Dear Editor,
Charrandass Persaud’s pivotal vote in the 2018 no-confidence motion against the APNU+AFC coalition remains a subject of considerable debate. Was this action a demonstration of political acumen or simply an opportunistic maneuver? To provide context, it is worth comparing Persaud’s decision to the far-reaching political shift orchestrated by Forbes Burnham in the 1950s, when he parted ways with Cheddi Jagan’s People’s Progressive Party (PPP).
In 1955, Forbes Burnham’s split from the PPP was not merely an act of political defiance but a transformative moment in Guyana’s history. His departure resulted in the establishment of the People’s National Congress (PNC), a party that would dominate the nation’s political landscape for decades. Burnham’s move was strategic and deliberate, positioning him as a central figure in Guyanese politics. By the time the 1964 elections occurred, Burnham had secured nearly 40% of the national vote, laying the foundation for his eventual two-decade tenure as Prime Minister and President. His split from Jagan fundamentally altered the country’s political trajectory, creating new alliances and deepening divisions along ethnic and ideological lines.
In contrast, Charrandass Persaud’s decision to support the opposition’s no-confidence motion in December 2018, which passed by a narrow 33-32 margin, was more a dramatic moment than a lasting political realignment. While Persaud’s vote precipitated the fall of the Granger-led government and led to early elections, it did not represent a calculated, long-term strategy to reshape Guyana’s political order. Instead, it resulted in immediate instability, legal challenges, and months of uncertainty until fresh elections were held. The coalition government, which had won 207,000 votes in the 2015 general election and held 33 seats in Parliament, was suddenly thrust into disarray.
Burnham’s departure from the PPP led to the creation of a new political force that shaped the country’s future for decades. His decisions had far-reaching consequences for both political parties and the electorate. In contrast, Persaud’s vote, while significant in the short term, left behind no comparable legacy. The subsequent 2020 elections, which resulted in the PPP/C winning 50.69% of the vote compared to the APNU+AFC’s 47.34%, reflected not a reshaping of the political landscape but rather a continuation of existing rivalries.
Ultimately, while Burnham’s actions in the 1950s were a strategic and transformative realignment of political forces, Persaud’s vote appears more akin to a moment of personal rebellion with immediate but temporary consequences. Burn-ham’s legacy reshaped Guyanese politics for generations; Persaud’s, in contrast, has thus far not demonstrated the same lasting significance.
Sincerely,
Keith Bernard
