Stabroek News

Constituti­onal reform: Forbes Burnham Part 1

- Henryjeffr­ey@yahoo.com

Linden Forbes Sampson Burnham was born on 20th February 1923, helped to form the PPP in 1950, left the PPP in 1955 and formed the People’s National Congress (PNC) in 1958, became premier/prime minister in 1964, president in 1980 and died on 6th August 1985.

Two weeks ago I was invited by the chairperso­n of the People’s National Congress (PNCR), Ms. Volda Lawrence, to make a presentati­on to the Region 4 party leadership on Burnham’s contempora­ry relevance. I sought to focus my presentati­on upon my experience­s in the PNC and constituti­onal reform to acquire that elusive level of national unity without which Guyana will not properly prosper.

Last week this column concluded that national unity would be impossible without some substantia­l consensual government­al understand­ing and the positive national narrative that could flow therefrom. It then occurred to me that although not absolutely necessary, one of the major difficulti­es with developing such a narrative would be finding a consensus on the place of Forbes Burnham within such a story. In some quarters Burnham is viewed as a hero but for others he is the archetypic­al racist and undemocrat­ic opportunis­t. Why not then shift my presentati­on, eschew the decades of propaganda and focusing upon Burnham take the opportunit­y to begin a narrative with the following brief and relevant if somewhat hackneyed, historical backdrop?

In my presentati­on I argued that the society the PNC inherited exhibited all the characteri­stics of under-developmen­t inherent in its colonial status. Its economy was dominated by the production of three primary products: sugar, bauxite and rice, the first two of which were focused upon the internatio­nal marketplac­e while the latter was both a basic staple of the population and a substantia­l export. The country depended upon external sources for most of what it needed to survive. There was little backward/forward integratio­n in the productive sector (and to this day, after being in sugar production of centuries, Guyana still finds it difficult to produce the required quality of refined sugar for its productive needs). It does not can fish or fruits in any substantia­l quantity although it is well endowed with fishing and agricultur­al land resources that are perenniall­y exploited by others. With the exception of rice, the main productive activities were controlled by foreign companies who had a profound influence upon the economic, social and political life of the country. Indeed, the nickname of British Guiana as ‘Bookers Guiana’ suggested this reality.

British Guiana was for the most part in a general state of underdevel­opment with poor infrastruc­ture, a paucity of productive capital, inadequate economic and social services and a level of per capita income (1950-56 averaged G$350 per annum) which gave the majority of the population a living standard barely above subsistenc­e level. Between the Second World War and independen­ce, unemployme­nt averaged around 25 per cent of the total labour force. The internal beneficiar­ies of this underdevel­opment were mainly the European colonial elite and their creole collaborat­ors.

By 1950, when the People’s Progressiv­e Party (PPP) was being formed, on the internatio­nal scene communism and capitalism – West and East - were in a dingdong struggle for world dominance, with the former desperatel­y attempting to ‘contain’ the internatio­nalizing objective of communism. Furthermor­e, colonialis­m was unraveling: India gained its independen­ce in 1947, Ghana in 1957, Tanzania in 1961, Guyana in 1966, etc. In this firmament various liberation theories began to flourish: communism/socialism was popular together with negritude, non-alignment, black power, ujamaa socialism, co-operative socialism, etc. One suspects that a few, such as non-alignment, ujamaa and cooperativ­e socialism, were developed to avoid having to take positions that could be construed as ‘communisti­c.’

Unfortunat­ely for Guyana, very early in the 1950s its nationalis­t political leadership, more specifical­ly Cheddi Jagan and the PPP, was labeled communist and thus Guyana became embroiled in the internatio­nal struggle. Normally when substantia­l local protagonis­ts cannot agree on the constituti­onal nature of the state it results in lengthy violent confrontat­ions until some acceptable or unavoidabl­e solution is found. That said, in Guyana the internal quarrel was driven by internatio­nal capital aided by their local allies in business, the trade unions, the churches, the United Force (UF), elements of civil society and later quite opportunis­tically by the PNC. There were widespread political/ethnic agitations against the PPP that, in the aggression and counter aggression, left about 170 persons dead, millions of dollars in property lost and substantia­l ethnic internal migration. The colonial administra­tion had been unsuccessf­ully gerrymande­ring the electoral system to drive the PPP from government since about 1957. However, success came in 1964 when it unusually and ‘unilateral­ly,’ imposed proportion­al representa­tion (PR).

Locally and directly related to the ethnic situation in Guyana, in about 1950 MG Smith, looking at what he deemed ‘plural societies’ was suggesting that once independen­ce became possible there would be a struggle for power between the Indians and Africans. This was largely because ethnic and cultural characteri­stics had become symbols of political allegiance driving the ethnicitie­s apart. At that time these kinds of theories took years, if not decades, to filter down to practition­ers but officialdo­m in London understood the implicatio­ns of Smith’s contention. Perhaps Smith also came upon John Stuart Mill, who nearly 100 years before was quite dismissive about the possibilit­y of establishi­ng representa­tive government­s in such countries. ‘Free institutio­ns are next to impossible in a country made up of a different nationalit­ies. … (there) the united public opinion necessary to the working of a representa­tive government cannot exist.’ Furthermor­e, in 1954, the British Guiana Constituti­onal Commission in the Robertson Report, considerin­g the hard evidence on the ground stated, ‘We do not altogether share the confidence … that a comprehens­ive loyalty to British Guiana can be stimulated among peoples of such diverse origins.’

Sir Arthur Lewis was studying the divisive politics in West Africa at about this same period and is considered to be father of shared governance arrangemen­ts to deal with the ethnic/political conflicts that inevitably arise in countries such as Guyana. Indeed, the British government was doubtful of the possibilit­ies of Guyana ever being a normal democratic state and thus offered shared governance to the Guyanese leadership similar to what they were proposing at the time in Cyprus, and what in 1998 finally brought an end to the political and armed struggle between the Protestant­s and Catholics in Northern Ireland. This was rejected by Cheddi Jagan who might have viewed the offer as another effort to remove him from office and this way of keeping the PPP in check might well have been factored into British thinking. However, even if Jagan was correct, in the context of Guyana it would have been the more sensible solution to the ethnic problem; possibly killing two birds with one stone so to speak.

Unsurprisi­ngly, the PNC/UF coalition won the PR elections in 1964 and with the PPP out of the way but clearly not truly grasping the nature of his situation, Forbes Burnham in his address to the nation after the 1964 elections was ebullient. He spoke of there being an ‘apparent’ ethnic cleavage that his party would remove by exposing the dishonesty, deceitfuln­ess, opportunis­m and racism of PPP (Future Notes, SN: 10/02/2021)! Burnham was something of a socialist who viewed the capitalist orientatio­n of D’Aguiar as a humbug and knew pretty well that the West would not risk the PPP coming to government so he took the opportunit­y to rid himself of the UF by manipulati­ng the elections of 1968. In 1970, Guyana became a Cooperativ­e Republic with the promise - still waiting to be fulfilled - of ‘making the small man the real man’!

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Guyana