It is customary in the run-up to a general election for politicians to campaign on the record of a sitting government – either for or against. But there can’t be many democracies in the world where ‘history’ is the subject of a campaign, and where it generates almost as much heat as current issues. But so it is in Guyana. What happened half a century ago is debated with the same intensity – although not always with the same accuracy – as matters of immediate concern to an electorate. And it isn’t as if most of the protagonists have direct memories of periods like the 1960s – let alone the 1950s – which might at least explain their passion; in most cases they are children from a more recent time-frame.
The latest round of exchanges comparing Burnham and Jagan, the PPP and the PNC and the events which set us on our current path, were probably triggered in the first instance by the observances mounted by the PNCR on the 25th anniversary of Burnham’s death in August. Since acclaiming Guyana’s first executive president often implies criticism of Jagan, the PPP moved into the fray, sometimes at a high level, to defend him.
In a general sense politicians are rarely interested in history as such; they are in the business of myth-making, and in the case of the country’s first mass party, of hagiography too. For the PPP, Dr Cheddi Jagan is an icon, and they protect the image of him which they have cultivated with all the fervour of true believers. They have occupied the letter columns with their denunciations of the detractors, accusing them of “historical revisionism.” The problem is, revisionism is essential to history, so if the defenders believe they are insulting those they perceive as disparagers, they are mistaken.
They are also mistaken if they believe they can freeze the perception of a historical figure as though he were a religious deity; they of all people should know that history is not about faith. Of course, enough autocrats have tried to ‘fix’ history in a mould by approving only official versions, or erasing certain personalities and events from textbooks, or plastering over stelae so no mention of a precedessor will be visible, and so on. In ancient times, this usually didn’t work and in modern times it simply cannot. With so many sources on public access nowadays, the PPP should know such efforts are doomed before they begin.
Historical accounts are not fixed paradigms. New evidence comes to light, or old evidence is explored more thoroughly and re-interpreted, opening an entirely different window on an event or period. Every age – and group – has its interests, views and perceptions, and will place emphasis on different aspects of the past, and ask questions it considers pertinent to its concerns. Had that not been so, we would still be wedded to imperialist accounts of our past. It might be noted where that is concerned, that the PPP has made its own contribution to historical revisionism.
The protectors of the Burnham legacy are not quite as absolutist as those of the Jagan tradition; after all, the ‘founder-leader’s’ flaws have had too much exposure for them to dismiss these out of hand. What has been happening recently, however, is that a reassessment of the whole PNC period appears to have begun, shining an altogether benign light on it, and this, it seems, is what has sent the Jagan contingent flying to their computer keyboards to tap out their accusations of historical revisionism. The received version of history from a Freedom House perspective demonises the PNC and by extension Burnham, and venerates the PPP, and, of course, Jagan. It is a simple story to which its constituency has been receptive over the years. Over-simplified accounts from both sides, however, are hardly helpful in elucidating history.
When politicians seek to control accounts of the past, they are really seeking to control perceptions of the present. In our case, the issues of the past are still living issues, and the lack of consensus between the nation’s two largest parties on at least the outline of the grand sweep of our post-WWII history, betrays the lack of consensus on fundamental contemporary issues. In less fractious societies disagreements about interpretations of history, or even the basic factual data, tend to take place among historians, not politicians seeking office. Even if it is not historians who are engaged in the argument – and there is no reason why they should have a lock on historical debate – at least the disputation takes place in an altogether different context, and not on the hustings, so to speak.
Historians deal primarily in cause and effect, and in Guyana’s case, the causes of the route by which we arrived at the present point are complex. In addition, they have not yet been comprehensively researched, although more and more work is being done on one aspect or another by a number of historians like Clem Seecharan, as well as by political scientists. Historians recognize different levels of causation, either directly or impliedly, such as underlying causes and proximate causes. The PPP has always concentrated on the latter, and the violence and manipulation between 1962 and 1964 in particular, which culminated in its loss of office.
The role of the British, the Americans and the PNC during that period has been known for a very long time; what the PPP has sought to avoid – and still seeks to avoid – is the route which brought us to the turmoil of the sixties, and the role which the international perception of Jagan’s communism played in the story. That too is well known, although unacknowledged by the ruling party. In 1953 Dr Jagan led a very idealistic, very young, very inexperienced government which operated with no heed for the international context of the times. Most important, he appeared unconcerned by the fact that it was no longer Clement Atlee sitting in Downing Street, but Winston Churchill, who could hardly be described as a progressive peacetime leader, his undoubted virtues as a wartime one notwithstanding. Anyone who has had a casual look at even the selected documents from the period published in this newspaper, would have recognized that there is no way the British would not have suspended the constitution, given the rhetoric of the Guianese administration of the day. The Western perception of Jagan was set then, and was never to be amended after that year, no matter what he did or said.
There are many other elements in the story, some of which have been explored, although as yet there is no larger comprehensive work on the subject. One of these elements is the underlying British role which set the stage for events. In the 1920s, the British did not see themselves in the foreseeable future as allowing portions of their traditional empire to break off as independent states, which was what ultimately inspired the suspension of the constitution here in 1928. By so doing, however, they stymied the normal processes of political evolution, and by the time their thinking had been changed by the Second World War, there was no indigenous ‘moderate’ political movement here. Into this vacuum stepped Dr Jagan, who helped by his wife organized with skill and energy the first mass party in the country. It was, of course, far to the left of any West Indian counterpart.
The West Indian leaders were mostly socialist, in several cases Fabian socialist, which was something the British could live with. This country’s Fabian socialist political leader with experience of building a political party – ARF Webber – had died in the 1930s, however, and one wonders what the historical trajectory of this country would have been had he lived. It is possible, of course, that even if history had taken an altogether different course we would have ended up in a similar situation to where we are now. At the bottom of this lies a question which is at the heart of the PPP’s recent defences: was there ever unity between the two major racial-(political) groups, or was 1953 simply an undefined alliance of sorts? In other words, no matter what the sequence of events in the ’30s, ’40s, ’50s and ’60s, given the demographic realities, would sooner or later misgivings between the two largest racial entities have come to the fore and been given separate political expression? Such postulations are anathema to the PPP, which presents itself as the unifying force in the nation, which was undermined by the deliberately divisive efforts of the PNC from 1956 onwards. How one answers the question, however, would contribute to considerations concerning the possibilities for the future.
