Dear Editor,
I was interested to see Harry Hergash’s letter defending Dr Cheddi Jagan, Mr Bharrat Jagdeo, and the PPP’s record as a governing party over the course of its history (‘Jagdeo’s early experience as president shaped his thinking’ SN, January 6). As his letter confirms, the PPP has always found its legitimacy contested from the 1950s to the present. It is interesting that the PPP has never been able to develop a philosophy and an effective strategy for governing a fragmented society. My original column raised the issue whether the quality of the PPP’s leadership and its decisions have now contributed to divisions within the political base of the party – especially in the sugar industry. It may be useful for Mr Hergash to consider the possibility that the PPP has also contributed to the fragmentation of the society and therefore must be seen as, in part, reaping the fruits of its own labour.
The PPP has shown over its long career the ability to win elections but it has also displayed an inability to govern the society without provoking gratuitous tensions with other political groups and social organizations. Both Dr Jagan and Mr Jagdeo faced problems with government workers because the PPP has operated from the assumption that the PPP should be able to exercise its ‘paramountcy’ and dictate the terms under which the public service should function without regard to their rights under statute. One of the practices that may need to be examined is the practice of referring government decisions including, apparently, Cabinet decisions, to Freedom House for review. This blurring of boundaries between the party and the government has serious implications for the government’s legitimacy in the eyes of the public. If the government exists to accommodate the party, then can the government claim to be acting in the national interest? The recent example of President Jagdeo expressing his support for GAWU against GuySuCo’s threat to de-recognize the union, while the government has demonstrated little enthusiasm to offer the same support to bauxite workers in a year-long dispute with the bauxite company, can be perceived as one exemplar of the divisive politics practised by the PPP government. If divisive action/policy is accepted as ‘normal’ can the government ever secure uncontested legitimacy? Guyana has been ill-served by both the PPP and the PNC in their efforts to subordinate the nation to the dictates of each party’s leadership.
While I agree with Mr Hergash’s argument that Jagan felt the need to secure the PPP’s standing as the political vehicle of the Indo-Guyanese community in the late 1950s because he faced opposition from other groups across the society, I would suggest that Jagan’s speech demonstrated his lack of political maturity and his messianic impulse that ultimately set the stage for his progressive isolation over the next decade. In his 1956 speech, Jagan acknowledged the “imperialist” depiction of the PPP as a divided party of “irresponsible communists” among whom were the “Jagans, Carter, Benn, Westmaas, Ramkarran, [and] King” and “the moderates, democrats and socialists (Burnham, Wong, Jainaraine Singh).” Jagan went on to say that “up to October 1953 we committed deviations to the left… We allowed our zeal to run away with us; …” If, as Jagan implied, these deviations helped to provoke the crisis that led to the removal of the PPP why didn’t he submit his resignation as party leader? Carter, King, and Westmaas resigned from the party in response to Jagan’s critique – demonstrating a measure of integrity and a recognition of accountability that were apparently absent in their fellow “irresponsible communists.”
When Jagan repudiated the pre-October 1953 party strategy, wasn’t he acknowledging that Forbes Burnham was correct in challenging the leader who had pursued a failed political strategy that led to the party’s ouster in October 1953?
Jagan also advocated making common causes with other political groups but vilified the Burnham clique: “It is essentially this middle class which is the prime force behind the Burnham faction.
One of the main characteristics of the middle-class is its opportunism, its tack-and-turn, its vacillation, putting itself always in the best position to get the greatest possible gains.”
He referred to the Portuguese native capitalist as “Catholic-reactionary influenced” and “closer to imperialism” and describes the Indian native emerging capitalist as posing “a threat to Portuguese native capitalism (mainly in commerce)” and worthy of support in order to win “him over in his progressive role in our struggle against our common enemy, imperialism.”
For a leader who was interested in moving away from the mistakes of irresponsible communism, Jagan’s speech offered little evidence of his willingness to work seriously with other ethnic/political communities in British Guiana. In effect, was his speech based upon the notion that he could exploit the tensions triggered by the crisis in pursuit of PPP domination of the society?
Or was he so blinded by a personal drive for power and vindication that he failed to recognize the tragic consequences of his plan?
Mr Hergash also raises the issue of the Rai-Benn competition for the post PPP Chairman and says: “To this day many Indian-Guyanese believe that had Mr Rai obtained the chairmanship of the PPP in that contest, Guyana’s future would have taken a different course than what actually unfolded.”
It would be useful to know if Jagan threw his support behind Benn because he was embarrassed by the earlier consequences of his 1956 speech. Or, alternatively, did he see Balram Singh Rai as too ambitious and could emerge as a threat to his leadership of the PPP?
It would perhaps be useful for the PPP and/or the daily newspapers to release the full text of Dr Jagan’s 1956 address so that Guyanese could make their own assessments about what that speech portended for the wider society.
Yours faithfully,
Cary Fraser
