Dear Editor,
Henry Jeffrey’s piece ‘About the PPP’ in his ‘Future notes’ of Wednesday, February 1, makes interesting reading. Like so many who went before him he examines from an intellectual and abstract perspective what he perceives to be the socio-psychological thinking and praxis of the People’s Progressive Party.
Dr Jeffrey is quite in order to express his views publicly on such matters and absolutely nothing is wrong with that. In fact, we should have more critical analysis expressed from all sides but not only about the PPP indeed, about the APNU+AFC too. I therefore challenge Jeffrey to formulate a similar critique of the APNU+AFC.
The “near universal belief” that Dr Jeffrey refers to is highly questionable in today’s context. Apparently he has not been reading ‘Hindsight’ or, like most academics, he has neither his feet on nor ears to the ground. And what is this “sensible response” he refers to that the PPP “needs to craft?” And to whom should that response be directed? After all, according to Dr Jeffrey, he is “one of those who do[es] not believe that it is in the best interest of Guyana for the PPP to return to government in the near future.” How many “of those” Jeffrey has behind him is anybody’s guess.
So what about when free and fair elections are held and the PPP wins by a landslide, what will the Jeffreys of this world say or do about that? Or is that another “wasteful thought”? Dr Jeffrey adopts what is clearly an anti-dialectic, traditionalist view. He must be aware of the results of the elections in the United States where it was widely predicted that Hillary Clinton would have won the presidency, and in the UK where the people, contrary to general expectations gave the mandate to have Britain pull out of the European Union. Big political upheavals are further expected in Europe. The Romanians are on the streets and squares. And in East Africa Yayah Jameh had to go.
Jeffrey must know that in politics nothing is cast in stone. So while he constructs theories from an anti-dialectical and traditionalist perspective about marginal electoral results and its implications for either party to take to government in a “marginal fashion” what if it turns out otherwise trumping his thesis?
Jeffrey claims that the PPP “has no moral legitimacy” to make proposals on “sharing political space” nor “sharing government.” In the same breath, he claims that that the APNU+AFC has compounded the problem by not recognizing the role it should be playing in facilitating the creation of that very space because it is afflicted by the same dilemma. Yet he goes on to attack the PPP as the guilty party for “devising a dangerous strategy of ethnic mobilization to attempt to recapture its majority.” This is an intellectual concoction that is politically misdirected. I challenge him to provide the concrete evidence to prove his assertion.
At the same time, he must demonstrate that APNU+AFC as a political alliance and a coalition government is above the fray and has clean hands when it comes to ethnic mobilization vis-à-vis its support base. The plague cannot be on both houses. The question posed by Jeffrey to the effect, “how do we get to a government that can ensure the psychological and actual peace and prosperity for all of us?” is indeed a most intriguing one.
Leaders of the APNU+AFC reading Dr Jeffrey would no doubt find his question amusing, since as far as their administration is concerned they have been providing the populace with the “good life” ever since they assumed office. Jeffrey and those who support his view have the enormous task of convincing the APNU+AFC that they are wrong and the Jeffreys of this world are politically correct.
Jeffrey does not want either party ‒ assuming that they both win marginal votes ‒ to hold political power. Are we to understand from his argument that both political parties in their respective manifestos and electoral campaigns preceding the elections must commit to the establishment of national unity government? The big question is how politically and culturally realistic is this in the Guyanese context, given the very argument which Jeffrey raised to the effect that both political parties are affected by what is euphemistically referred to as the ‘racial problematic.’ And that neither of them is prepared to commit political hara kiri.
Incidentally, Dr Jeffrey has argued in the past against a national unity government on the premise that, in a Guyanese context, it would result in the absence of any robust political opposition and that it does away with transparency and accountability in the conduct of government business.
Jeffrey’s analysis of the PPP though not acceptable, is of a higher quality given his academic qualifications and experience compared to the writer of the Sunday Stabroek editorial, who in last Sunday’s leader ‘GT strikes back’ framed the leadership of the PPP as composed of traditionalists, hipsters and tricksters.
The traditionalists were deemed to have a “class obsession”, implying there was some other scientific, sociological method of analyzing the social composition and stratification of any given society. Assuming there is another or other scientific methodologies to investigate such a social phenomenon, I would be the first to express an interest in learning more about it. In other words; “Let a thousand flowers bloom.”
One last word on this particular matter. Ever since its format, the PPP has accommodated within its membership and indeed at the leadership levels, various hues and shades of ideology and philosophy.
As a political party fighting from the outset for independence, the PPP, due to the nature of the struggle at that time, could not have been made up, neither at the rank and file, nor at the leadership level of individuals who shared a common ideology and philosophy. The struggle for independence involved all Guyanese. This was precisely why Martin Carter captured the national sentiment at a time when the national movement was threatened proclaiming, “All are involved, all are consumed.”
Throughout its organizational and structural evolution the PPP has always maintained the need to accommodate within its ranks individuals as members who are Marxists, non-Marxists (but not anti-Marxist) religious believers, socialists, democrats, revolutionary democrats, progressive nationalists, revolutionary nationalists, pacifists, petit bourgeois elements, representatives of the middle class and the patriotic business community, youth and students.
It is true that for a considerable period of time the Marxists dominated the leadership of the party. It was they who led the struggle for Independence, and later for free and fair elections. They formulated the line of “critical support,” the call for a National Patriotic Front and National Front Government, the creation of the Civic component resulting in the formation of the PPP/C electoral alliance, and finally, they were in the forefront of the struggle at home and abroad that eventually brought the PPP/C to victory in 1992.
Recall the famous words of Dr Jagan when referring to the ideological and class construct of the PPP/C alliance: “We don’t want to dominate but at the same time we don’t want to be dominated.” Here Dr Jagan was referring to ideological and philosophical considerations. By “we” implicitly, he meant the Marxists in the PPP.
If according to Sunday Stabroek’s present-day categorization at Freedom House the Marxists are the “traditionalists” in the PPP then we should concede that they did a really great job and continue to do so. Who says Marxists can’t be hip too? It’s the stereotyping that casts them in a negative light. Indeed, in keeping with the long held tradition in the party, there must be a place at the table for the “traditionalists”, the hipsters as well the tricksters, whoever they might be. After all, they all have a role to play given the nature and vagaries of Guyanese politics. All must be involved!
Yours faithfully,
Clement J Rohee
