Dear Editor,
I wish to shed light on an overlooked aspect of Guyanese history, particularly the relationship between Forbes Burnham, the former leader of the People’s National Congress (PNC), and Dr. Cheddi Jagan, the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) leader, regarding their shared political landscape. This often-contentious dynamic had an underlying connection that, at times, worked in favour of Burnham, especially concerning Jagan’s marriage to Janet Jagan.
The PPP, a left-wing party, opposed British colonial rule of Guyana. After its electoral victory in April 1953, the PPP briefly formed the government, but the British government had the PPP government removed later in the year due to concerns about the Jagans’ alleged communist sympathies. Leading the country for only 133 days in 1953 following the free and universal election, Janet and Cheddi were first deposed and then jailed in 1955 on orders of Winston Churchill, who feared the existence of a communist state in the Western Hemisphere.
During the height of the Cold War, the U.S. and Western allies were determined to prevent communist influence from taking root in the Western Hemisphere. Jagan’s Marxist leanings, coupled with his marriage to Janet Jagan, albeit she was known as ‘bhauji’ amongst the East Indian population, provided fodder for his opponents. Burnham, though uncommitted to Western ideologies at the time, was able to exploit this Cold War paranoia to his advantage. By positioning himself as a more acceptable alternative to the West, including forming a coalition with the more capitalist Peter D’Aguiar of the United Force Party, Burnham secured tacit, and at times explicit, support from international powers who feared the rise of a communist state in Guyana.
Meanwhile, the wealthier East Indians began to desert Jagan due to his and the PPP’s communist allegiances, which increasingly alienated segments of his traditional support base. This drift not only weakened Jagan’s domestic standing but also further allowed Burnham to consolidate power by appealing to a broader, more capitalist-minded electorate.
In a contemporary context, this political maneuvering can be juxtaposed with Guyana’s current position as an oil-rich nation. Today, just as Cold War tensions shaped the nation’s trajectory, global environmentalists have raised alarms about Guyana’s rapid oil extraction, urging restraint in the name of climate change. Meanwhile, many domestic voices argue that the newfound oil wealth represents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to lift the nation out of poverty. The tension between exploiting these resources for immediate economic gain and addressing the environmental concerns of the global community echoes the historical balancing act between domestic and international pressures faced by Burnham and Jagan.
Burnham’s ability to manipulate the political narrative cannot be understated. While he, too, harboured socialist ideals, he was more pragmatic in his approach, especially when it came to power dynamics on the global stage. The Jagans’ perceived ties to global communism heightened Western fears of communist expansion, making Burnham the “lesser evil” in the eyes of those who had the power to shape the country’s future.
This nexus, though rarely acknowledged, played a critical role in shaping Guyana’s political landscape. Burnham’s rise to power and his eventual control over the newly independent nation were, in part, facilitated by this Cold War dynamic. It is a testament to his political acumen that he was able to capitalize on Jagan’s vulnerabilities, using them to solidify his own position while sidestepping his own socialist inclinations until it served him.
Sincerely,
Keith Bernard