It is most revealing to make a comparison of the PPP term in office in 1961-1964 and the PPP’s term in office since the 2011 General Election; and even before then, since 1992, but I will limit my analysis and evaluation to the PPP/C’s current term to bring to fore the striking similarity of the wicked efforts of the Opposition to stymie the social and economic development of this country in order ‘to depose’ the PPP Government. It is instructive to keep in mind the words of the philosopher Bakunin (made famous by Rev Jim Jones) that ‘those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it’.
The 1961-1964 Period
In his book, The West on Trial, Dr Jagan wrote: ‘In 1962, the dissentient elements had used the budget to start trouble. In1963, their pretext for the strife was the Labour Relations Bill’. It must be noted that this was the third election that the PPP had won and in order to get rid of the PPP Government, the PNC unleashed terror and mayhem in the form of riots, strikes, rape, murder and violence. People were not safe even in their homes. Both Peter d’Aguiar and Burnham fanned the flames of racial disharmony to achieve political advantage. In fact, d’Aguair’s mantra was, ‘to oppose, expose and depose’ the PPP Government. He even called for a vote of ‘no confidence against the PPP Government.
The truth became apparent when the PPP Government compromised with the opposition with to imposition of the indirect taxes in the 1962 Budget. The budgetary measures proposed could have increased the cost of living by just 1%, but would have provided numerous benefits for the masses of the country. Soon after this compromise, the Opposition upped the ante and called for the PPP ‘to withdraw the budget and resign’.  The Budget proposals were made after recommendations by Nicholas Kaldor, an economist and tax expert, whose services were obtained through the United Nations. The opposition also began spreading rumours that the PPP would have taken away peoples’ property if the Budget was passed. The Budget was described as ‘anti-working class’ and ‘Communistic’. However, Professor Newman of Michigan University described the budget as the first attempt at self-help and to make Guyanese responsible for their own economic development. Dr Jagan then concluded that ‘…the budget was only the pretext for violent demonstrations… the aim was to bring down the Government’.
Then the Opposition had a problem with the Labour Relations Bill. This Bill had only sought to provide for a secret poll for workers to vote for a union of their choice. This bill was similar to the one introduced in 1953 when Burnham was a member of the PPP Government. Cheddi Jagan wrote that it was clear that the PNC ‘…intended to gain office by any means’. The Commonwealth Commission of Inquiry described the attitude of the PNC leadership as ‘callous and remorseless’ and that the strikes were politically motivated; also that some union leaders had their personal vendetta against Dr Jagan. The strikes and violent riots, the burning and looting, the killing and the raping of 1962 continued into 1963 and 1964. The Indian people were the main targets and the sole aim of the Opposition was to get rid of the PPP Government.
The 1964 General Election
It must be noted that in order to bring peace and stability to this nation, the PPP had made many proposals to the PNC but they were all rejected. On June 6th, 1964, Dr Jagan even invited Burnham to form a coalition government, but he refused. He was obsessed with his plan to remove the PPP from Government.
The results in 1961 were PPP 42.6 %, PNC 40.9% and UF 16.3%, but the election was based on first past the post system. The electoral system was then manipulated by the British and proportional representation was introduced in the 1964 election to ensure that the PNC became the government with the help of the United Force (UF), the USA and Great Britain.
The 1964 General Election saw the PPP getting 45.8% of the votes, the PNC 40.5% and the UF 12.4%. Through a coalition of the PNC and UF, the PNC became the new government. The PPP failed to retain the legislative majority in Parliament.
Dr Jagan concluded that “two minorities cannot, ipso facto, make a majority” and that “concepts such as ‘popular consensus’ and ‘national will’ cannot be reduced to these naive mathematical formulations. They must be measured not only in quantitative but also in qualitative terms”.
The 2011 General Election
After the 2011 election, the combined opposition found a new weapon, with
‘the new dispensation’ added to the armoury of the combined opposition – APNU and the AFC. They felt that this new weapon will allow them to bring down the PPP/C Government, using their parliamentary majority. It is time to recall what Cheddi Jagan said: ‘two minorities cannot make a majority’: But this is exactly what AFC and APNU believe. Before , the opposition media and street protests were used, but they had proven to be ineffective, so with their new weapon  they have resorted to ‘scissoring the Budget’,  move ridiculous motions and pass bills for anything they feel they can use to make the country ungovernable and so succeed in ‘deposing’ the PPP/C Government. This is not unlike what was done in 1961-64, but this time they feel that their move has some legality in it. They will try ‘to depose’ the PPP/C under the guise of the law.
Just like in the 1961-4 period, they were not satisfied with the unconscionable budget cuts. In order to stymie the social and economic development of this country, they used their parliamentary majority to block the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism Bill. Again they are willing to sacrifice the entire nation in order to bring down the PPP/C Government and to achieve their political ambitions. In 1961-64 they used the Labour Relations Bill, and today they are using the AML/CFT Bill for the same purpose.
But the AFC and APNU were not satisfied with that: They tried to instigate Berbicians against the PPP/C Government by moving a motion in Parliament to lower the Berbice Bridge toll when they are fully aware that the Government cannot do that, since the Berbice Bridge is privately owned. What they have failed to tell the people, also, that by blocking the Amaila Hydro Project and the AML/CFT , they have directly robbed the Guyanese people of a far better standard of living than the couple of dollars benefit they could get from the lowering of the Berbice Bridge toll. I am calling on AFC and APNU to tell the people of Guyana how much they have lost when the combined opposition wickedly cut the major projects and blocked the AML/CFT Bill. I want financial analysts like Christopher Ram to make a real comparison and tell the people the truth. The blocking of the AML/CFT bill alone has the effect of significantly eroding our standard of living and pushing our cost of living to astronomical heights. Can this be compared to the cost of the Berbice Bridge toll as it stands now?
Recently, the opposition has been singing about a ‘no confidence motion’ against the PPP/C Government, which is not unlike what the opposition called for, through Peter d’Aguiar in 1962. The trend of the combined Opposition is becoming clearer; it is a replay of the 1961-64 period. That time it was the UF, today it is Moses Nagamootoo, the Vice-Chairman of the AFC. He had failed to get the desired results at Agricola, now this old budding lawyer feels that he could use the law to get his revenge.
But they have once again failed to understand, deliberately so, that the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act gives the Finance Minister the sole authority for the release of monies from the Contingencies Fund and that authority shall not be delegated to anyone. The Finance Minister can do so to satisfy an urgent, unavoidable and unforeseen need for spending where no monies have been appropriated, or the amount appropriated is insufficient and which, if not addressed, can cause injury to the public interest. The Opposition will do well to pursue this matter in court, but if they are confident that this is ‘lawlessness’ then they can take the advice of President Donald Ramotar.  I would like to see Moses put his money where his mouth is. The AFC loves to bluff and lie. I know them well. When they speak about stakeholders’ support they are talking about the executive of the AFC. There are no other stakeholders. They should name them if they are truthful!
The PNC will never change. They have moved from the ‘broom’ to the tree that makes the broom, the Palm Tree; they have moved from PNC to PNC Reform and now to APNU, and they can continue to change the label; but the content will always remain the same. The AFC, just like the UF, will be blown away when APNU’s PNC would have achieved their aims, just like what happened to the UF in 1968, when Burnham rigged the election to give the PNC 55.6%, the PPP 36% and the UF 7%. Maybe then Ramjattan will echo what d’Aguiar said in 1968. He lamented that, ‘To call it an election is to give it a name it does not deserve: It was a seizure of power by fraud, not election’. That was the end of the UF’s political relevance in Guyana’s politics. But the PNC seems to always catch a ‘packoo’. In the last election,  the WPA cohabitated with the PNC to give birth to APNU, and now the AFC is treading the same path. None of the third parties have been able to bring any good to this country because they never seem to understand that they have to rise above their own political ambitions for the good of this nation. They have only served to bring untold suffering to the Guyanese by facilitating the PNC to gain power. Will the AFC do it this time around?
What good have the AFC and APNU done for this country since the 2011 General Election?
Haseef Yusuf
AFC Councillor-Region 6