Forbes Burnham.
Mr. Modibo attempted in his letter to raise the level of the ongoing debate on the PNC/PPP unity talks of 1975-6 and he demonstrated great insight into Guyana’s political developments. In the process he sought to put on the front burner many important issues, which I hope, politicians and established and emerging political analysts/commentators, will feel disposed to respond to.
Unlike other letter writers, Mr Modibo did not limit himself to only addressing the respective antics of the parties involved in the unity talks. He went further and used his intervention to query the role of other political forces which existed in Guyana in that period. By seeking to introduce elements which were not previously a part of the debate he has widened considerably its parameters, and has challenged Guyanese to reflect on what had taken place and pushed us to evaluate those developments in the context of both the present and future.
The most controversial issues raised by Mr Modibo were his assertions that the PPP was never genuinely interested in power sharing and not committed to advancing the national interest. Modibo arrived at his conclusions as a result of his study of that party’s political behaviour from 1975 to the present. In that period the PPP was both in opposition and from 1992 in government. Following its victory in the 1992 general and regional elections the PPP was in an excellent position to demonstrate its commitment to executive power sharing as a solution to the nation’s political crisis- but failed to do so. It missed a wonderful opportunity to take the lead in promoting national healing and reconciliation by its failure to propose the necessary constitutional reforms which would have established a new political system based on shared governance. Instead, it held on to the archaic winner take all political system and consciously exploited the racial divisiveness that is inherent in the system given our history of racial voting.
In his letter Mr Modibo directed the following to me – “As a WPA activist Mr Ogunseye what were Mr Rodney’s views on sharing power with the PNC and PPP had his party won an election? Is there a proposal/model to be shared with society?”
Since Rodney was not a typical one man party leader and he was part of an experience unique to Guyana – a collective leadership structure – and given the WPA’s political culture on the issue of leadership, the question should have been – what was the party’s position?
The WPA, from the time of its birth in 1974 and up to the assassination of Dr Rodney on June 13, 1980, had never advocated or supported any model of shared governance with the PNC or PNC / PPP and the WPA. In that period the WPA’s emphasis was on the removal of the PNC dictatorship by any means necessary. Elections were ruled out as a means by which the removal of the PNC could have been achieved. The WPA, like a very significant number of the populace, was convinced that it was impossible to bring about political change given Burham’s and the PNC’s absolute control not only of the country’s electoral machinery but of virtually all elements of the state apparatus, including the army, police and para-military organisations.During the civil rebellion when the masses were in the streets in support of the WPA’s call for “People’s Power No Dictator”, Burnham declared to the nation and the world at large that the PNC’s steel was sharper and that Rodney and the WPA leadership must make their wills. It was therefore inconceiveable that the WPA would have given any thought to a power sharing arrangement which would have involved the PNC at that time.
In order to achieve its objectives of overthrowing the PNC dictatorship the WPA had advocated a people’s rebellion against that party’s rule and worked to help to develop multiracial unity of the working people to lead the rebellion. The intent was clearly to remove Burnham and the PNC from power – not to share power with them. During that period WPA worked with the PPP and other opposition parties and forces to build a political platform for a Government of National Unity and Reconstruction (GNUR) which would have been operationalised after the PNC’s removal. This model of government was intended to be one of power sharing at the executive level of the state – by opposition forces. Details of this can be found in a WPA document entitled “Towards A Government of National Unity and Reconstruction.” The PPP saw the WPA’s GNUR proposals as rivalling its own August 1977 proposals for a National Patriotic Front (NPF) and never supported them. A fundamental difference between the 2 sets of proposals had to do with the role of the PNC. Whereas they were excluded from the WPA’s GNUR, they were the centre piece of the PPP’s NPF.
In 1985 the WPA held a members’ conference that was charged with the task of reassessing the internal political situation in the country in light of the death of Burnham, Hoyte’s assumption of the leadership of the PNC and government and his reform programme, as well as the changing political situation in the region and the world. That historic conference concluded by charting a new path for the party that committed WPA to the electoral struggle. Therefore, it was only after this conference that the party began internally to address the issue of power sharing between the PNC/PPP and other electoral forces. Our ideas on this model were submitted to the Special Select Committee on Constitutional Reform in 1994 (the DeSantos Committee). This document was revised/updated and presented to the Constitution Reform Commission of 1999. The party has since committed itself to a further review of its position on shared governance in light of the many new proposals that have emerged from other forces including the main opposition party, the PNC .
I hope that my brief explanation serves to satisfy Mr Modibo and contributes to this important discussion on the issue of shared governance and national unity.
Finally, will Mr Modibo please explain what he meant when he observed that “the period of picketing and fasting has gone.”
Yours faithfully,
Tacuma Ogunseye
