A history of the PNC: Part 2

Nov 23, 2019 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

---

In my Tuesday, October 15, 2019 piece, “History of the PNC: Part 1” I indicated that I would do a five-part series, the second of which would look at the PNC in power, referring exclusively to the government of the PNC headed by Forbes Burnham, 1964 –1985.
After the 1964 election, in the coalition that was formed between Peter D’Aguiar’s United Force (UF) and the PNC, Burnham had no choice – since he needed D’Aguiar’s support to become Prime Minister – to concede the vital Ministry of Finance to the smaller United Force. Here the seeds of poison were planted.
If the PNC had retained that portfolio, financial policies would have been the diametrical opposite to what it was under D’Aguiar. The PPP had nothing in common with the UF. The PNC had nothing in common with the UF too.
The PPP and PNC came out of traditional anti-colonial, working class environments and were mass-based parties whose constitutions were the urban and rural proletariats. Complicating this difference was the elite nature of the commercial classes in British Guiana which the United Force emerged out of.
Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of Guyanese politics would have known that the PNC-UF coalition could not have lasted. Lacking an electoral majority to win the 1968 election, the PNC rigged the process and became a majority administration after 1968.
Burnham as head of government from 1968 was the same man who outmaneuvered Jagan from 1957 to 1964. Knowing full well that the UK and the US were not pleased at the ouster of the pro-capitalist, pro-western UF, Burnham played the game he thought was the only one in town – stay pro-western, run a capitalist economy, placate the western countries, and wait for the opportune moment to become your own man with your own vision of national development.
That moment came with the birth of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), the North-South Dialogue and the increasing militancy of the post-colonial Third World. Burnham seized the moment with insane hands and began the breakaway from the West. He began to fulfill his dream of a socialist Guyana.
The period of the PNC under Forbes Burnham (1964-1985) is one of the most fascinating dramas in world politics. It rivals any country for the presence of complex politics and complex personalities. With the protection of NAM, the USSR and the radical Third World, Burnham went very far away from traditional post-colonial economic backwardness.
He took control of the foreign-owned national resources of Guyana. He initiated a cultural revolution, where the major race groups could reclaim their natural civilization. His foreign affairs direction was characterized by support for national liberation movements around the world. He gave financial support to African liberation movements and after the revolutionary victories in Grenada and Nicaragua, he offered physical assistance, especially military training.
The PNC by 1976 was a genuine, radical anti-capitalist, anti-western, anti-colonial formation in the world.
Inside this phenomenal metamorphosis of a former pro-capitalist, pro-western organization were inherent contradictions that manifested themselves essentially in the nature of the character and personality of its leader. Many pro-Burnham scholars attributed his downfall to sabotage by western imperialism.
There is a case for that theory, and it is a potent one, but Burnham’s congenital defects allowed for the penetration and success of imperialism in Guyana in the seventies. While the PNC had transformed itself into a revolutionary force with young revolutionary socialist cadres, its leader was a study in Freudian topography.
Burnham was essentially driven by narcissism, self-awareness of his exceptional qualities, and was a serious embracer of authoritarian philosophy. The PNC knew Burnham was its problem, but he was the maximum leader and he tolerated no challenge. He would listen, applaud your dissent, but he would never adhere to anything he didn’t believe in, even if he was wrong. The most spine-chilling example of this was a special meeting of the general council of the party, called to examine the dimensions of the flour ban.
Persuasive arguments were put forward that the ban was an abysmal failure. It was corrupting the security forces and Transport and Harbours officials, and enriching areas where PPP constituencies lived. All in the room were against its continuation, including a surprise to Burnham – Hamilton Green. In the end, the maximum leader refused to be moved.
Burnham’s attitude in that meeting caused a serious split between himself and his party. The PNC was at odds with its founder-leader. But even before the flour ban debacle, many PNC leaders were revolted at the assassination of Walter Rodney. They felt Burnham had gone too far. Even before his death in 1985, the PNC knew that its future was without Burnham.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper)

---

---