By Estherine Adams
On the 26th May 2009 Guyana celebrated its 43rd independence anniversary. However, the grant of independence by the British occurred at least three years later than was expected. This article aims at explaining, briefly, why the grant of political independence, which was expected earlier, was not realised in British Guiana until May 1966.
At the end of the Second World War Britain, weakened by the war effort, was forced to begin to dismantle her formal colonial empire. Profound changes were taking place in international relations because of the evolution of new ideas, concepts and attitudes. This effort resulted in a rise of political consciousness and a general demand for political independence. In addition, the establishment of the United Nations in 1945 and the efforts of Gandhi and the Indian Independence Movement, among other factors, had helped to expose the moral decadence of empire. The objective of Britain became the surrender of the mantle of colonial administration to trusted surrogates. The mantle was duly transferred, when on May 26, 1966 Guyana was formally granted national independence with a coalition government between the People’s National Congress (PNC) and the United Force (UF) at the helm. Mr. L.F.S. Burnham was appointed Prime Minister.
This grant of independence status occurred later than had been expected. At a Constitutional Conference in London in March 1960, the British Government had committed itself to the principle of political independence for British Guiana “at any time not later than two years after the 1961 general election.” It was decided that the next Conference in 1962 would be used to set a date for independence, which was expected ‘to be fairly early 1963’. Eventually, however, the British Government reneged on this promise and the date of independence was deferred until May 1966. This delay of at least three years was due to several factors.
Prominent among these factors are: the consequences of the suspension of the 1953 Constitutional Constitution; disunity among the leaders; civil disturbances in the country in 1962, 1963 and 1964; the inability of the three main political parties to agree on a date for independence and an independence constitution; and, the influence exerted by the government of the United States of America.
At the heart of the British Guiana independence struggle was Dr. Cheddi Jagan. In 1946 Dr. Jagan, a Marxist who had returned from university training in the USA in 1943, formed a Political Affairs Committee (PAC). The PAC was the forerunner of the People’s Progressive Party and Dr. Jagan’s ideology was interwoven with that of the party. In its 1951 Constitution the party spelled out as its aims ‘a desire to stimulate political consciousness along socialist lines’. The party’s socialist ideology, expressed in Marxist terms, regarded political independence as involving, not merely a termination of the metropolitan-colony relationship, which had allowed the ‘exploitation of the human and natural resources for the benefit of the few’, but a transference of the power whereby ‘each should receive according to his contribution of the country’s income and eventually according to his needs’.
At the end of World War II the Cold War was born. It was a new war, this time though not with guns and bombs. This battle was waged mainly between the USSR and her allies who were Communist and the United States of America and her allies, which included Great Britain, who were Capitalists. It was in this period, when the Cold War was being pursued with great vigour and venom, and there was an intense fear of Communism in the USA, that the PPP came to power.
Essentially, all the factors listed above, which led to the delay of independence for British Guiana stemmed from the perceived danger of the Marxist-Socialist ideology. It was through the perceived notion that the PPP was trying to turn British Guiana into a communist country that the British suspended the 1953 Constitution. Fundamentally, it was a difference in ideology that caused the split between the leaders of the PPP, one group considered extreme and the other moderate. Jagan and the PPP’s ideological stance led to growing interest and involvement of the US, which, through fear that British Guiana would follow Communist Cuba, persuaded the British government not to grant independence when they had promised to. It was also used to justify the involvement of the CIA in the internal conflicts in British Guiana, whether as instigators or as supporters. Overall, it was a combination of these factors, at the heart of which lay the ideological stance of the PPP that provides the explanation as to why British Guiana was not granted political independence before May 1966.
On 27th April 1953 a general election was held in British Guiana in accordance with the provisions recommended by the Waddington Commission. The PPP swept the polls in the 1953 general election, winning 18 out of 24 available seats in the House of Assembly. Dr. Jagan became Premier and Forbes Burnham, Minister of Education. The new government swore allegiance to the British Crown in April 1953 and on 9th October 1953, six months after or 133 days later, “Her Majesty’s Government” suspended the colony’s new constitution, expelled the government from office and sent troops to the colony to deal with any protest that might occur. In its official public declaration explaining reason for its drastic action, the Colonial Office stated that, “Her Majesty’s Government have 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….The faction in power has shown by their acts and their speeches that they are prepared to go to any lengths, including violence, to turn British Guiana into a Communist state.”
Once the PPP were in office they had embarked on a programme of immediate reforms which led to conflict. The Legislative Assembly rescinded the ban on the entry of West Indians judged politically subversive and attempted to annul the Undesirable Publications Act. Even though half the Guianese population was non-Christian, 95 per cent of the schools were run by Christian denominations. The PPP was determined to institute governmental supervision and direct administrations in schools. The excise, sugar and acreage taxes were to be restored. Even though these and other reforms attempted by the early PPP were quite modest, they were met with great hostility.
Another source of conflict was that they could not work with the Governor and many other top colonial civil servants were reluctant to cooperate, knowing that it meant a lessening of their own power. In October 1953, the PPP introduced a Labour Relations Bill. Aimed at minimising inter-union rivalry, the Bill was an attempt by the PPP to get rid of the Man Power Citizens’ Association, the union which officially represented the sugar workers. On the day that the Bill was introduced, the Guiana Industrial Workers’ Union, called a twenty-five day strike paralyzing the sugar industry. Although the sugar strike ended on 24th September 1953, the decision to suspend the constitution was not reversed.
The 1953 Constitution, although limited in many areas, was the first step towards self-government, one step away from independence. However, with the suspension of this constitution, in the words of Prof. Winston McGowan, it was essentially a case of “turning back the clock”, since Guiana was reverted to a full Crown Colony Government. Total power was once again in the hands of the Governor. As such, British Guiana, instead of advancing towards independence, took a significant step backwards.
The failure of major political leaders to cooperate also impeded the independence movement in British Guiana and was significant as it related to the delay of independence. The joint biracial leadership of the independence movement by Jagan and Burnham had been making strides despite the suspension of the 1953 constitution. Disunity, however, manifested itself as soon as power was in the hands of the leaders. The party became divided into pro-Burnham and pro-Jagan camps. Burnham’s followers wanted him as leader, while Jagan’s followers wanted him. This disunity developed to the point where it led to the split of the PPP on February 13, 1955 into Burnham and Jagan factions. Apart from ideological differences between the two leaders, there was factionalism with respect to tactics, race, personal ambitions and jealousies.
The issue of factionalism is of great significance because of the very negative effect it has been found to have on the success of social movements. It begins when “the new faction competes with the parent for resources. External supporters will at best be divided between factions; at worse they will be too frustrated to support either faction or they will be divided in loyalty and easily alienated. To compete for resources, leaders of each faction will highlight and enhance the differences between them. Each faction, seeing the other as the greatest obstacle to its own success, will spend even more effort on attacking former allies.” This became the Guiana experience.
The split in the ranks of the PPP in 1955 was eventually accompanied by racial politics. While clearly multi-racial in leadership, the PPP depended heavily on the appeal of each of its leaders to his particular ethnic group for support. Hence, the strength of the party lay in Jagan’s support from the East Indian population and on Burnham’s support from Guyanese of African descent.
While Jagan and Burnham were together the races cooperated, then the split occurred. By the start of the campaign in connection with the 1957 election there were charges and counter charges of parties appealing to certain racial groups to vote for them on a basis of race. It was therefore evident that the attempt to forge a concerted group, and action against colonialism had ended in disaster. British Guiana was much more divided than it ever was before the emergence of the PPP, because although the leaders were still fighting for independence, they were doing so as opponents.
