When the PPP decided to proceed along its current course of political dominance, it did not know that it would lead it to having to deny important aspects of its “glorious struggle” against PNC authoritarianism, for which so many of its supporters have suffered. Even I, who never supported its Marxist/Leninist rhetoric, have harboured some admiration for the manner it has tried to deal with a difficult political context. How has it happened that now when the party is in government and should be proudly detailing its anti-dictatorial activities for posterity, it is forced to deny them?!
In my “The politics of money laundering: who will blink first?” (SN: 26/03/2014), I made three important points about the PPP/C, which, should they gain traction, can possibly give rise to a more effective opposition. When the fluff and very questionable reasoning contained in Mr Narindra Persaud’s “There is a fundamental difference between what obtained under the PNC and what exists now under the PPP/C” (SN: 18/04/2014), are removed, we come upon a most blatant attempt to rewrite history to counter those points now that the PPP/C has placed itself in a politically precarious position.
Firstly, I had reasoned that the current problems the PPP/C is facing with the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) (Amendment) Bill are largely of its own making, for it had between 2002 and 2013 (for much of which time it had a majority in parliament) to put in place a decent piece of legislation but failed to do so.
Mr Persaud claimed I was wrong and explained that the real reason the regime did not pass the legislation when it had a majority was because, unlike what took place under the PNC, after the 2001 constitutional reform parliament became a “truly deliberative body … and the PPP did not want to use its majority status to stifle discourse.” This is truly incredible: could Mr Persaud really have been so oblivious to the many appeals from the opposition for the PPP/C not to “stifle discourse”, which were brushed aside when the PPP thought it necessary? Is he really suggesting that it is the liberalism of the PPP/C that accounts for the decade long delay!
Here I provide only two of myriad examples of the regime doing quite the opposite of what Mr Persaud was suggesting. In March 2010, Stabroek News reported that in the face of opposition objections, “Government yesterday used its majority in the National Assembly to pass the contentious Court of Appeal (Amendment) Bill”. In August 2008, there was a furore when the regime sought to suspend the usual parliamentary vacation to rush through five pieces of legislation, which the leader of the opposition thought needed “in depth analysis, widespread consultation and profound consideration before we could reasonably respond to their thrust, import and intent.”
Mr Narindra Persaud has taken his inaccurate position for propagandistic reasons that should not be ignored. The PPP/C is now facing a feisty parliamentary majority and wants to convince its supporters (for only they are likely to believe this) that it was the epitome of reasonableness when it held the parliamentary majority!
Secondly, I claimed in the above article that “linkages have historically been the stuff of international and national politics”, and that when Burnham wanted to nationalize bauxite the PPP linked their support for that act to “the PNC’s government recognition of GAWU and the employment of those of his supporters who had studied in Eastern Europe.”
Mr Persaud said I was again wrong: “the PPP has consistently taken a principled position when it comes to the issue of nationalization of the commanding heights of the economy” and “GAWU at the time of nationalization was the largest sugar union.” Thus “The issues of union recognition were a non-issue which was bound to happen with the passage of time and therefore was never the subject of any horse-trading.” We should not pay too much attention to this last sentence, which is truly representative of the usual Leninist deterministic folly.
Let me pause here to note a not uncommon methodological problem detected in Mr Persaud’s approach. Conscious or unconsciously, he has the habit (which we will see again below) of trying to use theoretical positioning to counter actual pernicious outcomes. Firstly, he wanted us to believe that simply because new parliamentary committees were established, parliament had become a substantively more deliberative body, and this notwithstanding the regime’s long recognised habit of using its majority with impunity. Similarly, he wants us to accept that since the PPP supported nationalization and GAWU had legitimate rights as the majority union, a deal with the PNC to have those rights immediately respected was, as he puts it, “a non-issue!”
It is on the final point that Mr Narindra Persaud must be and is most categorical: “if only for the record, the PPP had never advocated or supported the deliberate burning of sugar cane to hurt the economy during the Burnham regime as being peddled by the PNC, even though it was in support of legitimate industrial action by sugar workers in an effort to address grievances.”
This part of PPP history is now “old hat” and to deny it is like the PNC trying to deny that it ever rigged elections. In 1983, after completing the first draft of a book I was writing, I sent the manuscript to Dr Cheddi Jagan for comments. He sent quite a few but, so far as I can remember, none pertaining to the following: “…. after the British changed the constitution in 1963, the PPP, bent on demonstrating that it remained a force to be reckoned with, called upon its union GAWU … to step up its demand for recognition. The result was that hundreds of acres of cane were destroyed by arson and the tonnage of sugar produced that year was the lowest for decades.” (Baber, C & Jeffrey, H [1985] Guyana Politics Economics and Society London: Francis Pinter).
Until recently the above were not viewed by the PPP/C as subversive ideas to which it needed to pay much mind. Indeed, these and similar type claims were viewed as giving kudos to the PPP for its robust stance against the PNC in difficult political conditions. But the PPP/C is now a minority government coming under severe criticism for being as – or even more – undemocratic as the PNC. In this context, the party needs to disassociate itself from those aspects of its “glorious struggle” that may provide a template for a more radical opposition. After Cheddi Jagan, the PPP took the wrong fork in the road!
henryjeffrey@yahoo.com
