Thirty years after, have the raindrops become heavier or gentler to walk between?

Jun 30, 2024 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

American novelist W.E.B. Griffin popularized the phrase “walk between the raindrops” to mean that a person (or country) is not held accountable for nefarious actions. For some it became a favourite political risk quote.

Writing in ‘THE HILL’ (July 21, 2022)under the headline ‘Don’t let Venezuela ‘walk between the raindrops’ John C. Hulsman, held that; ‘Venezuela was allowed to ‘walk between the raindrops’ after Biden lifted sanctions Washington had earlier imposed thus allowing the Venezuelan administration of Nicholas Maduro to ‘walk between raindrops.’

In other words, according to Hulsman, were the Maduro administration to commit acts that Washington considered to be ‘nefarious,’ Venezuela would get off the hook because the Biden administration allowed Venezuela to ‘walk between the raindrops.’

Of course, subsequent developments proved to the contrary. The Biden administration reckoned that Maduro proved himself incapable of ‘walking between the raindrops’ and as a consequence, the US reimposed sanctions on Venezuela.

Were Hulsman’s interpretation of Griffin’s ‘walking between the raindrops’ applied to Cheddi Jagan following his assumption to office in October 1992 and knowing Jagan’s ideological background, the PPP/C administration would have found itself under greater scrutiny, if not pressure, by the ‘hawks’ aka neo-cons in Washington.

In the light of Griffin/Hulsman versus Jagan’s meaning of ‘walking between the raindrops,’ we are left with two opposing perspectives. On the one hand, because Venezuela under Maduro is viewed in Washington as a ‘threat to regional and hemispheric security,’ it should not be allowed ‘to walk between the raindrops.’ On the other, the PPP/C under Jagan, though coming to power thirty years earlier, was allowed to ‘walk between the raindrops’ in view of the fact that the PPP was a victim of US Cold War policies and rigged elections for a number of years.

The Griffin/Hulsman consideration apart, Jagan’s lifelong experiences must have weighed heavily on his mind when he declared it necessary to ‘walk between the raindrops’.

His was a classic political risk quote framed in a Guyanese context considering the knowledge he had accumulated while in government from 1957 to 1964 and as opposition leader from 1964 to 1992.

While his call was situated in a political and historical context, it was clear to those who knew him, that his call was to establish ideological balance within the PPP and for that balance to be reflected in his government’s domestic and foreign policies.

President Jagan knew that lingering doubts still obtained in some circles Washington about his ideological convictions, thus the need to be realistic and pragmatic in pursuit of his domestic and foreign policies. In other words, in order to achieve his government’s goals the smart thing to do was to tread carefully between vicissitudes of socialism and capitalism both of which he was indisputably knowledgeable.

His convictions notwithstanding, he won support from the popular masses, religious believers and non-Marxists in the leadership of the Party and Civic component; from Democrats and Republicans in the US House of Representatives as well as from the Bush/Clinton administrations.

Because Jagan had travelled far and wide, he was knowledgeable of tragic political developments in countries where governments led by self-proclaimed Marxists had come to power but who failed to ‘walk between the raindrops’ resulting in serious errors being committed due to internal infighting along ideological lines in the leadership of ruling parties in those countries.

A few examples would suffice; In 1986, in the People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen, the Yemeni Socialist Party led by ‘Arab Marxists’ engaged in destructive factional in-fighting due to ideological, tribal and regional rivalries. One faction wanted ‘a pure Marxist-Leninist’ orientation for Party and government while the other was favorably disposed to a more pragmatic, ‘walking between the raindrops’ approach. A blood bath ensued resulting in the assassination of rival leaders.

Between 1984 and 1986, the Workers’ Party of Ethiopia led by hardline self-styled Marxist-Leninists sought to establish a socialist state, by-passing feudalism. Mismanagement of the economy, the launch of a ‘red terror’ campaign resulting in the physical decimation of persons branded counterrevolutionaries, famine, a faulty land distribution policy, wars with Eritrea and Tigray culminated in the demise of the ‘Ethiopian revolution’. Leaders of the ruling party in Ethiopia failed to ‘walk between the raindrops.’

Disunity and factional infighting within the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) on how to combine armed resistance with political/diplomatic struggle against the Israeli occupationists, and how to win the support of the wider world resulted in bitter ideological, tactical and strategic differences within the PLO as a consequence, Hamas, the Progressive Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), communist, Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) and the socialist, Progressive Party of Palestine (PPP) emerged. Palestinian leaders failed to see the need to ‘walk between the raindrops.’

In Afghanistan, festering and irreconcilable Ideological differences between the Parcham and Khalq factions in the ruling People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan on how to transition from a feudal to a socialist society resulted in sharp ideological infighting within the ruling party between the two factions. The Khalq faction opted for a ‘purer form of Marxism–Leninism’ as opposed to the more moderate Parchamites. The end resulted was a failed unity government, opting for a military rather than a political solution and the outbreak of a civil war. Another failure to ‘walk between the raindrops.’

Here in our own region, the Grenada revolution turned on itself because of the emergence of a faction that favoured a bookish application of Marxism-Leninism and another who favored a pragmatic approach based on Caribbean and hemispheric peculiarities and realities; a leadership crisis ensued followed by resort to a military solution by the so-called ‘Marxists’ resulting in the house-arrest then assassination of Maurice Bishop and ultimately the US invasion. The slavish adherents of Marxism had no interest to ‘walk between the raindrops.’

Fortunately for the PPP, notwithstanding the ideological mix at its leadership level and attempts by external forces to create ideological rifts within the party as was demonstrated in the 1955 split and the breakaway by opportunist elements in 1975, neither in its governments of 1957-1964; 1992-2015 nor its 2020 to present, has there been any destructive factional and ideological infighting resulting in the weakening nor marginalization of the party.

For President Jagan, his ‘walking between raindrops’ represented lessons learnt and navigating the ideological contest that existed globally at his time. His was a warning against his government being branded one way or the other unnecessarily. At the same time, he was perceptive enough to point out that, within the meaning of his call, one can still safeguard one’s ideological convictions by opening the metaphorical umbrella over one’s head or by covering up with the faithful raincoat, both of which can serve as safeguards to ‘walk between the raindrops’ be they heavier or gentler these days.

Yours faithfully,

Clement J. Rohee

---

• imposed, John C. Hulsman, sanctions, W.E.B. Griffin, Washington

---