Dear Editor,
It was with a deep sense of interest I read your editorial headlined:
‘Republic’ published in your Sunday Stabroek edition of 23rd February 2020.
There are at least four items in the text of your editorial with which I would like to take issue.
First, is the paragraph stating:
‘The decision for Guyana to become a Republic was not a contentious one: the PPP as much as the PNC was in support of it, both for nationalistic reasons as well as because it did not sit comfortably with a Marxist party to accord royalty a role in the nation’s political arrangements.’
I consider this a mere opinion and not factual based on the historical records
Contentious’ according to my understanding means an issue that is causing or likely to cause an argument or a controversy.
The birthing of Republicanism in Guyana was indeed a cause for argument and did breed controversy in the Guyanese body politic at that time.
And if, as the Editorial suggests, that the PNC was a Marxist party at the time when Guyana attained republican status then I disagree.
And even if the PNC was, then the Anglo-American intellectual authors of Jagan’s removal from office must have made a serious blunder.
As to whether the attainment of republican status was a contentious issue or not, I refer to the address delivered by Dr. Cheddi Jagan in the National Assembly on February 23, 1970.
I leave readers to judge.
Here is what Dr. Jagan said:
“We do not see much cause for rejoicing, for what we see is merely a change of form not substance. Actually, Republican Status should have come on the attainment of independence. Had this been done, there would have been no necessity for all the ballyhoo, the demagoguery and the gimmickry today. Rather, there would have been for us today the necessity for a cold concrete assessment of where we are heading”.
Jagan continued:
“The fact is that our beloved country is retrogressing instead of progressing. All that independence and republicanism stand for are being violated in our country.”
And, as if the issue at the time was not contentious enough Jagan, without pettifogging the issue, went on to contextualize Guyana’s attainment of republican status with a PNC minority regime that; seized power by fraud, subverted the constitution at every turn, made concessions freely linked to corruption, abolished the right to strike and imposed by law, detention without trial.”
In concluding his address on the occasion, Dr. Jagan pointed out:
“If this Government cuts out their Daimler-style living, abandon their Duvalier methods and follow in the footsteps of Julius Nyerere and Fidel Castro and serve the people we will March with them, we will back them. But we warn, if they continue with the imperialists, we will fight them. Our people deserve a better future, and that they must have and will have.”
Those were Jagan’s own words and nothing can change what he said then and how he interpreted national and international events in the heyday of the Cold War and nation building.
The records would show the PNC government never took Jagan’s warning seriously thus the PPP’s persistent struggle against all manifestation of PNC’s dictatorial rule.
Some may want to categorize Jagan’s address as a ‘Cold War’ speech and they would be quite correct in doing so when historical context is taken into account, but with one caveat, the past is a mirror on the future
Although Jagan’s address was delivered fifty years ago, were we to fast track the passage of time to where we are today, what Jagan said then about the PNC now APNU, remains valid, save for his advice about “following in the footsteps of Nyerere and Castro.”
Looked at in the Guyana context, history has indeed repeated itself first as a tragedy and secondly as a farce.
Cheddi Jagan represents a passing figure whose dreams of national unity appear to be fading with the passage of time and more particularly, with the reincarnation of the PNC in the form of the APNU.
The recent call for national unity in light of the impending ICJ’s hearings on the Venezuela border controversy, remains an elusive dream primarily because of the PNC’s shenanigans.
The second issue has to do with the editorial’s characterization of Ashton Chase as the PPP’s nominee for the post of President.
In this regard the SN editorial points out:
‘… but the PPP favoured an altogether more political figure, Ashton Chase, who had been associated with the party more-or-less from its inception’
I am not sure what the editorial is insinuating in describing Chase’s ‘more-or-less association with the PPP.’
Suffice it to say that Ashton Chase is one of the founder members of the PPP and was a member of the PPP from its inception. Where his ‘more-or- less association with the PPP from the inception’ comes from is a matter that needs to be clarified.
Thirdly, I have an issue with the following; ‘It is true, of course, that Jagan and his team refused to take part in the final conference in London which agreed the 1966 Constitution, but in the end, he and some of key figures in his party decided they would attend the independence observances in the National Park.”
Describing events at that time, Stabroek News makes a quantum leap from Jagan’s refusal to take part in the final (Constitutional) conference in London, to his
‘attendance with some of the key figures in his party at the independence observances at the National Park.’
SN offered no plausible explanation for this seeming about turn by Jagan.
Cheddi Jagan’s refusal to attend the November 2, 1965 constitutional conference in London has to be put in context. It was neither his refusal to obstruct nor to delay the independence/ Constitutional talks.
Almost one year prior to the convening of the conference, the then British government, by means of a “fiddled constitutional arrangement” had helped put in place, the PNC/ UF coalition government.
In his ‘West on Trial’, Jagan posed the question, “What was the point of talking of Constitutional safeguards when at the very moment, while the (Colonial Secretary’s) speech was being made (in London),constitutional guarantees were, and are still in a state of suspension in Guiana? They have been suspended since the coalition government took office in December 1964”
Jagan told the British government that, “without a political settlement constitutional guarantees mean absolutely nothing.”
In his letter dated December 12, 1964 to Anthony Greenwood Secretary of State for the Colonies, Dr Jagan wrote:
“I propose that you take the initiative of working out a constitutional formula which would provide representation in the government of the major sections of the people now excluded by the freak result produced by the form of proportional representation … this is not impossible.”
Later, on 30th June 1965 Dr. Jagan wrote Greenwood again, this time putting his proposals that would guarantee the civil liberties and human rights laid down in the constitution.
The British government’s rejection of the proposals coupled with the on-going constitutional and civil liberties violations at home, were key determinants that influenced Jagan’s non- participation in the 1965 conference.
In his ‘West on Trial,’ Jagan emphasizes; ‘May 26, 1966 was fixed as the date for independence. Although we had boycotted the conference, we welcomed the announcement. To us national liberation implies political independence, economic emancipation and social justice. And, political independence is a prerequisite to the attainment of economic emancipation and social justice’.
Finally, on the question of national unity.
Guyanese would be happy to learn about the meaningful initiatives taken by the PNC to encourage, promote and facilitate national unity as distinct from its farcical social cohesion, among the people of Guyana.
The SN Editorial poses a legitimate question, whether ‘we have learnt any lesson about unity at this point in our history than we did in the intervening half century ….’ My answer to the question is yes and no.
There has been manifestations of national unity, but lessons about unity thus far, have been short lived and limited to the realm of politics and coalition politics.
Can this unity limited as it has been, grow vertically and horizontally on a national scale? Only time will tell.
New scales, new concepts and new challenges regarding national unity have emerged in our globalized world in general and in the respective community of nations in particular. With general and Regional elections just days away, the nation is gripped with a deep sense of excitement, expectations and uncertainty.
In February 1990 in a Republic day message to then President Hoyte, former US President, George Bush wrote saying he ‘hoped that the upcoming elections would be held according to the norms of democracy.’
That was twenty years ago, but the same hope remains as valid as ever for March 2, 2020.
Yours faithfully,
Clement J. Rohee
