Dear Editor,
Annan Boodram’s pronouncement that the WPA died with the assassination of Walter Rodney in 1980 is not new. As I stressed in previous letters, Mr Boodram’s story is part of a particular ethno-political narrative. Mr Boodram is just the latest in a long string of commentators who have advanced this story. It seems as if they have repeated it for so long that they have come to believe it themselves. I challenge him to explain what he means by a party’s death – what is it that a party does or stops doing that tells us that it is dead? Is it loss of membership? Is it smaller crowds at its novelty meetings? Is it decline in electoral returns? Is it the cessation of comments on public issues? Is it the cessation of its publications? Is it that the government no longer bothers with the party? Is it when the cadres are no longer harassed? Is it when it stops mobilizing in the communities? Is it when its allies in the opposition start to campaign against it? Is it when its female members autonomously start organizing among women? Is it when it closes down its offices? Mr Boodram also says Dr Rodney did not “lay down any policy/programme that was visionary or impactful.” Again I call on Boodram to say what he means by a visionary impactful policy/programme.
When he says in concrete terms what he means I will be prepared to properly answer. In case he should be reminded – I was there. While I await his answer, let me say a few things. All political parties have had to adjust to changed circumstances both internally and externally. The WPA is not different. The truth is that the anti-dictatorial struggle as a whole was affected by Rodney’s murder. The PPP was affected by Rodney’s murder. The PNC was affected by Rodney’s murder. For the record, the loss of power by both the PPP and the PNC saw significant changes in those parties.
The WPA today is not the vibrant party it used to be, but neither is any of the so-called ‘third parties’ that existed during the 1964-92 period. Most do not exist at all. I will stretch the observation to the wider Caribbean – many vibrant parties of two decades ago are not as vibrant today. The NAR and NJAC in Trinidad, the DFP in Dominica, the WPJ in Jamaica and the NDP in Barbados are a few. I ask: do the decline of the DFP and the NAR diminish Ms Eugenia and Mr ANR Robinson’s legacy? It’s one thing to look at what some call the rise and fall of the WPA – such an examination will also reveal the rise and fall of the second multi-ethnic hope in Guyana in modern times. This is what we should study and teach the youth about rather than rig history to prove that Walter Rodney left no legacy.
Nigel Westmaas has already provided evidence that the WPA as an organization actually expanded after 1980. If Mr Boodram takes the time to research opposition politics during the period 1980-1992, he would recognize the absurdity of his statement. One of the things he would find is that the WPA was either part of a joint opposition mobilization or mobilized at least one large-scale political resistance on its own every single year from 1980 to 1992. The evidence is there in the Mirror, Dayclean, Open Word, Catholic Standard, New Nation, Chronicle, Caribbean Contact and the Stabroek News. But then again, Mr Boodram is not interested in the evidence; he is more about the narrative.
Finally, Boodram’s use of the 1992 electoral results as proof that the crowds at WPA meetings of 1979-80 would not have translated into electoral support in a free and fair election during the same period is at best laughable.
Yours faithfully,
David Hinds
