Considering only one side’s view of an issue is propaganda not analysis

Jul 06, 2026 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

In the life of any nation, there are occurrences that stay in the national consciousness. Fortunately, or unfortunately the vast majority of these are occurrences that nations recall with shame. In the United States of America, one can easily state some such occurrences – slavery, the Vietnam war, Japanese internment etc. In Germany, the treatment of Jews during Hitler’s rule. In France, the conditions under which ordinary citizens lived that led to the French Revolution.

In Russia, the excesses, the murders occurring during Stalin’s rule. The killing fields of Cambodia. I could go on and on, but these examples will suffice to support my point.

What is true for all other nations is also true for Guyana, as recent articles appearing in the Kaieteur News makes clear – The Son Chapman explosion, the violent removal of East Indians from Linden, the killing. Add to these the disappearance of some four hundred young men, almost all of African descent, during President Jagdeo’s presidency, etc.

Unfortunately, in countries like Guyana in which race and politics are intertwined one’s understanding of causes for these unfortunate occurrences are perceived through racial and patrician lines. We rarely appreciate or in our telling of these occurrences consider the views of the other side. A case in point, I invite readers to look at two letters appearing in the Kaieteur News of 23rd June 2026, one deals with the Son Chapman’s incidence and the other the violent removal of East Indians from Linden.

But it is an occurrence in Guyana that pre dates all the above occurrences in Guyana that I want to talk about. An occurrence that many believe gave rise to the ethnic and racial problem we have to this day. An occurrence that many Guyanese cannot get enough of talking about – the split in the PPP in 1957.

Recently, I was browsing YouTube and noticed an interview with Mrs. Indra Chanderpal. Mrs. Chanderpal has a long history of political activism, so, as a person always anxious to hear from persons who have been in the struggle for years, I thought I should listen to what she had to say.

She spoke in some depth about her involvement in politics and some of the difficulties and harassment she experienced during the early days of independent Guyana. I salute her for her tenacity and readiness to fight on during those days when she claimed she and her comrades were targeted, beaten and jailed.

But it was her explanation on what caused the split in the PPP in 1957, that led eventually to the presence of two race-based parties in Guyana, that most of all caught my attention. Now for years, we have been fed different stories about the split that gave rise to the derailing of a very popular national movement that seemingly had the support of the two major race groups in Guyana.

Mrs. Chanderpal’s explained to listeners that the split came about because Burnham had a large ego, and that the British and Americans knew this and took advantage of this. They encouraged him to form his own party and challenge Cheddi who they did not want to govern an independent Guyana on account of him being “red” (socialist/communist). This line of argument is quite a familiar one and has/is been mouthed by the PPP to this day. So, for them Burnham was a traitor who undermined a most promising working-class movement in Guyana.

On the other hand, supporters of the PNC argue that Burnham quickly recognised that Guiana’s independent would be delayed because the British and Americans would not give Guyana independence under a man who was at every turn tell the world that he was “red” (Cheddi). Thus, he played along giving the impression he was a middle of the road politician, gained the confidence of the British and Americans and thus was able to be the one to lead Guyana into independence.

Earlier, I noted the seeming reluctance of the various sides of the political divide to give any credence to the views of the other side on so many occurrences in our history. Mrs. Chanderpal’s telling of the reason for the split reflects this perennial behaviour. To refuse to take into consideration of the other side on an issue is to propaganda, not analysis (as a certain professor here in the USA would remind us). So, in the interest of fairness, let us take a close look at the positions of both the PPP and PNC on what caused the split.

The PPP’s explanation as expounded by Mrs. Chanderpal. To say that it was Burnham’s ego and the British and Americans readiness to take advantage of this might have some currency. Indeed, I do believe that Burnham had a “large ego” Mrs. Chanderpal says. However, I do not know of anyone who offers himself/herself as a leader, as the solver of the problems facing a poor country, facing immense challenges that Guiana did (and still do) that cannot be seen as having a “large ego.” Thus, for me which this “large ego” that Mrs. Chanderpal accuses Burnham of having had, while likely a component cannot be a full explanation of what caused the split. I will get back to this later.

The PNC’s explanation of the cause of the split as I understand it and stated above, also makes sense and should also be seen as a contributing factor and should be given some credence also. I do believe that Guyana’s independence would have been further delayed if a PPP under Dr. Jagan was the only party choice available.

As a youngster, just out of school and unemployed, I spent most of my days in the study room of the Public Library, reading on any issue that took my fancy on any given day. I remember reading a book which comprised of various articles on issues in our region. One such article looked at the split in the PPP in 1957. I think it was written by a Jamaican. In the article, he blamed both Burnham and Jagan for the split.

The article argued that when Burnham returned to Guyana from studying abroad, he did not seek to form his own political party, but joined the Political Affairs Committee which was led by Jagan and was the fore runner of the PPP. This, the writer saw as Burnham conceding that Jagan had the leadership qualities to be his leader. Further, the article pointed to the fact that Jagan almost always took Burnham along with him when he had cause to engage the international community. Even in some instances sending Burnham on his own to represent the then Guiana. This the writer suggest was a recognition on the part of Jagan that Burnham also had leadership qualities.

The article concluded that based on all he said before, from a competence stand point, it really did not matter whether Jagan or Burnham led Guiana into independence. Therefore, for him, the split happened because both Jagan and Burnham put their own ambitions before what was best for Guiana.

So, there we have three different takes on the split. Two of which could be considered partisan while the other the view of an outsider. I suspect interest and discourse on this issue will continue to be indulged in by a huge section of our population, and why not? For many, it is this split that gives rise to all our disunity, all our contentious racial divide and the shedding of blood while creating the condition for politicians to exploit and make fools of us all.

Nevertheless, Guyanese can now decide for themselves which might be true or closest to truth, or is there another understanding to be considered? Like I said this issue about who or what caused the split is a matter that will continue to occupy the attention of our people for a long time, perhaps into infinity.

Yours faithfully,

Claudius Prince

---

• Claudius Prince, Letters, propaganda, Vietnam War

---