Was Cheddi Jagan a perfect politician?

Feb 28, 2011 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
I can empathize with son Joey Jagan being angry with anyone trying to write disparagingly of his father, the late President Cheddi Jagan. Boy oh boy! That was one angry letter written by an incensed son Joey (Kaieteur News, February 26th, “Why blame President Cheddi for all the woes in our political system”).
Joey used the words stupid and stupidity so many times I lost count. I hope I am more reasonable and objective is assessing his father’s legacies.
Joey writes: “Imagine, Harripaul dares to accuse President Cheddi (Jagan) of race politics”. I don’t believe Cheddi was a racist nor did he set out in a deliberate fashion to practice ethnic politics. Yet the Jagan-Burnham era is synonymous with ethnic politics. It began with these two founding fathers. And, indeed ethnic politics, namely, ethnic voting for ethnic parties, has become the political culture of the nation. One can say it is the legacy bequeathed to the nation by these departed founding fathers.
Could they have done anything to curtail and/or mitigate the developing trend of ethnic parties and ethnic voting? After say, two election cycles (1957, 1961) couldn’t both of these men have stepped aside and let the leadership pass to a party member of another ethnic group?
Wouldn’t that small but single step have helped to develop and mold a perception of multi-ethnic character of both of these parties? And, wouldn’t it have led to each party having a multi-ethnic following and support today? And, wouldn’t it have avoided the ethnic violence and riots of the 1962-63? And, wouldn’t our nation have had a strong multi-ethnic political culture today?
The values-system of the 1950s – and 1960s era – was that a founder-leader of a party becomes deified, and stays leader-for-life. It is a rare and remarkable leader who would stand up and buck the prevailing values-system. George Washington was one such rare leader.
The values-system in 1780s was a leader who distinguishes himself could easily become a king. The people themselves thrust kingship or royalty on their leader without the leader asking for or desiring it. “Declare yourself King, King, King”, they would shout as George Washington rides past on his horse. George Washington knew the settlers in America in the 1600s and 1700s were escaping from the evils of monarchical absolutism in Europe.
He wanted nothing more than to serve his two four-year terms and retire to his farm at Mount Vernon.
Cheddi Jagan and Forbes Burnham were no George Washington. Neither is Gaddafi or Mubarak or Saleh or the Absolute Monarch in Bahrain. Once they get in, they stay there and rule until death or until they are overthrown. Both Jagan and Burnham died in office as president.
Guyana suffers today from the principal legacy – ethnic politics – of Burnham and Jagan. Yet both men can be excused, partly because it was the values-system of the era they lived in, partly because they lacked the mark of great visionary leaders.
Jagan espoused Marxist ideology as the system that would take over the whole world. He did it and believed it his whole life. Gorbachev realised this ideology was full of imperfections and promulgated glasnost and perestroika policies to reform the system. Jagan later said he was “Gorbachev before Gorbachev”. (I don’t know whether Jagan did). Marxism and Communism ran its course (1917-1989) and the nations of the world pronounced it a failure. So much for Jagan’s lack of vision.
In 1992, at age 74, Jagan was returned to power. He had an excellent chance to destroy the ethnic perception of his party. This would have been his greatest positive legacy. He ran on a ticket – himself, an Indian as president, Sam Hinds, an African as Prime Minister – and got elected. Jagan was either careless, he forgot – or was it deliberate to amend his party’s and the nation’s constitution.
He died and Sam Hinds was not allowed to succeed him. The conclusion was inescapable: Sam Hinds had been used as a window-dresser. (Sam Hinds was allowed to serve out the remaining nine months of Jagan’s term, but then the dance around the constitution was performed to make sure Sam the African-Guyanese could not rightfully, constitutionally ascend to the presidency).
Jagan created the so-called Civic component of the party which turned out to be a totally fraudulent smoke-screen idea; the African members became Civic – in reality they were window-dressers. No matter how many years they served, they could not become members and enjoy the benefits and privileges of membership.
PM Sam Hinds told a New York radio station in 1997, he was interested in running for the presidency. Poor Sam, he was Civic; not a party member. Cheddi Jagan has passed on – but leaves a terrible, maybe unintended legacy. His party is an incontrovertible ethnic party (only an Indian can be its leader) and is terribly guilty of practicing ethnic politics. Maybe he was stricken and died suddenly – and his party was hijacked by “Indian triumphalists”.
Mike Persaud

---

---