Dear Editor,
Mr Sasenarine Singh’s presentation (‘The elephants in the political room…’ SN, August 24) is essentially a rehash of the fundamentally flawed traditional PPP historiography, with its usual hyperbole, now deployed in the interest of the AFC. In a nutshell, the PPP account states that our democracy was thwarted in early 1960s when international capital joined with local forces to overthrow the good Dr Cheddi Jagan and the PPP and to put in government a nefarious racist PNC regime, which destroyed the entire social fabric of our society. It exonerates Dr Jagan and the PPP of any responsibility for their demise. Much of Mr Singh’s presentation is related to the aspects of this interpretation having to do with how the wicked Forbes Burnham colluded with the reprehensible British and Americans to oust Jagan.
But before dealing with this issue, let us consider two of the many inconsistencies in Mr Singh’s presentation. In my contribution (‘A unitary opposition slate is…’ SN, August13) I was extremely clear as to my objectives and sympathies. I argued that, “A unitary opposition slate at the next general election is a critical component if government is to be captured and governance transformed.” And by reform I meant, “ a constitutional transformation of the nature of government, and not any airy-fairy notion of putting so-called ‘good’ people to run the same old structures …” As to my sympathies, I contended that: “The AFC would be a valued member of any such partnership and it is therefore incumbent on all those who are supportive of the venture to be constructive and encouraging,” and I suggested that Mr Trotman and his supporters “should take heart; history is certainly not against them.” Yet, Mr Singh still asked: “What are the objectives of Dr Jeffrey’s letter?” and “Is he worried that the PNC is at the gates of obliteration? Is he worried that the PPP will not have its greatest asset (the PNC) to win elections from 2011 onwards?” Obliteration by whom, we may well ask!
Mr Singh claims that I chose “to forget significant segments of our nation’s historical facts” but all his historical forays are located in the following assessment I made as to why the PNC chose not to join with the PPP. “In ideological terms, there was some merit in the position that the PNC was much closer to the PPP than it was to the African middle-class UDP. However, though not said in the report above, the PPP would have already burnt its bridges with the West and this had to be adequately contextualized. Some would go as far as to say that deals requiring PPP exclusion from government had already been made.”
Indeed, though my approach was essentially instrumental: looking at coalition as an approach and seeing what one may learn about its formation from a given national experience, the example I chose does not suit Mr Singh. I suspect that this is not simply because it seeks to encourage elements in the AFC to continue their struggle for a broad political front (which includes the PNC) to contest the next elections, but also because it says that it is possible to learn something from the demonised Forbes Burnham and his PNC. Thus the absurd statement: “The facts are Burnham never believed in any coalition in any form unless it served his and only his exclusive purposes.” Why does Sasenarine Singh believe that many persons are now seeking a broad political front? Is it because such a front does not serve their interest? And if by “exclusive” he means “personal,” where is his evidence of this?
Before turning to the PPP’s understanding of our history which views most if not all things PNC as ‘evil,’ a word first about Dr Cheddi Jagan. I knew Jagan personally from the mid-1970s and we spoke publicly together. Against much opposition, when I was Principal of Kuru Kuru Cooperative College in 1982, I invited him to speak there, but through all this until he died, we had fundamental ideological disagreements.
Cheddi came back to Guyana and spearheaded the formation of the PPP, but in so doing, happened to convince major international and national forces that he was a communist who would change the geopolitical balance on the South American continent and imprison his people in a Soviet type regime. So concerned were those international forces that we have been saddled with a Venezuelan border problem that it is now widely accepted was concocted as a another front against a possible PPP communist regime. After his meeting with Jagan, President Kennedy told the same Schlesinger quoted by Mr Singh: “I have a feeling that in a couple of years he will find ways to suspend his constitutional provisions and will cut his opposition off at the knees. . . With all political jockeying and all the racial tensions, it’s going to be almost impossible for Jagan to concentrate the energies of his country on development through a parliamentary system.” (www.guyana.org/features).
It does not matter whether or not Jagan was a communist; many important forces believed he was. Did he expect them to say: well the majority of Guyanese have voted for communism so communism it must be! Or were we expecting them to just wait and see if Jagan was really trying to introduce a communist regime and only then activate their counter strategy which may have seen some of us die fighting communism? The world does not operate like that, but it gets worse. Cheddi Jagan’s international politics were somewhat amoral. In Guyana he demanded free and fair multiparty, open and democratic elections, but at same time supported dictatorial communist regimes that murdered, jailed and generally repressed their citizens en masse. Democracy is not about majority rule; they are both but means to an end and that end is the good life. There has to be a broad consensus of all classes and social groups about what constitutes that good life before majority rule makes sense. Jagan and his PPP were unable to build that broad consensus and into that opening came Forbes Burnham, a closet Marxist himself. Aided by the political security of his tenure made possible by Jagan’s presence as the alternative, and perhaps, even a personal love for power (I say perhaps because most of us placed into this kind of, more or less, politically secure position, we well might do much worse) Burnham’s mismanagement led to our ruin.
The point is that Jagan was very instrumental in his own demise. I go so far as to suggest that given the ethnic nature of our society, if Jagan had not been thought to be a communist, there would have been no Burnham regime of the sort we knew. There is a shared responsibility for what has taken place in this country and too many – even PNC – people have bought into Mr Singh’s and the traditional PPP account of our history. In my view there is no need for anyone to “repent.” Placed in their proper time and condition, both people and parties have their flaws and have had their successes. We must not forget that Burnham was in near-dictatorial control of this country for two decades; the present ‘democratic’ regime is only now reaching that age but observe the negative comments!
I agree with Mr Singh that the PNC is something of an elephant in the room for anyone wanting to acquire a large number of Indian votes at the next elections, and votes are what elections are all about. However, since I reject the conjecture that the historic pattern of Indian voting has changed, as I have said before I say again: I believe that a united front needs to look elsewhere (my choice is among the Amerindians, the poorest and most neglected of our people) and sensibly craft its strategy.
Yours faithfully,
Henry B Jeffrey
