Reflecting on Dr. Cheddi Jagan and the state of the APNU+AFC Coalition

Apr 01, 2018 Features / Columnists, Hinds' Sight with Dr. David Hinds

---

By Dr. David Hinds
Last month – March 22 to be precise – marked the 100th birth anniversary of Dr. Cheddi Jagan. It is only fitting that Guyana stops for a moment and remembers this giant who passed our way and enriched our social and political landscape.
Half of our country understandably remember a hero, a peerless leader and a visionary. To the Indian Guyanese community, Dr. Jagan was in a league by himself. The African Guyanese section of the population has a less uncritical attitude to him, but there was always an underlying respect.
Dr. Jagan was a different kind of anti-colonial leader. He did not seek mere constitutional independence from Britain, for he had the vision to realize that without economic independence based on a fair distribution of wealth, constitutional independence would be meaningless. On this score, he stands apart from his contemporaries.
If the working peoples of Guyana and the Caribbean enjoy any dignity today, it is due, in part, to the fact that Dr. Jagan had the courage to stand in their ranks and proclaim their cause. And he inspired other fortunate members of the society to put their skills and talents to the service of the less fortunate. His was a full life of service, selfless service.
By the time I met Dr. Jagan in the late 1970s, he was already an icon of the freedom struggle. He was an example to a seeking young man wanting to play a part in his people’s quest for justice and dignity. I had read the “The West on Trial” and it made an impression on my young mind. Despite my later critical re-reading of it and my questioning of some of the choices and tactics made by Dr. Jagan and his generation of leaders, my respect for the man who persistently summoned Guyana to reach deep within itself never waned.
Yes, to my mind, Dr. Jagan committed his fair share of errors. At the heart of his errors was his inability to reconcile race and class. I disagree with his admirers who place him above race. While he accepted the primacy of class in theory, he aggressively used race as a mobilizing tool. In that regard, he succumbed to the trap that our ethnically divided country sets for all those who seek ultimate political power. The logic of that choice took his politics to places he may have not intended to go.
He was, for example, on the wrong side of the discourse on West Indian Federation. His failure to take Guyana into the Federation betrayed a misguided commitment to Indian Guyanese security over Caribbean unity. That error was fatal for Guyana. It led to a second split of the PPP, as Sydney King et al left the PPP, a move that consolidated the ethnic division that has dogged the country to this day.
Dr. Jagan was not a racist as some would have us believe. Ironically, I don’t think his relationship to Indian Guyanese was culturally driven—he was not an Indian Nationalist. His relationship to that community was purely political, in the sense that he utilized Indian ethnic emotions for political purposes. He was more emotionally attached to Marxist ideology than he was to any deep sense of his Indian-ness. It remains one of the mysteries of Guyanese politics that a people could be so devoted to a leader who did not share their cultural praxis.
Dr. Jagan was a firm believer in ethnic unity. But once again, the imperatives of party politics stood in the way of translating belief into practice. He wanted political unity, but on his terms. That is why he only pushed hard for power-sharing when he was out of power. One of my major disappointments was his refusal to implement a Government of National Unity when he came to power in 1992. Once again, he squandered a golden opportunity to take the country in a different direction.
But his sincerity, integrity, and patriotism could not be faulted. Many people have correctly cited his honesty and innocence as both his major strengths and weaknesses. But I will remember Cheddi Jagan as an apostle of the working people’s struggle for bread and justice; a tireless worker for the emancipation of the poor and powerless. Some have made claim to that mantle, but Cheddi has earned it.
He fought battles on behalf of the poor, even when it was not fashionable to do so. His was an unshakable belief in the right of the toilers — the hewers of wood and fetchers of water– to stand in the front ranks of humanity. In so doing, he challenged the very basis upon which modern accumulation of wealth rested. That was no easy thing to do in a world dominated by an imperial order and bent on turning back the tide of working class resistance.
COALITION POLITICS
The PNC, WPA and AFC all agree that the Coalition is stronger than the individual parties, and that we could only win when we are together. Where we seem to disagree is on how the Coalition should function when in government. The WPA firmly believes that the Coalition is good for Guyana, but we also believe that a Coalition in which there is limited intra-coalition consultation and no meaningful role for the coalition parties in influencing broad policy is bad for Guyana.
WPA worked as hard as any party to bring the government to power; we put our cherished reputation on the line when we joined with the PNC to form APNU, and with the AFC to form the coalition. When the WPA helped to frame APNU and the Coalition’s vision and write their manifestos, we did so not as WPA, but as a Partnership and a Coalition. So, if we helped to frame the vision, write the manifesto and convince the electorate from the platform, in the media and on the ground to vote for them, then it is only fair that we help to govern in meaningful ways.
This has not been the case. All we ask is to be treated as a legitimate partner –we are not in the government as window dressing. We, the WPA and APNU, are fooling the nation by giving the impression that we help to govern when we are not. WPA is daily eroding its noble tradition and special place in Guyana’s political history by continuing this charade.
Decision-making has been skillfully and deliberately confined to the Cabinet, where the WPA has one member. But the Cabinet is not a place for policy direction and policy making—it’s a policy-executing council. Policy direction comes from the parties. But there is no forum within APNU or the Coalition to do so. All attempts to change this model have been rebuffed by the leadership
Giving the WPA a Ministry and a few positions is not enough–the party must influence policies. If we were good enough to help shape the vision and the message to bring victory in 2011 and 2015, then we are good enough to help to govern after 2015.
I therefore join Tacuma Ogunseye in urging a review of the WPA’s role in the government, not only within the party, but in the country at large. This is not just a WPA matter, but a national one. My personal view is that if our exclusion from influencing and framing government policy continues, then we should not be there.

More of Dr. Hinds ‘writings and commentaries can be found on his YouTube Channel Hinds’ Sight: Dr. David Hinds’ Guyana-Caribbean Politics and on his website www.guyanacaribbeanpolitics.com. Send comments to [email protected]

---

---