History This Week No.42/2008

By Dr. Mellissa Ifill

This article gives a brief overview of the rise and demise of nationalist politics in British Guiana between the mid 1940s to the mid 1950s. In a subsequent article, I will examine the impact of Cold War considerations and British paranoia on the nationalist process in British Guiana. In this article, I propose to examine the domestic concerns that facilitated the rise of nationalism and then those that derailed nationalism.

Nationalist politics arrived relatively late to British Guiana. It wasn’t until the 1940s that a political group with an ideological rather than sectoral or ethnic based orientation emerged in British Guiana and challenged the entire colonial structure, rather than just aspects of it. This new political elite coalesced in the form of the Political Affairs Committee (PAC) which was established in 1946 by Cheddi and Janet Jagan, Jocelyn Hubbard and Ashton Chase. This group was the first to successfully represent and reflect the interests of the entire working class. By hosting discussion groups and public meetings and through its publication, the ‘Bulletin’, the PAC leaders used the ideological lens of communism to explain both local and the international conditions and circumstances and blamed the inequitable local conditions on colonialism which they argued needed to be destroyed. Thereafter, they argued, socialism should be adopted to resolve the economic, social and political inequities in the society.

The agenda and activities of the PAC were met with swift hostility and resistance from several quarters, in particular from the planter class, who constantly called for the PAC to be banned. Despite these challenges, the PAC successfully achieved one of its main aims of educating and sensitising the masses to an alternative way of interpreting their reality and as a consequence the political party that emerged out of the group, namely the PPP, was well received. With the majority of the population deeply dissatisfied with their social, economic and political circumstances, the ideas articulated by the PPP such as national unity and radical economic restructuring to satisfy the needs of the majority rather than multinational corporations definitely struck a chord.

Dr. Cheddi Jagan and Forbes Burnham were the most charismatic leaders of the PAC and subsequent PPP. Jagan, an East Indian dentist embraced a Marxist outlook. Jagan withdrew from the ethnically exclusive, British Guiana East Indian Association, and the Manpower Citizen’s Association arguing that neither organisation adequately represented the workers’ welfare. Although Jagan had successfully run as an independent candidate and secured a seat in the Legislative Council to represent an East Coast Demerara constituency in the 1947 elections, it was his leadership during the 1948 Enmore strike however that garnered him even more national attention and he had strong support among rural East Indians.

Burnham, an African lawyer returned to British Guiana in 1949 and started participating in politics. He joined the first and most prominent labour union in Guyana, the British Guiana Labour Union and he joined the most effective political force in British Guiana at the time, the Political Affairs Committee (PAC). Due to his academic and oratory aptitude, Burnham appealed to the African Guianese community, in particular in the urban areas, and Jagan believed that Burnham would be an asset to the PAC.
It was decided that these two charismatic leaders would be the visible faces of the PPP with Jagan as leader and Burnham as chairman. The PPP faced immediate opposition from upper and middle class leadership of all ethnicities, who largely embraced a conservative economic ideology and several of their prominent members joined forces to establish a multi-ethnic anti-communist alliance that would thereafter target the nationalist PPP.

Of the two leaders, Jagan was undeniably the main politician in the opinion of the colonial office and his radicalism, particularly over the question of ownership of the major industries combined with his great influence over sugar workers alarmed both local and international capitalists and their agents. His activities were deemed so disruptive that the Sugar Producers Association regularly complained to the governor and the colonial office and attempted to block him from gaining access to the sugar estates.
The British government was persuaded that the PPP was communist and posed a serious threat to capitalist operations in Guiana. Jagan was cognizant of the Cold War concerns and tried to avoid the label ‘communist’ but his activities and comments seemed to betray his ideological allegiance. Importantly, friction in the nationalist political party over the ideological question was evident to the British government as early as 1953 with several leading members such as Cheddi Jagan, Janet Jagan and Sidney King labelled “communists” or “extremists” while others such as Forbes Burnham, Ashton Chase and Jai Narine Singh were labelled “moderates”. Unsurprisingly, those in the latter group were seen as the lesser of the two ideological evils. American intelligence also identified this disagreement within the party and reported that the PPP was on the verge of splitting prior to the elections in 1953 and that in the post election period, it was expected that there would be a split.

Under a democratic 1953 election that permitted universal adult suffrage for those 21 and over, the PPP won the election with 51 percent of the vote and secured 18 of the 24 seats in the lower legislative chamber. The only departments not managed by the PPP were defence and foreign affairs. However, a mere one hundred and thirty three days after the PPP formed the government, the Guianese community was advised by the Chief Secretary, Mr. John Gutch that: “Her Majesty’s Government had decided that the constitution of British Guiana must be suspended to prevent communist subversion of the government and a dangerous crisis both in public order and in economic affairs …” Mr. Gutch further stated that “the faction in power have shown by their acts and their speeches that they are prepared to go to any length including violence, to turn British Guiana into a communist state”.

This suspension split wide open the cracks in the nationalist alliance headed by Jagan and Burnham that had been evident to the colonial officials and American intelligence officials and in 1955, Burnham and his supporters defected and established their own PPP grouping. There were four main reasons why the nationalist alliance disintegrated, namely: British paranoia over communism that was artfully stoked by domestic groups opposed to the PPP; the personal ambitions of Jagan and Burnham; the ideological question and; ethnic fears of potential domination by the ‘other’.

The PPP’s middle class political opponents secured 13 percent of the vote however their interests were safeguarded by the British once Guiana did not gain independence. They were aware however that Britain had a plan to gradually withdraw from colonial territories and they were alarmed at the prospect of Guiana gaining independence under a communist regime. Consequently, the middle class and the leadership of the main foreign owned industries whose welfare was also under threat successfully lobbied the British government to reverse what they argued was an imminent communist takeover of the society.

Both Jagan and Burnham were politically ambitious and desired to head the PPP and both strategised and plotted to oust the other. Jagan however had more supporters due to the large Indian population and he accused Burnham of wanting glory and power without putting in the hard work, while Burnham felt that Jagan’s extreme positions on several issues were injurious to the nationalist movement. Broken agreements and Machiavelli type manoeuvres were credited to each faction by the other and the aftermath was a bitterly divided party and ultimately society as the two main ethnic groups in effect followed their respective ethnic leaders.

The ideological question was also crucial in undermining party unity. Jagan seemed to embrace a radical form of socialism as compared to Burnham’s embrace of a more moderate and pragmatic version. As stated in a Washington Intelligence Report, “The PNC in office would probably feature a more moderate policy of domestic socialism than the PPP. Likewise, in the foreign field it would also be neutralist but somewhat less pro-Bloc than the PPP”. In its assessment of Jagan and the PPP, the Report noted “The PPP leadership has a clear record of Communist association and of Communist-line policies … We believe, however, that Jagan is a Communist, though the degree of Moscow’s control is not yet clear. A Jagan government in the post independence period would … probably lean in the Soviet direction … Its domestic program would be radically socialist and reformist.” Burnham’s moderate stance on several issues had undermined his credibility to the more radical members of the party. Burnham on the other hand argued that Jagan was rigid, controlling and sought to stifle alternative ideas offered by members.

Finally, were the fears by the African and East Indian communities of being dominated by the ‘other’ group. The nationalist and socialist rhetoric of the PAC and early PPP had certainly resonated with both groups but there was a history of division culturally, occupationally and residentially that would not be easily erased. The ethnic division of labour in British Guiana always had the potential to negatively impact political efforts at a multiethnic alliance. African socio-economic participation and their labour initiatives in the economy did not support a very radical strategy as many Africans were able to take advantage of opportunities within the system and climb the socio-economic ladder. On the other hand, East Indians were experiencing rapid numerical growth that far outstripped the ability of the agricultural sector which they dominated to occupationally satisfy. Further the sugar industry which had provided employment for a significant percentage of their labour force was contracting. Dwindling plantation employment, along with increased educational provisions for the East Indian population led to many Indians migrating to the towns to seek employment. Residential shifts by Indians into the towns represented increased competition for the African population which was already grappling with unemployment and underemployment. Burnham therefore knew that to secure his political base he needed to reassure Africans that their interests were not undermined by the adoption of radical changes in colonial policy.

All together the domestic and international pressures on this fragile and arguably contrived nationalist/socialist alliance spearheaded by Jagan and Burnham were too great and it could not be sustained. The aftermath of this split however reverberates fifty years later and the multiethnic nationalist ideal that was once so greatly appealing has all but disappeared.