Understandable though it may be, is it not ironic that precisely at the time President David Granger was telling the 19th Biannual Congress of his People’s National Congress Reform that ‘We need not be divided, we need to build cooperative relationships at all levels of society’, he is set upon a constitutional course to remove ‘Cooperative’ from the Cooperative Republic of Guyana?! The word ‘cooperative’ does not only symbolize an emphasis on co-operative societies but is also intended as a constant aspirational reminder to each of us that we need to work together to unite and develop our society if we are to live the good life. Even if, in a divided and acrimonious place such as Guyana, the contribution of social symbols must be limited, it was most insightful of Forbes Burnham to recognize and find a place for ‘cooperative’ as a symbol of unity at the pinnacle of the constitutional state.
Of course, President Granger himself cannot be held responsible for the current position: ‘cooperative’ is only still in the name of our country because the referendum necessary for its formal removal is still to be held, a decade and a half after the constitutional reforms of 2001. However, the fact that we are here and could not rise beyond our ideological prejudices and historical disputes is perhaps to our discredit.
Last week, rather than wasting time arguing over who was or was not the architect of efforts at national unity, I located the PNCR’s quest for national unity/social cohesion in its ideological commitment to cooperation and promised this week to give concrete practical examples (like the above) from that period that may prove useful even today. That said, I need to make two points.
A salient factor in this analysis is that, unlike the present ‘isolated’ exhortation towards social cohesion, cooperation was aided by the larger ideological framework of socialism. Secondly, the quest for national unity cannot be restricted to what takes place within the formal ideology but must be infused in all aspects of the work of the state and civil society. For instance, other symbols (the 1763 – Cuffy and Enmore Martyrs’ monuments) are also important and such symbols should be established with an eye upon ethnic communal equity and involvement.
From the highest levels of the state, so to speak, we now go to the lowest. Cooperatives are private sector and not state organisations. The difference is that they are expected to operate democratically and utilise some equitable means – labour contribution, patronage, or level of investment – to share profits.
Linking back this inherently democratic institution to the historical experiences of all our peoples was a sensible effort at building social cohesion. This was so even if, as Vere T Daly pointed out that in the area of cooperation itself we were still a divided people. ‘On the one hand, while there is abundant evidence of intra-group cooperation, there are just a few instances in Guyana’s history when the major race-groups came together to form a united front’ (L Searwar ed. (1970) Co-operative Republic. Georgetown).
Yet Daly recognised that given the nature of cooperative relations, cooperatives may be able to foster greater national unity. He quoted Leo A Despres as follows: ‘The co-operative movement does not serve to maintain cultural differentiation at the national level. Cultural differentiation, to be sure exists at the local level where minimal cultural sections exists and this certainly influences the membership composition of particular cooperative societies. Beyond this, however the structure of the cooperative movement is one which functions to generate new cultural values that are in the process of being adopted by the society as a whole’ (Ibid).
Given the stage of cooperative development in Guyana and the role it was expected to play (undermining and gradually miniaturising and possibly eliminating capitalist enterprises), cooperation had to be supported by the state and the PNC sought to develop a plethora of supportive institutions.
There were a national cooperative bank, national cooperative agricultural and mortgage banks, a national cooperative insurance company, a cooperative college, a national consumer wholesale and other secondary co-operative societies, etc. In passing, it was even projected that the nationalized state industries were to be placed under a form of cooperation, mainly found in Europe and called cooperative corporations, which are managed by governing boards consisting of representatives of the government representing the people, consumers and producers.
Forbes Burnham loved to remind his audience that it was when he was in the wilderness of the opposition in 1961 that he and his party decided to adopt cooperatives as the means to build socialism in Guyana. What he never said but everyone knows is that by 1961, the deal to work with myriad forces to remove Cheddi Jagan from government, largely on the grounds of his Soviet Marxism, had already been made. Burnham was a socialist, but even if he wanted to, at that period he could not have attached his party to international communism.
Indeed, a distinct differentiation from soviet communism was required, and not without justification the PNC argued that ‘In many socialist societies, where certain institutions play important roles or some tendency is emphasised, the path to socialism is identified by the institution or tendency’ (Policy Paper. op cit). The Soviet Union had the Soviet, Tanzania had ‘Ujaama,’ and Yugoslavia emphasised ‘workers’ self-management’ as the most suitable instruments for developing socialism.
Thus, with hindsight the cooperative socialist venture was destined to fail, not because of the negative tendencies inherent in socialism and cooperativism but because any non-capitalist approach to radically transform the socio/economic condition of the working people would have faced enormous internal and external resistance. To confront this would have required working class unity at the very least, but for its own survival the PNC, which came to power as an alternative to the PPP, could not associate too closely with that party and instead, their relationship added another layer of resistance.
Those seeking a more cohesive society must appreciate the holistic nature of their challenge and in that context seek to identify and utilise national and communal psychological or historical symbols, provide adequate supportive mechanisms and establish a national united front that is supportive of their efforts. The latter is crucial: if it is not done, like the PNC’s earlier effort, at the very best, the result will be ‘social cohesion lite’ – lots of exhortations, the handing out of a few bicycles, a few more cultural presentations, etc., all to little avail!.
henryjeffrey@yahoo.com
