Dear Editor,
In a letter to the Stabroek News on 17/4/15 (‘Revisionist History’), Justice Charles Ramson makes the astonishing claim that “critical support” was given by the PPP to the PNC “only for the nationalisation of the bauxite industry.” As anyone who cares to check historical documents would quickly notice, the major part of the bauxite industry had been nationalised since 1971. Critical support was advocated by the PPP in 1975.
By 1975, the PNC government had implemented policies such as nationalisation and the development of political ties with the socialist bloc countries. In appearance at least, these were what the PPP had been advocating for years, and the PPP leadership took credit for having pushed the PNC toward them. In mid-1975, at a conference in Havana, Cuba, of a fraternity the PPP held dear, the Communist Parties of Latin America and the Caribbean, one of the key policies advocated was that communist-oriented parties like the PPP should offer more support to governing parties to encourage the latter to move more rapidly toward creating socialism. Following this trend, in August 1975, the PPP declared its new policy toward the PNC was “critical support.” As the Central Committee of the PPP, in its Report to the 25th PPP Anniversary celebration, noted, “the situation now therefore demands a more flexible approach on the part of the PPP… our political line should be changed from non-co-operation to critical support.”
At the time the PPP advocated this policy, Dr. Cheddi Jagan and other PPP leaders clearly stated their reservations about the PNC, but they also felt the PNC was taking concrete steps to move Guyana toward the socialist dream the PPP craved. Internationally, the PPP’s main friends were increasingly cosy with the PNC. In 1975, for example, the PNC leader L.F.S. Burnham, on an official visit to Cuba, was given Cuba’s highest state honour, the Jose Marti National Order.
Regrettably, in his attempt to make the PPP appear “pure,” and distinct from the PNC, Justice Ramson is guilty of a serious distortion on the PPP policy of “critical support.” In his letters to the newspapers, Ramson portrays himself as deeply concerned with truth and accuracy. I hope this concern will enable him to acknowledge his misrepresentation. Taking this into account as mitigating circumstance, he should sentence himself to at least a week at the Cheddi Jagan Research Centre to study historical documents.
Yours faithfully,
Ramesh Deonaraine
