After years of Independence it is time we mature politically

Dec 19, 2009 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,
We note the robust, crusade by Dr. Prem Misir to distort some aspects of our history and insert certain perceptions.
Thank God for the likes of Rashleigh Jackson, who in Kaieteur News December 12, 2009 responded to some miscreancy and so happily gave to our young people, a true picture of past and current events.
In addition to Mr. Jackson’s well written response to Dr. Misir, I wish to share the salient factors related to the 1964 Elections.
This is necessary, since it appears that the PPP’s over simplistic claim of an American – British conspiracy to oust them from office has reached alanning levels.
Last week in Trinidad, I happened upon a book, ‘Understanding the Contemporary Caribbean’ used by Schools – in dealing with Guyana’s History. The author is clearly unaware of Guyana’s political experiences when he recites this PPP claim of a US intervention.
I set out to show the wider picture and challenge Dr. Misir to show otherwise.
As an opening gambit, recall how much the PPP leadership, at home and abroad, assailed the C.I A. of getting rid of unfriendly parties and governments around the world.
With this knowledge, any sensible leadership would have found it prudent to find a modus Vivendi with the opposition at home, but as is the case, today, they stay steadfast on their road to total control until somehow at that time, in the words of one of their leaders recently deceased, “you can faster stop tomorrow than stop communism” the PPP said to that statement AMEN.
FACTS
Before the Elections held on 2l August 1961, the country was traumatized by the major PPP campaign slogan – ‘Apan Jaat’ meaning ‘our kind’ and by extension, “Vote for your own race.”
It was highly effective and saw our country, by and large, divided racially. Marginal lines sprung up along our coastal belt.
I was the cheated PNC candidate, and unhappily, the PPP Administration in defiance of the law, an order of the Supreme Court and accepted protocol, never held the by-elections, in spite of protests by the opposition.
Against this background and other happenings, the PNC and opposition forces organized a Constituent Assembly and proposed a change of the Electoral System to that of Proportional Representation as a just way to reflect in Parliament and Government, the wishes of the people, as against the system which gave the PPP with 42.6% of the votes, a majority of seats.
The arguments for PR were eloquently and forcefully advanced by Forbes Burnham supported by Mr. Peter D’Aguiar. It was a compelling contention.
Dr. Jagan at the November 1962 Conference held out for what he promised his supporters — ‘Independence Now’ and declared the following year, ‘Independence Year’.
All official envelopes and stationery were stamped ‘Independence Year.’
In 1963 exhaustive discussions were held, including an initiative by Trinidad and Tobago’s Prime Minister Eric Williams, who hosted separate consultations with the British Guiana Political Parties.
I was a member of Mr. Burnham’s delegation to Port of Spain, Trinidad, and know how Dr. Eric Williams tried to help the Parties find a middle ground, but failed.
At other conferences in London, we witnessed stubbornness by the PPP to hold on to all power similar to that, which, to this day, has frustrated Local Government Reform.
At the April 1963 conference in London, the deadlock still existed on the major issues, the main one was for a change in the Electoral System.
We need to be reminded that the British said that failure by the political leaders to reach an agreement would further delay the fixing of a date for Independence.
Dr. Jagan was the first to agree (as follows) for the British to impose a solution, it was he who said that he “had great faith in the British sense of fair play and justice.”
Yet when the PR system was introduced he returned and the PPP raised yet another slogan PR or CR (call me and I’ll tell you what CR meant) and he also promised a Hurricane of protests — mayhem followed, particularly, in the sugar belt.
I offer the following as presented to the UK Parliament by the Secretary of State for the Colonies Hon. Duncan Sandys’, by Command of Her Majesty the Queen, November 1963 report.
In the absence of agreement, the Secretary of State adjourned the Conference to give the parties further time to resolve their differences
The political deadlock was still unbroken when, in April 1963, a general strike began. It lasted well into July, and culminated in an outbreak of inter-racial violence. At that stage, Mr. Sandys visited the country and appealed to the leaders to form a national government with the object of restoring peace and confidence. They consented to hold talks with this objective, but these broke down as a result of disagreement over the allocation of Cabinet seats.
On his return, Mr. Sandys informed Parliament of his intention to reconvene the conference with a view to settling the unresolved constitutional issues.
The conference was accordingly resumed in London at Lancaster House on 22nd October 1963, under the chairmanship of the Secretary of State.
Mr. Sandys opened by enquiring whether the parties had made any progress towards reaching agreement. The leaders of the three delegations replied that they had had a number of meetings, but had not been able to compose their differences.
In view of this situation, the Secretary of State decided to postpone the plenary sessions for a few days, during which he held separate discussions with each of the leaders. They also had further talks with each other.
These talks having proved fruitless, the three leaders decided to ask the Secretary of State to settle the outstanding issues on the authority of the British Government. The request was embodied in a letter to him, dated 25th October 1963, with the following terms:-
“At your request we have made further efforts to resolve the differences between us on the constitutional issues which require to be settled before British Guiana secures independence, in particular, the electoral system, the voting age, and the question whether flesh elections should he held before independence.
We regret to have to report to you that we have not succeeded in reaching agreement; and we have reluctantly come to the conclusion that there is no prospect of an agreed solution. Another adjournment of the Conference for further discussions between ourselves would therefore serve no useful purpose and would result only in further delaying British Guiana’s independence, and in continued uncertainty in the country.
In these circumstances we are agreed to ask the British Government to settle on their authority all outstanding constitutional issues, and we accept their decisions.”
Signed: Cheddi Jagan, L.F. S. Burnham, P.S. D’Aguiar
After further meetings with the leaders of the three delegations, the Secretary of State announced his decisions at a final plenary session on 3lst October 1963.
In his statement (Annex A), Mr. Sandys said that he was satisfied that the root cause of British Guiana’s troubles was the development of party politics along racial lines. He therefore decided that the system of proportional representation should be introduced, since this would tend to encourage coalitions between parties and would make it easier for new political groupings to form on a multi-racial basis.
Preparations for elections under this system would be put in hand without delay, after which the British Government would convene a conference to fix a date for independence.
Disappointment was expressed that the Secretary of State’s decisions did not include a firm date for independence. However, Mr. Sandys emphasized that the British Government had no wish to delay British Guiana’s independence any longer than was absolutely necessary to enable power to be transferred in conditions of peace and stability.
In this contest, therefore, much of our doings and undoings were self-generated, or rather self-imposed.
The task now is to move beyond our history and persuade government that until and unless we develop quickly a system of good or shared governance, this period of peace will prove to be but transient. After years of Independence it is time we mature politically or for we need be assured of the wisdom of Sophocles: “Heaven never helps the man that will not act.”
Hamilton Green, J.P.

---

---