CONTRIBUTION TO THE SYMPOSIUM TO COMMEMORATE THE RETURN TO DEMOCRACY TO GUYANA - CHEDDI JAGAN RESEARCH INSTITUTE
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2003
THE ROLE OF THE PPP IN THE STRUGGLE FOR A DEMOCRATIC GUYANA CLEMENT J. ROHEE
MINISTER OF FOREIGN TRADE & INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
Guyana Chronicle
October 8, 2003
Related Links: Articles on PPP
Letters Menu Archival Menu

A close examination of the topic assigned to me would reveal its inconclusive nature. The question is: am I expected to speak exclusively about the past role of the PPP in the struggle for a democratic Guyana or should I speak also about its present and future role?

In contemplating this matter, it occurred to me that since this is a commemorative activity, conventional thinking leads me to believe that the major focus of my contribution should be on the past contributions which brought us to where we are today in Guyana.

On examining the topic, another question that bothered me is what do we mean by a “democratic Guyana” and what socio-economic and political indications do we use to determine what is democratic from what isn’t.

Finally, may I be so bold as to suggest that since we are discussing “the return to democracy”, I have to assume that democracy was with us before and it has since returned.

Having thought through these matters to the best of my ability, I will now venture to share with you my thoughts on these rather complicated issues.

I would like to begin by suggesting that the PPP’s role in the struggle for a democratic Guyana took place in four historical stages;

First was the 133 days in office viz; May-October 1953;

Second was the 1957-1964 period;

Third was the 1964-1992 period; and

Fourth is 1992 to the present time

Cheddi Jagan and the PPP was democratically elected in 1953, 1957 and 1961 and 1992.

The nature of the Constitutional arrangements in which he operated during the 133 days in office was succinctly captioned in the words of the Biographer of then British Governor Sir Alfred Savage, Sir Gordon Guiggisberg who wrote;

“The new Constitution was a typical colonial one, with an African pedigree, and the colonial office seem to have been insensitive to the effect of this on a relatively sophisticated people”.

That was 1952.

Eleven years earlier however, Franklyn Delano Roosevelt, the 32nd President of the United States in his message to Congress in January 1941, addressed what he termed the Four Freedoms that characterize a democracy these were:

(1) Freedom of Speech and _Expression;

(2) Freedom of Worship;

(3) Freedom from Want;

(4) Freedom from Fear;

It might prove instructive to keep Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms in mind as we continue this presentation on the PPP’s role for a democratic Guyana.

In the period leading up to the victory at the polls in 1953, the PPP had advanced three fundamental demands.

1st: Universal Adult Suffrage;

2nd Constitutional and Socio-Economic Reform;

3rd Self-Government leading to Independence;

The PPP took several initiatives in pursuance of Freedom of _Expression; i.e. the Labour Relations Bill, Repealing the Undesirable Publications Ordinance, lifting the ban on West Indian Leaders, amending the Rice Farmers’ Security of Tenure Ordinance of 1945; passage of Legislation on Local Government Reform, and Social Security and Workmen’s Compensation as well as the appointing of working people’s representatives to Boards and Committees.

In respect of “Freedom from Want”, the PPP Administration introduced the Education Bill, thus providing opportunities for many who did not have access to education prior to 1953 and ending dual control of schools.

What about racial and working class unity as part of the fledgling democratic process? Here is what Dr. Jagan had to say about this.

We succeeded in uniting the major ethnic groups. Even the Robertson Commission (1954) conceded this point. In its report it stated:

“ It was largely by the efforts of Dr & Mrs Jagan that the PPP was built up and kept united...... In this way, racial dissension between Africans and East Indians elements was minimized and by the time of the election campaign in 1953 a useful political instrument was forged.”

The Commission went on to state;

“But except for the Europeans, the PPP could count on a substantial number of supporters among all races and all classes in British Guiana with the bulk of its supporters naturally to be found among the ordinary working people”.

The gains made during the period were small but very significant steps in pursuance of a larger goal of making Guyana a democratic society yet all this was achieved within the context of a colonial democracy and in 133 days!

Suffice it to say, looked at from a historical perspective what took place during that period was but a mere dress rehearsal of greater challenges that were to come as a result of more initiatives in the quest for a democratic Guyana.

Had it not been for the interruption of the fledging democratic process on October 9, 1953 when British troops landed in the then British Guiana and the suspension of the Constitution thereafter; our country’s history would certainly have been much different.

But as Karl Marx in his celebrated work; “A Contribution to the Critique to Political Economy” wrote:

“Mankind always sets itself only such problems as it can solve; since looking at the matter more closely, it will always be found that the task itself arises only when the material conditions for its solutions already exists or at least in the process of formation”

If there was one positive outcome of the 1953 Constitutional experiment, it was that it set in train a process of democratization within Guyanese society that became inexorable.

To appreciate the democratic openings that prevailed at the time in the country I will make three quick references to demonstrate;

“The 1953 election campaign aroused unprecedented enthusiasm throughout the country. For the first time in our history the people were really involved; it was their first election under Universal Adult Suffrage. So great was interest that the percentage (74.8) percent who turned out to vote was higher than in Jamaica, Barbados and Trinidad whose figure ranged between 53 and 65 percent”.

That was Cheddi Jagan in his famous “West on Trial”.

Next;

“The people heavily backed the PPP. They attended meetings of the House and listened to the debates. Those who could not gain access to the Chamber stood outside and cheered at Members as they left or arrived. They called the Ministers “People’s Ministers” and went to Ministerial Buildings in their numbers to lay their grievances, or to be given Minister’s advice”.

That was B.H. Benn in an article entitled “Why the People voted for the PPP”

Next;

“We never lost the common touch... it was our duty to go all over the country explaining our point of view and the reasons for our various acts as well as getting the feelings and opinions of others to guide us in our work” That was Ashton Chase writing in his book “Unity Unmatched”. Ladies and Gentleman, Comrades and friends, if this was not democracy in action then tell me what is? The period 1957 - 1964 was a period of “marking time” by the Colonial dictatorship. It was indeed a most difficult period for the Colonial powers.

The pro-independence and democratic wave was blowing across the Colonial Empire; the winning of Independence by the people of India, the struggle for freedom and independence by Jomo Kenyata in Kenya and the Gold Coast led by Kwame Nkrumah as well as the heroic struggle waged by the people of Egypt under Nasser were but a few manifestations of this wind of change.

Cumulatively, these developments brought tremendous pressure on the tottering Empire so much so that here in the Colony they were forced to establish an Interim Administration.

Democracy was put on trial with the establishment of an Interim Government. This is how Cheddi Jagan described the situation at that time:

“Today, Guiana is a vast prison. Whether I am outside or inside matters little. Prison holds no terror for me .... I expect no justice from this or any other Court. Justice has been dead since the British Troops landed. I am looking to the day when there will be a greater justice in Guiana”.

During this period, the PPP had its own share of difficulties as it struggled to restore national democracy. Compounding the already difficult political situation was the attempt by Burnham to seize leadership of the PPP at a time when many Leaders of the Party including Dr. Jagan himself were restricted in their movement by the colonial authorities. The split that took place in 1955 within the Party was to have a major impact on the political, social and economic life of the country for many years to come.

“In Office but not in power” was the way Dr. Jagan captured the circumstances under which he was re-elected with his second victory at the polls in 1961. In this situation, the PPP was confronted with an even more formidable enemy; this enemy was not peculiar to Guyana since its international character and reach was of a scale unprecedented in world history.

This was Anti-communism at its height and in full glory.

The debate in academic and intellectual circles about whether the PPP under-estimated the influence of this global ideological phenomena and applied incorrect strategies and tactics to deal with it at the national level will go on for a long time; but one thing is certain if not constant and that is that the PPP never lost an election because of the Communist nor any other stigma. It is therefore on the basis of this experience I have reason to believe that the same will hold true for future elections in this country.

The PPP won the battle against the communist bogey not because of what it said, but what it did. “Practice is the criterion of truth” declared Hegel the German idealist philosopher. The battle was fought on the false premise that since communism and democracy were irreconcilable, the PPP’s programme and policies were anti-democratic and inimical to the interests of the country. Thus, the way was made clear for the hysteria and mayhem that was unleashed between 1962 and 1964.

Democracy colonial style went to bed with the anti-communist bogey-man. As Cheddi Jagan put it:

“Real power to govern, to carry out our programme fully was withheld from us throughout”.

In response to this situation, the PPP fell back on what was obviously its plan “B”. Having been prevented from implementing its industrialization Programme, the PPP took the decision to concentrate on agriculture.

In Jagan’s view;

“This was the fastest way to provide direct and\ indirect employment for the rapidly increasing population”.

Much was achieved during the seven years of the PP Administration. The political gains were extended to the social and economic life of the Guyanese people.

Here’s a snapshot of what the communist anti-democratic Jagan Government accomplished in just seven years and in the midst of persistent attempts at destabilization;

31 miles of new pipelines with new wells to provide potable water, 14 out of 24 planned Health Centres, 21 new Maternity and Child Welfare Clinics, 10 new Government Secondary Schools, 4 new Housing Schemes in Georgetown, the Industrial Estate at Ruimveldt, the establishment of the Bank of Guyana, and the University of Guyana, new drainage and irrigation schemes, from 30 to 100 trained teachers

per year and the awarding of 200 Government-sponsored scholarships.

In addition, there was the Passage of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, the Land Registry Ordinance, legislation to provide annual holiday with pay, and emphasis on industry and agriculture to lay the basis for diversification. Last but not least, improved river transport with the launching of the Malali, Torani and Makouria ferries.

Meanwhile, the incompetence of a colonial democracy was soon to manifest itself once again. The first time was in 1953 as a “tragedy” the second time in the 1962-64 period as a “farce”.

Experience has shown that it requires more than a good conscience to govern modern society for conscience is no guide in a situation where the essence of the difficulty is to find a guide for the conscience

(Lipman - the Phantom Public.)

This was precisely the situation in which the PPP found itself in the 1962 and 1964 period. The British appeared unsupportive of the Delbrück school of thought which simply put states that the principle of majority rule is a “purely practical principle” - if one wants to avoid a civil war, one lets those rule who in any case would obtain the upper hand if there should be a struggle;

Instead they opted to play the card of appeasement in favour of the Opposition.

The Opposition PNC therefore, sensing how the wind was blowing found it most convenient to advance a case that a right is a claim to be asserted and a duty an obligation that should be imposed. Appeasement was in its view the means to justify the end.

It was in this backdrop that the small gains made by the PPP to nurture a democratic Guyana in the 57-64 period went up in a cataclysmic conflagration of strife and hatred fanned primarily by the Opposition Parties.

Consequently, thanks to the connivance of the British and the Americans, Jagan was removed from Office by way of a new Proportional Representation Electoral System based on a fiddled Constitution, hatched in London.

The PPP contested the 1964 elections under protest and ended up with the highest number of popular votes.

Had the electoral system remained the same, the PPP would have won the same majority as it did in 1961.

The December 1964 Edition of the Associated Press commenting on the results of the election had this to say:

“Jagan’s failure to retain the legislative majority he

won in 1961 resulted from a new system of proportional

representation devised by the British to drive him from

Office”.

The assumption to office by the PNC/UF coalition in 1964 opened a new chapter in the struggle for democracy but the PPP was not to be found wanting, it immediately put forward its main demands;

1: end of emergency rule and the release of all detainees;

2: reconstituting of the police and security forces so that they reflect a broad cross section of the population of the country;

3: new Constitutional arrangements with the objective of arriving at a political solution;

4: new elections under a changed electoral system;

5: voting at the age of 18;

The period 1964-1992 was marked by the establishment of an Administrative Dictatorship who resorted to rigged elections, terror, discrimination, nepotism, jobs for the boys, political assassination, cultural oppression, corruption, squandermania, wage freeze, heavy borrowing policies leading to a wrecked economy and exodus of thousands of Guyanese.

The PNC exploited fears of racial domination and ethnic insecurity in order to maintain its support. In this regard, it went around the country telling its disillusioned Afro-Guyanese members and supporters that a PPP victory would mean Indian domination.

By the mid 1970s to early 1980s a crises of confidence began to emerge as part and parcel of a economic, social and political crises.

This is how one Social Commentator described the situation at the time:

“The talk of the town this past week, was about the long queues - in pouring rain sometimes - at few supermarkets as customers struggle to obtain a cake or two of soap... the whole fabric is crumbling. There is need to call a halt before the final disintegration.”

Burnham himself described the year 1983 a ”Bed of Thorns” And his Finance Minister one year later in his Budget Speech said:

“I can offer no comforting solution which will allow us to survive and prosper”.

Earlier, one of the his Vice-Presidents made a statement to the effect that:

“At the end of 1977, we had fallen into arrears of payments due on external transactions in the amount of US$102 million. We were not paying our debts, and we were becoming un-credit worthy as a nation.”

At the institutional level, state bodies, like the Police, Army, Judiciary, Public Service Commission, Judicial Service Commission were subverted by the doctrines of “Paramountcy of the Party.” The State was virtually transformed into the Executive Arm of the PNC and Party bodies fulfilled several functions of State organs.

The demand for free and fair elections and for the restoration of democracy became a rallying point for all the social and political forces who were opposed to the regime. The PPP was in the vanguard at every stage of this un-relenting struggle.

The campaign took various forms, parliamentary and extra-parliamentary. A Civil resistance and non-cooperation campaign was launched after the 1973 elections when several PPP Leaders and activists were arrested and imprisoned, and two youths belonging to the PYO were shot an killed as they sought to defend and protect the Ballot Boxes from the Military.

In this situation, the PPP issued a seventeen points demand in which it called for among others, the following:

1. Respect for and observance for the fundamental rights laid down in the Constitution;

2. Recognition of truly representative mass organizations and maintenance of a multi-party system in place of the de facto and de jure authoritarian one-Party State;

3. Implementation of legal and institutional measures to provide for equal opportunities for all Guyanese; enactment of equal opportunity legislation and establishment of a Commission to administer the Act;

4. Democratization of Local Government with more power to District and Regional Councils;

In stepping up the struggle for the restoration of democracy the PPP turned to the outside world for solidarity and support. A campaign was launched within the Caricom countries. Western Governments were also targetted .

Almost single-handedly Dr. Jagan led the campaign overseas.

Contact was established with key media houses and journalists in Europe, North America and the Caribbean.

Visits were made to Universities and established NGOs. Later, as the struggle at home gained momentum, particularly in light of the rigged referendum of 1978 and the infamous 1985 election that was as “crooked as barbed wire”.

Visits were also made to U.S. Congressmen and Senators on Capitol Hill and to several members of the British House of Commons and House of Lords including Lord Chitnis and Lord Avesbury whose active support was enlisted to observe elections in Guyana for the first time.

Lobbying for support in Caricom proved to be the “hardest nut to crack” this was home territory of the PNC and a bastion of PNC support.

So strong was the support for the PNC that one Caricom Leader was bold enough to state following a meeting with Hoyte after the 1985 elections that;

“For Guyana, it is better to have rigged elections than no elections at all;”


Meaning that it is better to support Hoyte even though he rigged elections rather than support Jagan, the Communist when there is no guarantee that elections will be held at all!

During the PPP’s struggle for free and fair elections and a return to democracy there have been several episodes that generated political controversy and attracted attacks from the far right to the far left of the political spectrum in Guyana.

These episodes arose as a result of decisions adopted by the PPP from time to time;

First: was the tactics applied by the Party in the context of the cold war and its ideological bias in favour of the Soviet Union;

Second; was the decision to leave to the British Colonial Government the decision to determine what type of constitutional

arrangement and electoral system should be put in place for an independent Guyana;

Third; was the decision to broker a deal with Burnham for a

power-sharing formula in 1962;

Fourth; was the decision to boycott the House of Assembly in 1964;

Fifth; was the decision in 1968 to transform the Party from a loose mass Party to a Marxist-Leninist type of Party

Sixth; was the decision to boycott Parliament after the 1973 election when the army intervened to seize the Ballot Boxes;

Seventh; was the decision in 1974 to give critical support to the PNC Government in defense of Guyana’s Sovereignty and Independence;

Eight; was the decision in 1997 to give up two (2) years of the five year term of the Janet Jagan Presidency.

There may have been other such episodes but these are some of the key ones I can recall.

But the point is that while the Party remained united, strong and militant and weathered the political controversies generated by these decisions, they nevertheless created tensions in the body politic that no one can say with certainty whether they delayed and/or helped Guyana’s return to democracy.

What really mattered is the fact that at every stage of the struggle for democracy, the PPP in recognition of the dialectics of change, was capable of changing its tactics, programme and policies thus making it relevant to the situation obtaining at the time and to carry with it is members and supporters.

Keeping its eye on the electoral ball at all times, the PPP took several innovative initiatives on the political front.

This was manifested in its call for a National Patriotic Front and a National Front Government in 1976, the establishment of the Committee for the Defence of Democracy in 1978, the Patriotic Coalition in 1985 and most important of all, the formation of the Civic component of the PPP in 1992.

Moreover, the Party worked closely with the Churches and the religious bodies, the Trade Union Movement, Farmer Organizations, as well as with academics, intellectuals, student, women and youth organizations.

The fight at the Parliamentary level was complimented with demonstrations, picketing exercises, marches, mass rallies, public meetings, bottom house meetings, house to house campaigns, and fund-raising activities at home and abroad.

The Guyanese diaspora and Overseas Support Groups in North America, the United Kingdom and elsewhere made a decisive contribution to the long sought after victory at the polls when Cheddi Jagan and the PPP after twenty-eight (28) years in the political wilderness but never abandoned by the people of Guyana finally assumed office on October 5, 1992.

As everybody knew, it was a well deserved victory. It was a victory that make us feel a sense of pride when we look back on those long but difficult days but it is also a victory that energizes and motivates us as we look to the future with optimism.

So that when I sat with my family one evening in the comfort of my home on August 3, 2003 and heard an Opposition MP state with uttermost conviction on a weekly TV programme that;

“We have evidence of a tyranny in Guyana”;

One is left in a sense of shock and awe and to wonder as to what country she was talking about and who and where are the tyrants?

My simple message to all those who have doubts about the intention of the PPP/C is as follows;

“If it were true that we had caused all the problems
in Guyana, that the PNC talks about i.e.; marginalization, discrimination, “being left” out etc., the PPP/C could not
have lasted twelve (12) years in Government. We
probably would not have lasted even one (1) year”.

The conclusion therefore is simple. We must be doing something good and for the majority. If this is so, then we have no other choice but to press on.

In closing, if we were to examine Guyana’s return to democracy through the prism of Roosevelts’ Four Freedoms there should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that what we have here in Guyana as a result of the PPP/C’s efforts to consolidate and extend democracy in Guyana puts us in good stead with the international community and more particularly with the Guyanese people.

Thank you.