The roots of Jagan’s National Patriotic Front’

Aug 26, 2024 Letters

---

Dear Editor

Speaking of his proposal for shared governance constitutional reform, Mr. Ralph Ramkarran concluded that numerous ‘questions, suggestions and criticisms are to be expected from the amendments proposed above. That is as it should be’ (‘A review of shared governance and what it could look like.’ SN: 11/08/2024). Since various levels of individual and group interests will most likely become entrenched over time, I agree that it would be unlikely for any proposal to change the political system under which people have lived for decades to be put into effect without much controversy. Where ethnic political interests are entrenched, such as in Guyana, the situation becomes even more controversial, with all manner of opportunistic and well- intended utopian solutions being proffered. Thus, notwithstanding, the clearly dysfunctional and discriminatory nature of the current system, some are being asked to view their suffering as but a necessary phase of national development or be convinced that salvation will come with the development of moral leadership!

This column began its life advocating shared governance as the only possible democratic answer to Guyana’s decades-long political/ethic discord (‘Once two large ethnic groups exist, they become political parties for themselves.’ SN: 22/06/2011). Since then, the ethnic situation has arguably become worse as the two major ethnic political parties, under all manner of pretext, seek, against all creditable conceptual and empirical evidence, to impose their individual rule. The ‘discovery’ of a reasonable quantity of hydrocarbons has only made things worse at the People’s Progressive Party’s (PPP) lavishes both its largesse and repression!

Ralph Ramkarran is important because he has over the years been an advocate of power-sharing, but on this occasion appears to have begrudgingly devised such a minimalist proposal that for at least two reasons requires comment. Successful democratic constitutional reform must give adequate weight to the concerns of all important stakeholders and consensus on the way forward will depend upon how the main stakeholders understand the problem and the nature of the concessions that are necessary to arrive at a vibrant sustainable democratic outcome.  I believe that Ralph’s historical backdrop, which must form some part of this general assessment, is too biased to accommodate a sustainable outcome.

A consensual shared governance regime should result from a national patriotic compromise not unlike what Ralph claimed Cheddi Jagan sought to accomplish when he made his ‘National Patriotic Front’ (NPF) proposal. One should not provide a backdrop that unnecessarily allows opportunities for continual bickering about winners and losers in a context that requires continuous cooperation and compromise.  I believe that an objective consideration of Guyana’s political history is accommodative of a sustainable shared governance outcome. Here, staying within Ramkarran’s operational framework, I argue for a more balanced and hopeful historic perspective, and next week I will focus on Ralph’s specific proposals.

Ralph began by claiming that, “The phrases ‘shared governance’ and ‘winner-take-all’ were introduced into Guyana’s political lexicon in the mid-1970s by the ever-resourceful Cheddi Jagan.” The PPP made this offer to the PNC (People’s National Congress) because it was ‘in despair of ever overcoming the obstacles to political office given the continuing Cold War pressures that assured the PNC of US support and some of (its) major policies, was being adopted by the PNC.’ He asserts that the NPF proposal was a ‘significant political compromise’ for it allowed for a government with an executive president and a prime minister with substantive powers. The prime minister would come from the party obtaining the highest number of votes and he or she would not contest the position of president. Therefore, the PPP had ‘effectively conceded the presidency to the PNC in return for most of the cabinet.’ And ‘no one has ever sought to give the PPP credit for understanding and acknowledging the deep divisions in our society that necessitated the kind of political solution that it then proposed.’ He further argued that while some Africans ‘point to the PPP’s racism and discrimination against African Guyanese’ they ‘give no recognition to the decades of PNC’s rigged elections by which the electoral mandate of Indian Guyanese was usurped.’ He claims too that the ‘PNC government was forced into discussions with the PPP in 1985 for a political solution when it was seeking economic aid from the socialist world.’

Two weeks ago, this column noted that the British offered shared governance during the independence discourse in the 1950s but it was rejected by the PPP. Indeed, almost at the same time, the British were confronting a similar ethnic/political problem in British-controlled Cyprus and a shared governance solution, somewhat like the 1998 Good Friday Agreement that brought ethnic peace to Northern Ireland, is still in theory existing today. Secondly, around this same time Eusi Kwayana became associated with suggestions that British Guyana could be geographically partitioned among the ethnic groups, but as I understand it, this was a last resort position after power sharing was rejected. Therefore, ‘shared governance’ and ‘winner-take-all’ were not introduced into Guyana’s political lexicon in the mid 1970s.’

Secondly, as shown by the Good Friday Agreement, by definition, power sharing agreements demand levels of equitability in the distribution of executive authority and thus were also on the table before the PPP’s NPF proposal.   If Ralph is suggesting that by his NPF proposal Cheddi Jagan gave up the presidency because the Indians were the majority and supported the PPP, I disagree. The PPP did not give up anything because there was nothing to give up. Without even taking into consideration the restraints of ethnic diversity such as exist in Guyana, as can be observed in the oldest of liberal democracies, democratic governance is not necessarily majority rule: it is constitutional government, based upon an acceptable form of majority rule acceptable to substantially all of the population. Therefore, ‘shared governance’ is an independent form of democratic governance best suited for ethnically divided societies.

As stated in this column before, I was involved in Burnham’s unity talks with the PPP that began in about 1976, and the situation is somewhat more complex than Ralph surmised. Firstly, I was not aware that the PPP had a mandate from its then majority Indian constituency to take Guyana and the Caribbean into the Soviet-led international communism that sought the destruction of liberal democracy! But more importantly, Forbes Burnham was a radical independent socialist in the mould of former Yugoslav president, Marshall Josip Broz Tito. Indeed, feeling himself somewhat secure in government in 1976 Burnham declared that the PNC was Marxist/Leninist (Report to the Nation, 10/01/1976)! He was seeking aid from the socialist world because, from receiving the highest per capita aid from the US when he came to office, Western aid was drying up.

United States president Ronald Reagan came to office in January 1981 with a ‘crusading anti-communism [that] represented a challenge of a vastly different qualitative nature in terms of its frontal and explicit objective of overturning leftist regimes in the region and beyond.’ (Ferguson, Tyrone (1999) To survive sensibly or court heroic death. Guyana National Printers Ltd, Georgetown). Throughout his career, Forbes Burnham sought to play up the possibility of the PPP coming to government with the West. When at about the end of the 1970s, he believed that the West might be dabbling in Guyanese politics in favour of the Working People’s Alliance (WPA) and defined them as the ‘Worst Possible Alternative,’ he was not talking to Guyanese but was saying to the West ‘if you believe Jagan is bad think again!’ As stated in this column some time ago, one minute after Ralph gave me a lift to my accommodation in about 1984, it was put to me that Ronald Ragan was not falling for Burnham’s ruse and was determined ‘to put both Jagan and Burnham in a basket and sink them.’

Sincerely

Dr. Henry Jeffrey

---

---