Obsolete references vs present-day realities

Apr 19, 2024 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

There has been a noticeable stream of detailed letters written by non-resident Guyanese of a particular ideological, political, cultural and ethnocentric genre denigrating Cheddi Jagan, his beliefs and an identified few of his followers.

Although Ramkarran, Ramotar, Ramcharan and Rohee aka ‘The Four R’s’ are not the only ones known to have spoken or written favorably about Jagan, nevertheless they have been singled out for attack by Ramharack and company. Their new line of attack is reflected in a letter; ‘Sentimental reverence for Cheddi’s enduring legacy and legitimizing the silencing of Indian history’ written by Baytoram Ramharack and published in S/N of April 7, 2024.

‘Neither Ralph Ramkarran, Donald Ramotar, Dr. Bertrand Ramcharan or Clement Rohee – and I reiterate – none of these individuals have demonstrated an appreciation for Indian history. Nor can they boast of a public record of defending Indian interests. They have, instead, knowingly in some cases, contributed to the silencing of the Indian voice.’

My question is; should any one of our Indian, African, Chinese or Portuguese peoples’ history and/or contributions to nation building take precedence over the sum total of Guyanese historiography?

Are we not woven into one as reflected in our National Motto? It seems to me that by particularizing or ring-fencing any specific ethnic group for the sake of political or ethnocentric expediency, especially within our multiracial, multicultural society, that would be tantamount to unraveling what our constitution demands of us; …That we ‘celebrate our cultural and racial diversity and strengthen our unity by eliminating any form of discrimination’.

In this regard, one is left to wonder whether the writings by Baytoram and company are meant to influence the deliberations at and the outcome of the 32nd congress of the PPP due to be held in early May this year since they have stepped up their efforts at a time when the philosophical and ideological pillars on which the PPP was founded have, coincidentally, been brought into question.

There is absolutely no need to delve too deeply to discern the real motive behind Baytoram and company’s campaign to besmirch the legacy of Jagan and to include those who they have singled out for attack simply because they do not embrace ethnic solidarity nor the sectarian cause that Ramharack champions. This leads me to wonder whether they have ever noticed that there are no discernible efforts by any Afro-Guyanese individual or group to pull down Burnham’s legacy in the same way as Ramharack and company try to pull down Jagan’s.

Those who seek to besmirch Jagan’s beliefs as well as that of the three named individuals have a Right to do so, but that same Right must be resided with those who disagree with Ramharack and whose views support what Jagan stood for.

In any exchange of views on Jagan, context is necessary, thus the question; how is Jagan’s philosophy and ideology manifesting themselves under present day conditions in Guyana? Is Guyana today worst off or better off with the PPP in government? Are we not experiencing relatively prosperous times, knowing fully well that as a country built on a free market or capitalist economy, we are exposed to the vagaries of the domestic and global market place? One, we accept that paradigm; we know that for the great majority of Guyanese, their ‘bread is not buttered with ham fat’ nor do they have ‘a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage.’

From the writings of Baytoram and company, it is clear that by criticizing Jagan’s beliefs, they are ipso facto criticizing the PPP. The two are inextricably linked, but, an important observation is missing, they have never pulled the PNC over the heat, considering that it is the PNC who is responsible for imposing and elevating to a constitutional level that; ‘Guyana … is ‘in the course of transition from capitalism to socialism.’

On top of that, Guyana’s constitution states that; ‘Every young person has the right to ideological, social, cultural and vocational development and to the opportunity for responsible participation in the development of the socialist order of society.’ The Constitution goes on to state that ‘a socialist national culture’ should be developed from the nation’s diverse cultural strains’.

Finally, it should be acknowledged that a ‘Co-operative Republic’ signifies the precept of cooperativism, a euphemism that envisages the establishment of collectivist order of Guyanese society. Looked at holistically, our constitution is more philosophical and ideological than any other constitution in Guyana. And ironical as it may seem, it is a mere guide to action.

In the circumstances, an important question arises, what is more important? Is it the way the aspirations of Guyanese are formulated in our constitution or how the PPP is characterized in its constitution? Has any of these aspirational precepts ever scared off foreign or local investors? Will scrubbing them make any difference?

Experience has shown that neither of these two characterizations have, within recent times, played any significant role for the PPP/C or PNC/R to either win or lose an election. What has always mattered for the electorate in this country are bread and butter issues, free and fair elections, and fair play at the economic, social and political levels.

These are important matters to ponder because they beg the question; how come Ramharack and company have granted a free pass to the PNC with regard to its ideological convictions since it was that party who authored the socialist and ideological precepts enshrined in Guyana’s constitution?

The preamble of our constitution presupposes that we live in a society other than what we live in now, in other words, we are living in a society that is in total contradiction to how life should be in ‘a society in transition to socialism’ and where we should all be afforded the ‘opportunity for responsible participation in the development of the socialist order of society.’

In contradistinction, we live in a free market economy with all the economic, social and political imperfections, which we experience on a daily basis. The belief that we live and work in a society in transition to socialism is therefore utopian.

Baytoram and company, having consciously chosen to ignore completely Burnham’s constitutional handiwork prefer not to subject to scrutiny all the constitutional misnomers associated with Guyana being a cooperative or collectivist state in transition to socialism.

It is within a chosen ethnocentric framework that Ramharack and company has opted to hang on to name calling, cliches and language in order to gain traction for views whose genesis is to be found in an era long gone. As a consequence, they end up misinterpreting and erroneously misapplying the ideological framework laid down by Jagan which, through the years, has been the platform through which the PPP pursues its programme and policies under present-day conditions.

Facing the challenges of day-to-day life, Guyanese of all social strata go to work each day with the understanding that increased productivity would bring improvement to their well-being. As for Guyanese of humble means, the existence of prosperity around them should assure them that, provided they have a job, work hard and/or work smart, life will improve steadily.

Young Guyanese today are inclined to dream about a home with a fence around it, be employed, have a wife and children. That dream is clearly attainable once they are prepared to work for it within a market economy with its imperfections and with a party in power whose ideological pursuit does not matter to them.

Having experienced what it is to live in a free-market system, Guyanese have instinctively rejected the claim that they live in a country in transition to socialism or that they live in a cooperative collectivist system.

Yours faithfully,

Clement J. Rohee

---

• Clement J. Rohee, Ramcharan, Ramkarran, Ramotar, Rohee

---