Latest update August 19th, 2026 10:39 AM
Any review of the PPP’s history has to include the role of Mrs. Janet Jagan
DEAR EDITOR
Rooplall Persaud, in his letter “The nation needs to objectively re-examine the legacy of the PPP and President Jagan,” (KN, Tuesday, September 9, 2008), has come out in support of columnist Freddie Kissoon’s argument that there is indeed a need for a review of the history of the PPP and the late Dr. Cheddi Jagan.
Well, the truth is that the recordings of history are constantly being reviewed based on emergence of new, incontrovertible and plausible information.
Unfortunately, Guyanese remain nonplussed about our contemporary political history, especially as it relates to the roles of the PPP and PNC in shaping our country, because there are divergent views that seek to play up one party at the expense of the other.
There has even been talk of setting up a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to delve far back into our history to determine where exactly our problems sprung roots, and to formulate resolutions. However, no one seems eager to open bowling or batting in what doubtlessly will become a blame game.
And Mr. Rooplall is right when he wrote, “Guyana was entrenched in a political feud based mainly on ethnicity,” (and that) “this exists today, even as our nation remains divided.”
Seriously, there is no way either the PPP or the PNC can unite Guyanese of all races behind one common vision for unity and national development if either party panders to one ethnic group for the bulk of its support, and has to reward that group for votes at election time. Cries of discrimination and even marginalization are bound to be heard.
But what I think the Kissoons and Rooplalls of Guyana also have to factor into the state of ethnic polarization in Guyana is the role of the other co-founder of the PPP, Mrs. Janet Jagan, now viewed as the PPP matriarch.
Guyanese seem either respectful of her role of fighting to end colonialism, or fond of her as a foreigner who has been actively involved in Guyana’s politics for over sixty years. But how can anyone review Dr. Jagan’s role without assessing her role?
In an Internet posting recently, I read where noted Trinidadian economist Lloyd Best, who supposedly was appointed by the United Nations as an economic advisor to the Jagan government in 1962, reportedly blamed Dr. Jagan’s inflexibility on ideology for contributing to his defeat/ouster as Premier of Guyana.
When asked whether anyone in the PPP couldn’t have influenced Dr. Jagan to soften his stance, Mr. Best reportedly responded by stating that Mrs. Jagan was a bad influence on Dr. Jagan.
He added, “I don’t think she had any insight into the complexity of the Guyana situation, and she was the biggest buttress of Cheddi’s intransigence in Guyana.
She was very hostile to dissent. In my judgment, she was a person who believed ‘if you were not for me (her), then you were against me (her)’.”
If these words were indeed uttered by Mr. Best, they underscore the belief many Guyanese share about the PPP’s intransigence in the fifties and sixties, even as the late opportunistic Forbes Burnham chose to be flexible, played the game and ended up being Premier.
But, looking at the performance of the PPP in power since Dr, Jagan died in 1997, I have to ask whether Mrs. Jagan still is not a bad influence on President Bharrat Jagdeo and the PPP, because she still does not understand the complexity of the Guyana situation.
Is it possible those Guyanese who are PPP leaders just couldn’t be bothered about this, just as long as the PPP is in power?
Is Mrs. Jagan, an American born, still bound by a Cold War mentality that is preventing Western nations, but especially American corporations with financial capital, from rushing to invest in Guyana?
I ask this because I don’t recall, during her two years as President of Guyana (1997to 1999), that she ever undertook any initiative for American companies to invest in Guyana!
Emile Mervin
Share this:
Discover more from Kaieteur News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.