Forty-five years ago: Were these proposals for power sharing or what?
By Cecilia McAlmont
Introduction
In the year 1964, the ethnic strife which had started two years previously reached its height. Violent confrontations between the two major race groups that had been taking place in the rest of the country, in May, moved to the mining town of MacKenzie. Indo Guyanese were forced to flee for their lives from their burning homes and businesses .Weeks later a few dozen Afro Guyanese lost their lives by drowning in the horrific “Son Chapman” disaster. It was the year when eight members of the Abrams family were burnt alive in their home. It was the year of the no holds bared dirty fight between the MPCA and GAWU over the latter’s right to represent the sugar workers. It was the year when just barely a year in office the Minister of Home Affairs, Mrs. Janet Jagan, resigned in disgust over her dissatisfaction with the leadership of the police force and the lack of impartiality of its members in their dealings with the crisis in MacKenzie. It was the year in which, despite protests and petitions of the government in power, culminated in the first PR elections that would cast the PPP into the political wilderness for the next twenty- eight years. It is the year which most of us Guyanese over 45 wished had never happened but sadly did.
In a desperate effort to restore peace, Premier Cheddi Jagan appealed for help to regional leaders, the Prime Minister of Ghana and the UN Committee of 24. One of the most significant approaches was to the Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, Dr. Eric Williams, However, even before he submitted his report both the Premier and Mr. Burnham made public their own proposals for a National Government. Additionally, both Mr. Burnham and D’Aguiar in their discussions with Dr. Williams had set out their individual proposals.
In recent weeks there have been several letters in the press discussing the issue of Power Sharing. I set out some of the above mentioned proposals and leave the reader to decide whether they could be described as proposals for power sharing.
The Proposals
The Trinidad Guardian of May 4, 1964 reported that the country’s Cabinet had approved the request of the Premier of British Guiana that the Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago use his “good offices to explore the possibilities of a settlement of the political deadlock in British Guiana.” In his report to the Premier dated June 12, 1964 he set out in great detail, among other things, the ways in which the actions of all three political leaders, but especially those of the Premier himself had stymied his mediation efforts. He also reported on the results of his wide ranging discussions with important stakeholders. According to the Report, Mr. D’Aguiar, amidst his vitriolic accusations against the Premier, suggested the following:
The United Force would insist on the following conditions for a coalition government:
(a) A Cabinet of 12 – six PPP; four PNC; two UF;
(b) The UF to have the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs;
(c) Dr. Jagan’s Party to have neither the Premiership, nor the Ministry of Home Affairs, nor the Ministry of Finance, nor the Ministry of External Affairs;
(d) All boards and commissions must reflect the 6:4:2 ratio;
(e) Dr. Jagan must disavow Communism
Mr. Burnham’s proposals represented a small item in a long list of other demands including “internal guarantees”:
The national government should consist of twelve Ministries: PPP5; PNC 5: UF 2. The PNC were to have the following 5:
Home Affairs with police and local government
External Affairs
Housing
Agriculture (though this was “nego tiable”)
Other Ministries should cover Finance and Development, with which might be associated Amerindian Affairs; Communications; Works; Trade and Industry; Labor and Health; Premier; and Attorney General.
It is worthy of note that in his report Dr. Williams described the conditions proposed by both men as “meaningless, or intransigent or not intended to be taken seriously.”
On Thursday, June 4, 1964 both daily newspapers The Daily Chronicle and the Guiana Graphic carried reports of Burnham’s six point plan (in the case of the Guiana Graphic) and seven point plan ( in the case of the Daily Chronicle) for a National Government of the three parties. However the most pertinent of the points was the first which demanded a National government drawn from the three parties represented in the Legislature to run the country until elections under PR were held.
Both papers of Sunday, June 7, 1964 carried the Premier’s proposals. Interestingly, although the content of both articles was similar, their headlines underscored the biases of the papers. The Chronicle’s headline stated “Premier prepared to ‘bend over backwards’ while that of the Graphic stated “‘We’ll split the Government Even’, says Jagan”. According to the article:
The Premier, Dr. Cheddi Jagan, yesterday sent a letter to Mr. Forbes Burnham, asking that the Peoples Progressive Party and the Peoples National Congress form a Coalition Government now, on the basis of equality. Dr. Jagan said that he was aware that there were many people in BOTH parties opposed to a PPP-PNC Coalition Government. He also conceded that such a government , “will not be a bed of roses immediately.” But certainly, he said, such a government, representing the broad masses, will be the shortest road to peace, and I hope, progress… Some may question why is it that I have not decided on the formation of a national government which will include the United Force. As I see it, we do not have mainly a racial problem. Race and fear are mainly reflections of the deeper but fundamental struggle of the masses to be free from exploitation and to have a place in the sun. The United Force is too rooted in the preservation of the Colonial status quo.
The PPP and the PNC on the other hand, have professed similar intention and objectives – welfare of the masses, a socialist domestic programme and a non-aligned foreign policy… A PPP/PNC coalition can work out our own Guyanese socialist road to peace and progress. Such a government is likely to work together with less friction… because of the present deterioration of our society, because of the dangers to the future of our country everything must be done to bring this about. I am prepared to bend over backwards…
The United Force will then become a democratic opposition. Issues will be contested not on the basis of race but on the basis of programme and policy…
We are prepared to concede parity, however unjustified the demand may be. I concede this even though I realize it may be a drag on our forward march. I am prepared to do this in the national interest and in the interest of peace. A coalition with parity will probably lead to friction but once an agreed detailed programme is hammered out at the beginning, there is less likelihood of serious friction, and if there is, then issues should be put to the people for national debate and decision.
Ah! Can you just imagine … but alas!!
Proposals for ‘power sharing’ or what?