Nothing exemplifies more clearly the difficulties of doing politics in Guyana and the need for clear strategic thinking than Mr. Granger’s purely parliamentary approach to political change. When asked during his visit to New York to explain why APNU is not involved in more extra-parliamentary activities, he said that “protest actions have to be sharp and effective; they cannot be a blunt instrument” (“A few things were learnt from the opposition leader at Mike Persaud’s home” SN: 05/06/2014). I take it that what he meant is that protest should not cause disadvantageous collateral damage.
The question of what damage Mr. Granger wants to avoid is to be found in his statement that he intends to win the 2016 general elections. In our context this is not possible unless his party is able to wrench sufficient Indian support from the PPP or form a coalition that is able to do so. To help in achieving this end, Mr. Granger has largely excluded the use of non-violent protests because they tend to alienate Indians.
But if those who understand this community far better than perhaps Mr. Granger and I are to be believed, avoiding street protests is insufficient. The Brigadier must also apologise for the historical wrongdoings of his party or his efforts will come to naught. (“The PNCR: Its past and future” SN: 22/06/2014). In making this point Mr. Ralph Ramkarran addressed a couple issues upon which I want to comment.
Firstly, I refuse to take seriously Mr. Ramkarran’s stretch (or its implications) to equate Dr. Jagan’s unfortunate barb about black people being at the bottom of the social ladder with some kind of apology for a controversial, multidimensional historical process.
Secondly, he stated that the PPP has never officially requested an apology from the PNC and that is very fortunate for it could not publicly sustain such a demand without exposing its own record. In any case, as I indicated, the PPP is only interested in the propaganda value of the issue and in both the PPP and PNC this kind of questionable propaganda is nurtured at the bottom houses and only nuanced publicly.
Thirdly, although Mr. Ramkarran and some others present their recommendation as mainly tactical, to garner Indian votes, it appears to me that their belief that an apology is due prevents their considering other alternatives which, though more challenging, are perhaps more just.
Thus Mr. Ramkarran said that “Mr. Granger repeated a long established PNCR policy, designed to deflect public pressure, that there would be no blanket apology on the basis of hearsay or conjecture as if rigged elections fall in those categories” (Ibid).
My assessment tells me that what is defined here as “public pressure” is essentially Indian community pressure. Furthermore, this statement is based on a false belief that the PNC rigging of elections is an objective fact for which it should have no difficulty in apologising. In my view, given the political cauldron of the time, one needs only to apologise for acting undemocratically against a democrat. And by their utterances and actions, neither Forbes Burnham nor Cheddi Jagan was a democrat in the sense of being a liberal democrat who cares about open elections.
Young and inexperienced, they were attracted to Marxism/Leninism and thought they would be allowed to establish some kind of radical socialist regime in Guyana. Of course, Burnham proved a more adroit political opportunist. Had he stayed in the UF coalition he might not have had to rig elections, but his excuse/reason for getting rid of the UF was that it was too conservative and would have thwarted his socialist intent. By 1976 he was calling himself Marxist/Leninist and by his death was being given a somewhat milder Jagan treatment by the West.
Notwithstanding Jagan’s persistent complaint about rigged elections, his preferred regime was the old communist “dictatorship of the proletariat”, which has ravaged so many countries and caused the deaths of countless innocent people.
He supported Burnham every time he moved closer to orthodox Marxism/Leninism. Jagan’s best case outcome for Guyana would have been the establishment of proletarian dictatorship by way of a PNC/PPP Marxist/Leninist coalition.
The coalition would have held elections, not because they believed in liberal democracy, but because they would have been able to enhance their legitimacy by way of a substantial majority. But as the experience of Salvador Allende in Chile later demonstrated, elections or not, at that time the West would not have tolerated any such regime in South America.
As I understand it, Mr. Granger has attempted to deal with his party’s past by stating that he is willing to abide by the outcome and recommendations of an inquiry into what has taken place in our history. He has not refused to apologise or to do whatever is recommended by such an inquiry.
What, however, is very disturbing is that although it is clear that Mr. Granger, and I dare say much of his constituency, believes that wrongdoings were committed on all sides and should be similarly dealt with, some, who never tire of calling Burnham an opportunist, are arguing that in the interest of winning Indian political support he should apologise whether or not he believes that he should!
Do we not have more than enough of the kind of political behaviour where moral principles and even the law are held hostage to political opportunity? So that local government elections, which, according to the constitution are now long overdue, are delayed awaiting the right political opportunity. I wonder what would happen if, when his term is up, the president finds some reason to decide that the time is not appropriate for calling elections! No doubt we would go to the courts, who would give conflicting decisions and then to the Caribbean Court of Justice, which would be unable to enforce its decision!
So what is to be done? Must APNU pander to false perceptions and apologise? I would not. Although it might prove more difficult, I believe that there is another and more just way forward.
The position of the PNC is not unreasonable and people of goodwill, rather than encouraging more political moral laxity, should band together and make a concerted effort to explain it as a sensible way forward. We must all recognise that the historical political narratives of our various ethnic communities differ in essential ways and that people on all sides must be taught to acknowledge this until the time arrives when we can have a proper “objective” historical reckoning.
The problem is belief systems are insidious and I am afraid that once again we may have come upon the age-old problem of: who will educate the educators.
