Where is the bourgeoisie?

Oct 09, 2008 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

---

One of the fantastic things about the writings of Eusi Kwayana is that you can read a story of its own in each sentence he writes.

It is a formidable task that is not easily emulated. Perhaps it was an art perfected by him many moons ago; Kwayana is moving on to his mid-eighties.

There seems to be stories and historical tales that Kwayana wants to tell when he writes, whether it is social analysis he is doing or a reply to someone. His letter on Janet Jagan in last Saturday’s issue of the Stabroek News is vintage Kwayana.

In that correspondence, he suggests that the older political fighters like Mrs. Jagan should not seek to put down the younger Guyanese who are engaged in political discourse.

Mr. Kwayana was referring to two of Mrs. Jagan’s recent columns in which she made disparaging remarks on me and David Hinds but singled out Tacuma Ogunseye for a torrid tongue-lashing.

Mrs. Jagan opined that Mr. Ogunseye came close to treason for his opinion that “Fine Man” may have been engaged in a political battle.

She severely castigated the media for carrying Ogunseye’s assertion (the letter was published by both independent dailies). But this is not the only aspect of fascination in Kwayana’s missive.

The part that should interest political observers is when he observed: “She (Mrs. Jagan) has a genuine mistrust of people who do not toe the line. She seems to have made peace with the bourgeoisie but sees intellectual workers and peace activists as the new class enemy.”

This is a profound reflection on the historical contours of the PPP and its post-1992 nature. Kwayana’s statement is not new in the sense that since the split within the nationalist movement, political analysts felt that Cheddi Jagan was satisfied to transform the PPP into an Indian nationalist movement while at the same time retaining his communist fanaticism. Out of this came a pathological contradiction.

The PPP was communist. Its leaders loved to be called communist and called themselves communist. But only Cheddi and Janet Jagan have been the true communists.

This 1957 contradiction has literally exposed the farcical nature of the PPP since its formation. Its historical journey since has been fraught confusion.

Jagan refused to drop communism and so lost power in the sixties. Then he made a deal with the US in 1992 to eschew communist policies in return for American support for free and fair election.

In 1993, as President of Guyana, he addressed his party’s congress in Port Mourant in which he asserted his Marxist-Leninist character (the word he used). But his Government was at the mercy of the Indian bourgeoisie. Land grabbers took over Jagan. One of Jagan’s trusted bourgeois friends was literally carving out Guyana for himself.

It is in this context one must understand Kwayana’s profound assessment that Mrs. Jagan has made peace with the bourgeoisie. But the confusion which began in 1957 continues to expose the PPP as a comical entity.

For example, the party stubbornly refuses to remove from its constitution its proclamation of being a Marxist-Leninist organization but the nature of any Marxist-Leninist party is to weaken the role of private accumulation since it conflicts with the liberation of the working class which in communist terminology is called the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The communists in West Bengal have chased out the Tata car company which had bought land from farmers to set up a plant to make the world’s cheapest car.

Now if we follow Mr. Kwayana’s logic, this Marxist-Leninist party has made peace with the bourgeoisie and has found a new class enemy – working class intellectuals and peace activists.

Mr. Kwayana is obviously astute in that he sees, the PPP founder, Mrs. Jagan, a self-proclaimed communist, attacking people who are nowhere near to being petty bourgeois much less capitalist investors.

Mr. Kwayana’s simple letter contains an insight in our troubled past. Those who care about a successful future should read this fine piece of scholarly insight on Mrs. Jagan’s politics from one of the Caribbean’s greatest nationalists.

Eusi Kwayana has been sadly missed since he chose to migrate from this land whose freedom he has fought so bravely for in a career stretching over sixty years.

In a country where the younger generation knows very little about the titanic struggle against post-colonial dictatorship, Eusi Kwayana’s absence from the landscape has made this country politically poorer.

Mr Kwayana must know that he is getting on in age and he should fill the huge gaps that exist in Guyanese history so the present generation can know not only the truths of history but who are their enemies.

---

---