PNC leaders could not amass significant wealth

In my previous article I pointed out that one of the reasons given by former Speaker of the National Assembly, Mr. Ralph Ramkarran, for the PPP’s Central Executive Committee not insisting that the government continue to place advertisements with the Stabroek News was that his party does not believe in “paramountcy of the party”. Some have contended that this is just a flimsy excuse, but the very fact that Mr. Ramkarran expected us to accept it means that he believes that these types of positioning still have some resonance with us.

In this and the next article, I will argue that the PPP’s rejection of paramountcy of the party was hypocritical and that this rejection not only confirms the status of the ordinary members of the party as pawns in the hands of the leadership but fails to grasp that a level of party control is very much part of the liberal democratic tradition.

In one of his first uses of the concept of party paramountcy, in the “Declaration of Sophia” in 1974, Forbes Burnham told us that his PNC had held a special congress a few months previously at which it “was agreed after lengthy discussion that the emphasis should be on mobilizing the nation in every sphere and not merely for periodic elections and in support of specific action and programmes. It was also decided that the Party should assume unapologetically its paramountcy over the Government which is merely one of its executive arms.”

Burnham went on to claim that “We now are a Party seriously intent on redefining our new role in the nation. We have undertaken as a mass party … to lead Guyana to the socialist ideal. …. It follows, therefore, that our quest is now not for large numbers of members, but a high quality of membership. …. Every section of our nation must play its part and make its sacrifices. But Party Leaders and members must make the greatest sacrifices and undertake the heaviest, nay, superhuman, work-loads. We are in the vanguard, we are leaders.”

Of some relevance today, Burnham identified the following as leaders: the president, the prime minister, minister, the attorney-general, PNC MPs and party officers as defined in the PNC’s constitution.  He then proceeded to place them under a most draconian code of conduct, which effectively placed him in near total control of their lives!

For example, a party member: “ Shall not accept or ask for any gift of money or property or benefit of any kind whatsoever for anything done or to be done or omitted to be done by him in the execution of his duties as a member. …. Shall not hold shares or stock in any company save as a nominee of the Party or Government. … Shall not hold a directorship in any company save as a nominee of the Party or Government. …. Shall not rent to others any dwelling houses owned by him save with special permission of the Party Leader …. Shall not rent to others any land for any purpose. …. Shall not use to his personal advantage or to that of any other person any information obtained by him by virtue of his being or having been a leader. … Shall not engage in any private business enterprise unless, he personally works in it and does not employ more than ten other persons!”

With this kind of code and Burnham hovering overhead, it is not surprising that while there can be no doubt that the PNC as a party did abuse state power and that a few individuals may have enriched themselves, during its three decades in office, the individual leaders of the party and the government and – contrary to public perception at the time – even the president himself, did not amass any significant amount of wealth.

Returning to our story; dealing with the relationship between the communists and the proletariat in the “Communist Manifesto”, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels argued that: “The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties. They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole. They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement. The Communists …are … the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.”

The fathers of Marxism believed that their socialism would first come to fruition in the more developed western European countries, but they also claimed that the relationship between communists and the proletariat would find different expressions based on the level of socio/economic development of different countries.

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, determined to overthrow the Tsarist autocratic regime in economically backward Russia, adopted arrangements he believed more suited to his context. “Only a gross failure to understand Marxism … could prompt the opinion that the rise of a mass, spontaneous working-class movement relieves us of the duty of creating as good an organisation of revolutionaries. …. On the contrary, this movement imposes the duty upon us; for the spontaneous struggle of the proletariat will not become its genuine “class struggle” until this struggle is led by a strong organisation of revolutionaries. …. Only a centralised, militant organisation that consistently carries out a Social-Democratic policy, that satisfies, so to speak, all revolutionary instincts and strivings, can safeguard the movement against making thoughtless attacks and prepare attacks that hold out the promise of success” ( “What is to be Done?” 1902).

Thus, contrary to Marx’s vision of “vanguard leadership of a mass party,” Lenin set about creating a “vanguard party” of dedicated and strong revolutionaries capable of leading a mass uprising. Even in his time, this secret conspiratorial group, which was to become the basis of the communist party in the Soviet Union and, under the banner of “proletarian internationalism”, inspired similar parties (like the PPP) elsewhere, began to wreak havoc on the societies in which they were established and in government!

The PPP’s acceptance of this Leninist position and rejection of Burnham’s paramountcy was hypocritical. Next week I will argue that a wholesale rejection of party paramountcy is not sensible: that a level of party sanction over the government has been part of the liberal democratic tradition of parliamentary systems such as ours.

henryjeffrey@yahoo.com