In 1987 a white Zimbabwean voter, who, when asked by a journalist for whom he had voted in the elections, replied, “I never voted for Ian Smith. Not once. And I never admitted it. Not once.”
It is the electoral season again where political actors and voters are not prone to connect what they say and do. Even in this time when Guyana’s political, economic and social life is in the doldrums no one can say for sure how the general voting population will move (or not move) in 2011. We can only hope, for the sake of Guyana’s future, it will not perform in 2011 like it has in the past. Eric Phillips is one contributor who has consistently raised, and urged, a closer examination of alternatives to the Westminster political party and election systems. The shadow of Westminster, he argues, has been a hindrance for the achievement of unity in a racially polarized society like Guyana.
How is this connected to Annan Boodram’s letters of January 27 and Feb 2 in Stabroek News? Since the opening election salvoes have begun from various quarters it is my hunch that because Mr Boodram and others cannot successfully support the PPP on their current performance in government they are attempting to repossess areas of argument in which they can pass the buck and/or sow confusion. This can only explain his comparisons between Rodney and Jagan and his preoccupation with WPA’s “electoral” chances and performance in the past, for a party that poses no electoral threat in 2011. Space does not allow full reference to previous correspondence but Mr Boodram clearly shifts from what he wrote in his original epistle.
Boodram asks how come the WPA’s “crowd attendance did not translate into electoral support for the WPA at the 1992 elections” and the party was “blown away.” For a person who advocates eschewing the distinction between “us” and “them,” he is mightily preoccupied with the PPP’s winning ways and power. For the record, the WPA never denied it did poorly at elections, especially in 1992. But in between Mr Boodram’s glorious moment (1992) and the WPA’s long struggle in unity with the opposition PPP and others, he eludes the active working criticism the WPA made of the PPP (both in alliance with it and in other circumstances). In other words, the WPA did not begin its criticism of the PPP during or after 1992. There were several areas of disagreement with the PPP’s conduct in opposition to the PNC and the failure of the PPP to embrace the need for changes in their track record in political culture, power-sharing and electoral dominance in multi-ethnic Guyana.
Mr Boodram places the WPA’s history, its leaders and multiracial effort under critical if not careful scrutiny. The problem is that on almost every occasion he makes a criticism he omits context. Thus, a general statement I made that the WPA held an impressive multiracial membership and activity (which according to him should have translated into electoral support) he relegates to the entire spectrum of WPA activity all the way to 1992. The WPA has always conceded that the struggle for multiracial unity in Guyana was not easy. While far from perfect, the emergence of the WPA was the boldest effort to that point in addressing Guyana’s historical racial problems. It also surpassed the 1953 moment in terms of depth and trial and error. Eusi Kwayana set the example in acknowledging the shadows of the past. In a public talk he gave in 1978, ‘Racial Insecurity and the Political System’ (repeated at several public meetings in Georgetown and later published), he offered one of the most remarkable political self-criticisms. This open reflection on one’s own political conduct is so far unequalled in Guyana.
Did Mr Boodram examine the restrictions the WPA faced in context between 1974 and 1985? Just read what Rodney wrote to a friend in Europe on May 2, 1980: “the work of building the party has been progressing well. We now have groups throughout the country and are well on the way to becoming a strong national party. We do not, however, underestimate the increasing difficulty of organizing the party under conditions of repression.” In spite of sometimes severe restrictions, both before and after Rodney’s assassination, the WPA engaged in the following forms of struggle, which although not unique were typical of its energy. The list includes petitions; the Long Walk (proposed by Moses Bhagwan) from Charity to Crabwood Creek with numerous community meetings in between; pickets; the establishment of pressure groups in support of workers and their unions; peaceful protest and deliberate disturbance; legal action in the courts; vigils; handbills and Dayclean distribution; hunger strikes; Rodney street festivals on every June 13 anniversary; ‘Days of Rest’; support of independent or non-WPA protests; cultural resistance (drumming, chanting); diplomatic efforts through WPA support groups and other friendly overseas groups; and yes, consideration of insurrection.
Mr Boodram again returns to CLR James’s comment as the crutch on which to develop what he deems Rodney’s “naive” moment. Eusi Kwayana’s letter (SN, January 17) has already spoken to Boodram’s interpretation of James. Whatever the merits or demerits of Rodney’s actions on the fateful day, he was not unaware of his own safety. But does Mr Boodram consider the plethora of revolutionary leaders who took it on themselves to lead from in front rather than handing the risk to ‘underlings’? Kwayana mentioned José Martí in this hemisphere, and there are many more who faced early death in their struggle, including Eduardo Mondlane (blown up by a package which was supposed to contain a book), Samora Machel and Amilcar Cabral, to name a few. I would ask Boodram to consider the late Martin Carter’s response to a question he was once posed. Carter was asked if Mahatma Gandhi had been a violent person whether India would have achieved independence earlier than it did, to which Carter replied, “Then he would not be Mahatma Gandhi.”
Mr Boodram likewise critiques Rodney’s “groundings” and wonders, “why such a positive concept of groundings would lead to Rodney’s expulsion from Jamaica.” Astonishingly, Boodram answers his own question without realizing. It was precisely the effect of Rodney’s groundings in Jamaica that led to the authorities’ refusal to allow him re-entry! His “positive” groundings among Rastafari and poor people of urban and rural Jamaica were too much for the state and he was banned.
Rodney, like others in WPA, disdained the puffed up, restrictive intellectual outlook of the formal academy and was candid on the issue. In a 1968 letter to his friend Gordon Rohlehr, he stated : “Living off campus is a great boon, for it reduces my contact with rum-sipping, soul selling intellectuals of Mona (campus). Meanwhile I try to find some meaning among the mass of the population who are daily performing a miracle… they continue to survive!
Yours faithfully,
Nigel Westmaas
