Dear Editor
“Many of us had concluded that the difference between the PPP and other Soviet allied parties was the fact that the PPP was an Indian Party hiding under the banner of Marxism/ Leninism.” (Ogunseye) Ogunseye’s observation, quoted above is revealing, since it could be applied to the “Socialist PNC” of pre-independent Guyana that allowed for the PNC to ally itself to the imperialist USA to subvert the “Communist PPP” in the independence struggle. One of the lasting legacies of this ideological collaboration was claimed by Ogunseye himself in another recent letter to the press: “The role Africans played in the US-inspired riots in the 60s that brought down the PPP government haunts every PPPC government and leadership to date. The context of the Boston execution is the present political situation in the country. And the PPP/C seeks to drive fear in the African community. The rulers have long deemed every protest action by Africans post 2020 elections as opposition activism designed to undermine the government. This preoccupation can lead to a panic-political response that doesn’t appear logical to many observers. But in the chamber of secrecy, Jagdeo and his trusted lieutenants (that small inner circle) that logic is clear: their concern is with the regime survival.” (Ogunseye)
In essence, “regime survival” is the key to political ideology. Regardless of whether one claims to be of some ideological bent, there is enough wiggle room to allow strategy and tactics to diverge to the point where it can be claimed that any means can justify the proclaimed end. Forgotten in this is the fact that unjust means has no “end” in sight. The PNC, in post-independent Guyana, quickly moved to a variant of Third World socialism that allowed for “Paramountcy of the Ruling Party”, and the rigging of elections as a means to an end in building “socialism”. It was supposedly a “Cooperative Socialism” suited to the historical development of Guyana. It allowed for any and every means necessary to hold on to power. This included the assassination of Dr. Walter Rodney. The evolution of the WPA is a study in the art of survival. It was wedged between the “Indian communism” of the PPP and the “Black socialism” of the PNC. The WPA claimed a “social democratic” form of socialism that rejected the “Stalinist socialism” of the USSR and allowed for “bourgeois democratic rights” to be extended to the masses. One of the pinnacles of “social democracy” was free and fair elections as the route to “Democratic Socialism”. The WPA was a member of the Socialist International. The dilemma was that the rigging of the elections by the PNC had to be stopped for a democratic pathway to “socialist” transformation. This suggested the removal of the PNC by a popular insurrection, a means that Walter Rodney and the WPA did not rule out.
Dr. C.Y. Thomas, in his pamphlet, “Bread and Justice” had noted that, “Bread, or more correctly the promise of bread, cannot be traded for justice.” This statement had laid bare the essence of what the struggle was all about, the right to survival in a dignified manner. This promise is made by every “ism”, be it capitalism, socialism, communism, or the many forms of religious belief, be it Catholicism, Islamism, or Hinduism, etc. The dignity is how the bread that is produced, is distributed, and consumed. Without justice, that bread will be hogged by some at the expense of the many. The various “isms” is a righteous claim on that bread, as to who gets what, and the means by which that bread will be appropriated, from those who has a disproportionate share, for whatever reasons, be it historical and/or blatantly unjust. The birth of the WPA was its struggle against the Burnham-led PNC socialist dictatorship. This was led by Walter Rodney as its popular leader. Rodney was assassinated by the Burnham regime in the lead up to the 1980 elections, on the heels of the infamous 1978 referendum which installed the dictator Burnham as the Executive President “as if elected.” The 1980 elections was intended to give the dictator Burnham the presidency for life, and so it did. It was upon Burnham’s death that he was removed from office. The powers of the Executive Presidency allowed the dictator Hoyte to declare himself the heir to the throne in the massively rigged 1985 elections.
Hoyte was removed from power in the 1992 elections, which was a re-enactment of the 1964 elections, within the changed historical conditions. This time it was the communist PPP, using the tactics of “bourgeois democracy” turning the tables on the “reformist PNC,” which benefited from imperialist “intervention”. The PPP enjoyed 23 years in office and in power, since it ruled an independent Guyana. Pre-viously, in pre-independent Guyana, Premier Jagan had claimed that “he was in office, but not in power”. Power was the motive force of political struggle. It was rather instructive, that in his first address to his PPP Congress after regaining power, the Executive Presi-dent claimed that his hands were virtually tied, as the “Privatization and Deregulation” movement swept the world. Western democracies were dismantling the programs that allowed Third World governments to take hold of the commanding heights of the economies that were under state control. The Hoyte-led PNC regime was a willing party to this enterprise. This led to a free-for-all as the state monopoly on the use of force crumbled and led to the drug economy and the rise of drug lords in the political economy of Guyana.
The struggle between the PNC created post-independence state machinery and its dismantling, which was continued under the PPP led to the tension in the society mirrored by the dominant presence of a black military loyal to the PNC and countered by the private phantom forces of the PPP. It was an historical situation in which the PPP’s occupation of the “office” was now constrained by local historical forces instead of the imperialist forces. It sought to overcome this threat to its power, by means that Ogunseye described in the second quote above. The non-ideological struggle for power currently centers on the trillions of dollars in new-found oil wealth. Both the PPP and the PNC recognize that money is not colored by ideology, but by power and in the Guyana currency, race. This was starkly revealed in the last elections, when every attempt was made by the PNC, to hold on to power. This included a repudiation of the very electoral process that had brought it to power. Ogunseye logic is impeccable if applied to both sides, but in politics, the struggle for power always obliterates logic, since the “other” is always “otherwise”.
Sincerely,
Rohit Kanhai
Working People’s Alliance
