LEADER OR NOTHING

Dec 12, 2014 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

There were two splits within the PPP. The first was in 1952 when Forbes Burnham demanded “leader or nothing”. This triggered a crisis within the PPP.  The crisis eventually abated, but the challenge by Burnham remained.
Burnham would eventually split the PPP into two factions, the Burnhamite PPP and the Jaganite PPP. The effects of this split would splinter the nationalist movement and divide the working class along ethnic lines. That was the first split in the PPP.
There was to be a later split. This split was deemed an ideological split, in which Jagan separated himself from extremists, some of whom were more wildly communist that he was. That split had no effect on working class unity.
“Leader or nothing!” This was ultimatum that Forbes Burnham issued to the PPP in the face of his uncontainable ambition to lead the party and country. That was 1952.
Sixty-two years later, the Alliance for Change has issued an ultimatum to APNU, a grouping in which Burnham’s PNC, now the PNCR, is the major partner. The AFC after initially rejecting the idea that it should join in a pre-election coalition with APNU has now indicated that it is willing to lead a pro-democracy coalition that would involve APNU, trade unions, and persons from the PPP who are disgruntled with their party. The AFC in other words is saying that it is not going to enter any pre-election coalition unless it leads that coalition. It is “leader or nothing”.
Burnham of course had his share of coalition politics. The PNC when it was first formed was a coalition of Burnham’s PPP and a number of small parties, very much like what APNU is today. Burnham eventually came to power through a coalition government with the United Force. But very early in the day there were major divisions in the coalition government, because of differences between the leader of the United Force and Burnham. The two almost parted ways soon after they formed the government, but the United States ambassador quickly intervened to bring the two leaders together, fearful that any break-up of the coalition government would lead to Jagan taking over again.
By 1968, Burnham had grown tired of coalition politics. He decided, and publicly announced, that never again would he lead the PNC into a coalition government. He did not have to. He rigged every election from that year until 1980.
In 1968, Burnham was totally finished with coalition politics. Those who question why the 1980 Constitution of Guyana allowed for a party gaining a plurality rather than a majority to hold the government must go back and understand Burnham’s sentiments about coalition. He was never again going to rule with the support of a coalition. With an Executive Presidency, all he felt he needed was a plurality to form the government. This is why the Constitution of Guyana is the way it is. The PPP was not interested in changing that after the Constitutional Reform Process from 1998 to 2002 and the PNC felt that this arrangement was its only chance of gaining power. This is why the PNC did not oppose the plurality rule.
The AFC has always rejected the idea of a pre-election coalition with the PNCR. For one, the party was offering itself as an alternative to Guyana’s race-based politics. It was offering itself as an alternative to the domination of Guyana’s politics by the PNC and the PPP. Therefore how could it join with either of these forces?
The AFC was also not interested in a coalition with APNU for tactical reasons. In the 2011 elections, its strategy was to woo supporters of the PPP in PPP strongholds. Thus, it sought to undermine PPP support as a means of causing the PPP to lose the elections. It did not succeed, but it did for the first time consign the PPP to the role of a minority government.
Some of the AFC’s top brass did not participate in the recent rally held by APNU to protest the prorogation of parliament. The explanation was later given that the AFC did not wish for the PPP to spin the presence of certain of its leaders on APNU’s political platform. This was followed by a rejection of a pre-election coalition with APNU.
Then suddenly, at its National Conference came the idea that the AFC would be open to joining ranks with APNU, but only as part of a pro-democracy alliance, and only if the AFC leads the alliance. In other words, the AFC is saying, “leader or nothing.”
The AFC in so doing has again done what it has become quite adept at: it has turned the ball around and placed it in APNU’s court. Instead of the AFC having to defend its rejection of a coalition with APNU, it is APNU which now has to explain why it would be unwilling to join a pro-democracy movement in which it will not hold the leadership.
The AFC has done it again. It has APNU right where it wants it: around its little fingers.
(To be continued)

---

---