Dear Editor,
With all the brouhaha about who fathered this nation, one is hesitant to ask, “Who was the mother of the nation?” I suspect, depending upon whom you ask, Kofi, Quamina, Burnham, or Jagan all possessed some fatherly qualities. For Indians, Cheddi held a very special place, as Burnham, for Africans. Robin Singh’ introduction of Hubert Nathaniel Critchlow into the mix (SN, 4/1/23), with a commentary that Guyanese “universally agree that Hubert Nathaniel Critchlow was the Father of the Trade Union Movement,” renders closer examination.
Hubert Nathaniel Critchlow (1884-1958), whose bronze statue reigns supreme in the compound of the Parliament Building, was the founder and leader of the British Guiana Labour Union (BGLU) in 1919 (later led by Burnham in 1963). The BGLU was not recognized until July 21, 1922. Critchlow, whose father was a Barbadian, was employed as a wharf foreman by the Booker Group of Companies, and his union drew much of its support from African men and women dockworkers and stevedores in George-town. As Ashton Chase noted, he organized the waterfront workers as part of a long struggle against inequality, oppression, and exploitation, thereby contributing to the early anti-colonial movement.
Years later, in 1941, Critchlow became the General Secretary of the British Guiana Trades Union Council, an umbrella union comprised of fourteen other primarily urban-based labour unions. His central focus was drawn toward national goals, including, ensuring that his supporters were granted the right to vote and uniting the labour movement under his leadership. In 1943, in an attempt by the government to influence the labour movement, both Critchlow and Ayube Mohamed Edun, who represented the sugar workers through the Man Power Citizens’ Association (MPCA), were nominated by Governor Gordon Lethem to represent workers in the Legislative Council. Critchlow would be appointed to serve in the Governor’s Cabinet (Executive Council) in the following year, a position he held until 1947.
HN Critchlow, the most influential labour leader in Guiana during the early 1900s, was uneasy with the British Guiana East Indian Association’s and the Indian-dominated MPCA’s call for universal adult suffrage. He was fearful that since Indians represented the majority of the population in the Colony (as early as 1911), extending the franchise to Indians would signal a political setback for Africans, as well as a challenge to the hard-fought struggles and opportunities gained by Africans over many years. Even though Critchlow’s concerns were based on a projected fear, he offered little advice in terms of how to address the African concerns except to advocate for a reduction of the franchise, a position that was antithetical to the one he previously held.
Critchlow’s position was of grave concern to Edun, given Critchlow’s long-held record of advocating for universal adult suffrage. He supported the government’s position against universal adult suffrage during a debate on the Franchise Commission’s Report in the Legislative Council. On May 30, 1944, during a Council debate in the Tenth Session of the Third Legislative Council of British Guiana (presided over by Governor Lethem) Critchlow gave a startling justification for his reversed position on the issue of universal adult suffrage: “Our reason for advocating universal adult suffrage at the time was because at elections in this Colony some of the candidates spent a lot of money on drinks and the bribing of voters. As the number of voters was small we advocated the introduction of universal adult suffrage with a view to preventing bribery of the small man as much as possible… I feel that if the Commission recommends that we should reach universal adult suffrage by stages, and that at present we should have a reduction of the franchise, I certainly agree with that because we cannot get all we ask for at once. … I see now that it is really a dangerous thing to allow certain people to exercise the franchise and permit other people to tell them any kind of thing and fool them” (Legislative Council Debates, 30 May, 1944:353-54).
Critchlow’s volte-face went even further than opposing the right of Indians to vote – his anti-progressive position contributed to a division in the early years of the labour movement. Edun was incensed by Critchlow’s comments, especially given the fact that most Indians who supported his union were politically disenfranchised because they were illiterate. The Indian population was far from being able to vote en mass, considering the fact that by1946 about 44 percent of the Indians were disenfranchised due to literacy qualifications, compared to less than 3 percent of the African population.
Additionally, many workers did not meet the necessary income or property qualifications, the preconditions for access to the franchise. Writing in the MPCA’s newsletter, The Labour Advocate, on July 30, 1944, a deeply suspicious Edun provided a caustic response to Critchlow: “…Comrade Critchlow happens to have been elected recently as President of the Trades Union Council and Member of the Executive Council. How on earth will this labour leader expect East Indian labour to co-operate with the TUC when he, as its head, will change his opinion as if changing a coat? … We are indeed perturbed about this volte-face of a man in whom we had the most implicit confidence.”
The “Father of the Trade Union Movement,” whose statue was unveiled by Cheddi in December 1964, could not prevent an expansion of the franchise. Burnham, of course, had a Machiavellian plan to deal with the challenges posed by an expanded voter’s role that enfranchised the majority of Indians.
Sincerely,
Baytoram Ramharack
