A week last Friday Mr David Granger, the Leader of the Opposition, gave the inaugural lecture in the National Assembly’s Governance and Democracy series. “There is no father of the nation, there is no mother of the nation, and I think we need to unlearn that myth,” we quoted him as saying. At a later point he said: “Independence cannot be attributed to a single person or to a single party. If I had to attribute it to any group it would be to the workers because they were the first people to rock the British Empire…“ Inevitably he caused a mini-firestorm, not least in the PPP which periodically likes to refer to Dr Cheddi Jagan in particular as the “Father of the Nation,” and which has revived the moniker again recently.
Everyone is talking at cross purposes, of course. In the first place, historians would normally never use the phrase ‘father of the nation,’ although they might in an altogether narrower context speak of someone metaphorically as being the ‘father’ of a particular branch of scientific inquiry, say. Theoretically speaking – although not necessarily in the current connection – they might talk of the ‘founder’ of a nation if it were appropriate, but any parental references would be studiously avoided. ‘Father/Mother of the Nation,’ therefore, is a political sobriquet, not a historical description, despite the fact that one party or the other may use selected items of historical information to bolster their case.
On the face of it, at any rate, this is all about who, if anybody, should be given credit for independence. The road to independence was not exactly a straight path, and left to their own devices historians will tease out the various causal strands, and decide how much weight to apportion to this or that individual, or this or that event. They might well not be in harmony in terms of how they perceive the issues, but at least the discussion will be pursued in an altogether different dimension from the political, and will revolve around evidence which they have actually researched. In addition, however conflicting their conclusions, if they are genuinely committed to a study of the road to independence they will believe that they should follow where the evidence leads them, and not impose on it a preconceived verdict. In other words, the research and the assessments of the data will be undertaken in complete good faith and without an ulterior motive, political or otherwise. As things stand, a fair amount of work has been done on this period, although many of those on the political platform who talk about the subject are probably not familiar with much of it.
Politicians in general are simply not interested in a historian’s approach; they have only a political point to make. They have been using fragments of historical information for centuries – sometimes with scant regard for the truth – with polemical purposes in mind, and no doubt they will continue to do so into the indefinite future. This is not to say that every politician is cavalier about the accuracy of their historical references; it is merely to remark that when a party man stands on the hustings and cites history, he is not interested in history for its own sake.
When Mr Granger gave his lecture the week before last, it could be that he was under the impression he was speaking as a historian. However, if so, he did not make that clear, and in any case, as Leader of the Opposition as well as of the political partnership APNU, he is a political figure whose comments would be immediately placed in a political context. Furthermore, his address was not confined to historical matters, and political observations intruded at various points. It was not altogether surprising, therefore, that the lecture elicited a vehement response from the PPP in particular – although in fairness to him, had he prefaced his statements with the qualification he was speaking only as a historian, and had he omitted the political comments, there still would have been a vehement response from the PPP. Segments of that party, at least, do not make a distinction between what is history and what is politics.
As it was, therefore, on Friday, the centre pages of the state newspaper blared the headline, ‘PPP Officials condemn Opposition’s orchestrated campaign to attack Dr. Jagan’s legacy.’ And this was for the most part, about the ‘Father of the Nation’ appellation. Executive Member of the PPP, Mr Ulric Ramanah was quoted at some length, and among other things was reported as saying that he “views with great dismay the recent surge in attempts to revise the historical contributions of Dr. Jagan in all spheres of life in Guyana.” After being quoted directly on Dr Jagan’s relentless fight against colonial rule and for independence, and the fact that he was jailed, beaten up, etc, he went on to say: “Try as they may, they cannot deny or pretend that these historical facts are a figment of people’s imaginations. More and more Guyanese are beginning to see these people for who they are; they are beginning to see past these reconditioned politicians.”
That Dr Jagan fought against colonial rule and for independence, or that he was jailed, etc, are not facts which are in dispute. But manipulating and distorting a larger, extended historical account is as much about what is left out, as the accuracy of what is put in, and Mr Ramanah’s extremely limited version, confined as it is to isolated facts, could hardly be the basis for anyone unfamiliar with the period coming to considered nuanced conclusions about causes and sequences of events. But even if, at a historical level, the PPP’s official rendition of what happened were right in every detail as well as in its larger aspect, it still would not justify them trying to ram it down the throats of everyone else. They are trying to use history as a bludgeon, but it is a contradiction in terms to talk about history which cannot be discussed, cannot be revised, and cannot be reinterpreted. That would not be history; that would be political propaganda.
This is not to say that historians are not often wrong, they are; but that does not matter because someone will come along and correct or challenge the narrative, giving rise to debate. What is important is that the historiographical tradition is allowed to evolve unimpeded by political imperatives, so that views can change; new data can be accommodated; later generations can inject novel perceptions of the past, and so on. History thrives in an atmosphere of freedom of expression, and it is no accident that autocratic regimes always moved quickly to make sure that there was no free speech where historical research and publication were concerned.
This is not to suggest, however, that politicians cannot be a part of the historical debate; they have as much entitlement as anyone else to participate. However, except in the case of certain kinds of factual data which are on the public record, history cannot be reduced to received truths. So to use one of Mr Ramanah’s examples, it is certainly true that Dr Jagan went to jail, and anyone who would be inclined to challenge that from whatever quarter would be talking nonsense. However, as partly indicated earlier it cannot be deduced or even inferred from that fact (or the others he cited) that Dr Jagan of necessity was alone or even primarily responsible for independence. Since we are into the realm of causality here, and events which unfolded over a period of years, that case would have to be argued out fully, and a preparedness in principle evinced to discuss with those who have a different view and who will offer different insights. Genuine historical debate, however, is not what Mr Ramanah, or most politicians, for that matter, are interested in. If they are not, and simply wish to recite what they think they know, they can certainly do so, but they have absolutely no right to demand that others agree with them or be silent on the subject.
One of the problems with this country is that the issues of the last sixty years have not been resolved; they are still alive today. As a consequence, disputes about the past are just a reflection of disputes across the divide in the present – in pseudo-historical guise. In fact, when they emerge as they do periodically, it is often a sign of current political tensions. At the very least, this constant return to earlier periods is not helpful in working out a modus vivendi in relation to the current situation. Certainly where Dr Jagan’s role in independence is concerned, along with that of Mr Burnham (and interestingly, Mr Granger gave Mr Burnham no role either in relation to independence) each party will inevitably promulgate its own story and perhaps create its own myths. Portions of these or their overall tenor may reflect more or less of the truth, but they are not the same thing as serious historical work, and they should not be the subject of high-decibel political exchanges and accusations which exacerbate relations.
