Dear Editor,
In his Sunday column, Ralph Ramkarran argues that since the passing of Cheddi Jagan, the PPP has “ceased to be a Marxist-Leninist Party” (8/22/21). After further “investigations” of Marx’s and Jagan’s views on “race, ethnicity and class” he inevitably concluded that Jagan’s continuous references to “working class unity,” “winner does not take all,” and “shared governance” were clear evidence that Jagan integrated race and ethnicity (Ralph actually confuses the two social concepts) into his class analysis of our politics. Ramkarran ignored comments on the core point of my letter, which pointed to several proposals for moving the country beyond the ethnic divide. I shared four specific proposals: the creation of a federal structure of government to empower local communities, reliance on ethnic impact statements to assess policy impact among disadvantaged communities, the creation of an affirmative action program to promote a level playing field by elevating economically depressed communities, and reliance on an ethnic caucus to advise the government on sensitive cultural/ethnic issues.
By fixating on the ideology of the PPP, Ramkarran is either implying that the current PPP leadership is ahead of the game on the ethnic issue, or that the PPP, as a whole, was built on shaky ideological foundations. By extension, there is no basis for institutional and structural reforms to address the ethnic issue. It will eventually wither away. In reality, he overlooked two crucial points. One, as someone who grew up within the PPP, Ralph should understand, more than anyone else, that for Jagan, racial antagonism and ethnic conflicts were temporal, if not incidental. Both were distractions attributed to bourgeoisie “false consciousness” and were manifestations of an undeveloped Guyanese “working class” consciousness. It was clear that Cheddi had rejected the capitalist metropole and embraced the authoritarian Soviet-styled Marxist-Leninism. Jagan hinted at this manifestation as early as 1943 when he admitted to V.S. Naipaul that it was Janet Jagan who had introduced him to the Little Lenin Library books. Jagan’s epiphany led him to conclude, above all else, that the “class issue was fundamental”. Jagan’s obsession with vulgar Marxism contributed to his misunderstanding of the cleavages that flowed from population demographics like “race, ethnicity and culture”, which Antonio Gramsci referred to as the complexity of “subalternity”. They are manifested as permanent characteristics of plural societies like ours. By definition, Walter Rodney was a Marxist revolutionary, yet Rodney displayed a very practical understanding of the persistence of race/ethnicity which he demonstrated in his historical analyses of colonialism and post-colonial societies, including Guyana. So, yes Ralph. We all know the current PPP, unlike the Jaganite PPP of the past, is now controlled by a pro-business and bureaucratic class, despite the Marxism-Leninism ideology entrenched in the party’s 1977 constitution. If the Marxist-Leninist ideology died with Jagan in 1997, then “cooperative socialism” (borrowed from Tanzania’s Ujaama socialism) died with Burnham in 1985.
Two, the original emphasis on Marxism-Leninism created a world view that legitimized a centralized organizational structure within the PPP. That centralized structure placed considerable power in the hands of a few, and limited considerations of alternative ideological perspectives or developmental plans. Mr. Ramkarran himself defended the necessity for this party structure in 2013, a few weeks before his departure from the Central Executive when he argued then, that the PPP was on the right side of history because “open, democratic, activity was becoming difficult and we might have to function in conditions of illegality” (June 2, 2013). Additionally, the emphasis on class analysis has conveniently allowed the PPP leadership to portray the post-1957 PPP as multiracial and the PNC as an “anti-working class” outfit, reinforcing the belief, particularly among its Indian base, that most “black people” will eventually gravitate towards the PPP. History has shown that these strategies have failed, and the PPP leadership will continue to avoid dealing with the racial divide, as well as the security of its own supporters, instead of frontally addressing the problem. That has been a lasting legacy imposed on the current PPP by the Jaganite Marxists. We can compare this view to that of American policymakers who continue to believe, erroneously, that developing countries can attain economic development in linear progressive stages, much in line with W. W. Rostow’s 1960 model based on the Stages of Economic Growth generally associated with Western nation-states.
Evidently, the former Speaker has now made his peace with his PPP comrades, eight years after his departure from the PPP. Reminding “Indian Guyanese commentators” that the PPP is not the party of the Jaganite Marxists (I suspect Ralph may consider himself one of the “old” guards) does not move us closer towards an inclusive society reflective of “unity in diversity”. Perhaps Ralph can use his influence over his PPP comrades, and the opposition, to encourage a national dialogue with the focus of creating a more inclusive society. He would be remembered as a revolutionary who has significantly contributed towards “Old Man” Cheddi’s life-long unfulfilled dream of building a united Guyanese working class.
Sincerely,
Baytoram Ramharack