Dear Editor,
Reference is made to Dr Baytoram Ramharack’s missive ‘Jagan’s legacy contributed to our current politically dysfunctional society’ (SN, Feb 25). A critical appraisal of Jagan’s legacy needs to be done but many people I spoke with feel the timing for it must be “fortuitous” in order to allow for a very objective assessment. Some of Jagan’s critics as well as his worshippers in New York, in response to Prof Ramharack’s commentary, feel that apart from the effect his political legacy had on the leadership succession within the PPP, there is no significant relevance for it in the current political atmosphere when there is so much rancour and divisiveness within the party and in the society at large. Dr Jagan had (and still has) a very loyal following (in and out of his support group called ACG) in NY, who would not accept any critiques of their party’s founder leader no matter what his flaws. They view him as decent, honest and a champion of their freedom and the person who fought against racism. Not surprisingly, writing on Dr Jagan has always been considered taboo, but Dr Ramharack has broken the restriction.
Dr Ramharack is well grounded in Guyanese politics and the Guyanese community in the greater New York area and was always an objective political analyst.
We both met Dr Jagan on several occasions interviewing him for articles in community newspapers and for our research as part of our theses and dissertations. Jagan was very engaging and methodical in conversation, and he spent long hours with us at the global conference of People of Indian Origin held at the Sheraton in July1989 discussing Guyana’s politics. At the Fourth Academic Conference of Indians in the Diaspora that I helped organize at Columbia University we found him to be uncompromising and doctrinaire in his socialist ideology and incorruptible on issues pertaining to finance. But we also found many flaws in his politics and agreed with scholars who felt he was “very naïve” when it came to geopolitics as well as the ethnic politics of Guyana and the Caribbean.
As a Marxist, he felt he could solve Guyana’s ethnic conflict; obviously, he failed as has everyone else who tried to find a solution. As Ramharack and others noted, unlike Forbes Burnham, who preached a politics of ethnic consolidation and collaboration with the West that worked in his favour, Jagan attacked the Western powers as imperialists and destroyed ethnic Indian leaders (BS Rai, JB Singh, Latchman Singh, etc) describing them as dividing his base. Had Dr Jagan approached Guyana’s geopolitics from a “pragmatic perspective” and not fought America, Britain and the West, and had he addressed the racial conflict head on (rather than hoping it would disappear over time as most Marxists felt) Guyana would have been a different society today – perhaps a Singapore or a Cyprus or a Trinidad in terms of economic development.
In his critique of Dr Jagan, Prof Ramharack neglected to mention that he and I approached several PPP leaders about writing Jagan’s biography a few months after he passed away in March 1997. Then Minister Nagamootoo suggested we approach Janet Jagan since we would need her permission for access to documents on Jagan. We visited Freedom House and met Janet who requested an official proposal which we prepared and delivered to her, I believe the following day. In her response, the proposal was rejected for the reason that the party would prepare and publish Jagan’s biography. Subsequently Ms Nadira Jagan Brancier, Jagan’s daughter, wrote and published what could be considered a Jagan biography. Dr Ramharack and I were more interested in a critical appraisal of Jagan’s political life. Since then, Dr Ramharack has published several books and essays that made reference to Jagan’s political leadership with scathing comments on his leadership supported with ample evidence.
For the record, several of us in the Guyanese diaspora did write constructive critiques of Jagan and the PPP. But we were shot down by his disciples, especially those in the ACG who did not tolerate critiques of the party’s founder leader. We wrote regularly in the papers in North America and Guyana on political, social and economic matters. When we put forward suggestions on a multi-party unity slate in 1990 (for the aborted election) and 1992 (PCD consensus candidate), they were laughed at. When we advocated a redirection of power away from the central government towards local communities to run their own affairs, we were attacked by the ‘left’. Very often my friends in the ACG in NY would tell me since we had so many ideas we should go and form our own party and contest elections in Guyana. There was no play for more than one party representing an ethnic group as WPA, URP, ROAR, DLM found out when they contested elections. Guyana is not like Israel or Belgium or Switzerland or Ireland where more than one ethnic party can represent an ethnic community; Guyanese lack the political maturity to split their ethnic votes except in 2006, 2011 and 2015.
Activists and the leadership of the PPP prior to 2015 were not interested in coalition politics and collaborating with other groups. As others noted, the PPP was interested in a winner takes all election, similar to what obtained prior to 2011. As others commented, the PPP was not interested in sharing positions with those who struggled for the restoration of democracy in Guyana. There was no reason why a Paul Nehru Tennassee (DLM leader) or others could not be courted (Dr Clive Thomas was) and be granted a position to make a contribution to the development of the nation. Over the years, especially post-Jagan, the party increasingly alienated itself from and marginalized almost everyone who fought the PNC dictatorship and helped restore democracy. Simultaneously, it embraced a number of known crooks. This chiselled away at support for the party resulting in it losing its majority at the elections in 2011 and power in 2015.
The PPP no longer has a built-in ethnic majority and contrary to what it feels it has not been successful at attracting cross-over racial support. Therefore, it has to approach politics from a pragmatic perspective away from the mantra of winner takes all. It must consider coalition politics and be willing to work with other political and civic organizations to expand its base, especially with a view to attracting cross-ethnic support. More importantly, it must be willing to orient its leadership towards youths and those not perceived to be tainted, and reconcile with those whom it excommunicated or alienated, reach out to new players, and be open to critical analysis of its politics, and of its founder Dr Jagan.
Yours faithfully,
Vishnu Bisram
