THIS nation will, on Thursday, mark its 50th anniversary of Independence. The 20th century struggles for independence cannot ignore the leading roles of persons like Hubert Nathaniel Critchlow (1884-1958), Dr Cheddi Jagan (1918-1997), and Forbes Burnham (1923-1985). Recognition of them is in no way meant to disavow the contributions made by others, but merely highlights the leading roles they played that brought us to this stage.

In that the planners of the Jubilee have not accorded these men their deserving place of prominence in the calendar of events, which was alluded to last week in my article, this country must do better going forward in acknowledging those who have paved the way for others. As expected, Bharrat Jagdeo, whose stewardship has to date been the most partisan, and who is always on the lookout to rebrand a disreputable legacy, seized the opportunity to highlight this historical slight.

Independence was not granted, it was fought for. Those who led the struggles shouldered the responsibility of keeping the masses mobilised, motivated, and accepting of the wisdom that the journey was worth it and there must be no retreat or surrender until victory is won. Critchlow, Jagan and Burnham distinguished themselves in this regard through their leadership.

In 1926, the 42-year-old Critchlow and other Caribbean labour leaders met in Georgetown, conceptualised, developed and put in place a Workers’ Agenda which included a strategy that put in motion the fight for independence. Jagan and Burnham were eight and three years old respectively when this meeting occurred and its blueprint was laid out. Thus when, in 1926, the trade union started the fight for internal self-government and one-man-one-vote (i.e. universal suffrage), it was out of recognition that the two are interlinked, and one cannot be achieved without the other.

Political independence, in its truest sense, speaks to a people enjoying the fundamental right to self-determination on matters pertaining to their cultural, social, political and economic welfare. Under the colonial system, the masses were treated as sub-human and their primary function in the political order was to be obedient subjects of the Crown. It required a focused approach to dispel this notion and topple the system that nurtured it.

The political system at the time had a governor and legislature whose priorities were focused on satisfying the interest of the Crown and merchant class. Entering the legislature prior to 1953 was based on education and/or money. And where the masses had neither, their interests were not considered unless they engaged in protest actions, which either saw same being ignored or only the specific matter attended to. Laws were also established to keep the people in servitude. Rights taken for granted today — such as religious freedom, marriage equality, freedom of association, ownership of property, women and child rights — were not features of the colonial government.

In 1943, when Jagan returned to then British Guiana, he met a landscape where mass-based activism to change the prevailing order was being waged by the trade union movement. He joined the Man-Power Citizens’ Association, the trade union that represented sugar workers, and embraced the Workers Agenda. Four years later, he was elected to the Legislative Council, in part due to Eusi Kwayana, who encouraged eligible voters within the contested constituency to throw their support behind him.

In 1946, Cheddi and Janet Jagan, together with trade unionists Jocelyn Hubbard and Ashton Chase, formed the Political Affairs Committee, which brought about a fusion of trade unionism and political activism to issues affecting the people.

When Burnham returned to Guyana in 1947, he became immersed in the movement and politics, embracing the agenda of both groups. He was a member of the then British Guiana Labour Union, which was founded by Critchlow.

With universal suffrage won in time for the 1953 elections, it put in place the foundational structure for internal self-government. This was a victory for workers and all Guyana. Though self-government was limited, given it was set in the right direction, it lay the foundation and put the people on a trajectory for the ultimate prize.

It cannot be ignored that the presence of Burnham and Jagan brought racial pride and political utility in addressing issues of historical racial mistrust, conflicts, and the belief that all should be together to better represent the collective interest to the colonial authority and against its mistreatment. It is a fact that both men gave voice to the welfare of the working class who, by this period in the nation’s history, had established enclaves based on job, trade, and areas of residency. Both men would have been mindful of these dynamics and the impact they had on groups, inclusive of race, class and population concentration.

Jagan and Burnham would also have been mindful of the macro-dynamics of oppression that birthed the society, and the divide-and-rule policy that held sway. Whether such was used to their advantage, or they were held captive to same, the fact remains that racial conflicts were always simmering; and at the external level, though the anti-colonial movement was gaining traction, such was present in a geopolitical environment of the Cold War.

The dexterity of the people and their leaders in staying the course in what was considered a tumultuous environment, domestic and foreign, is testimony to our collective resilience and determination. Jagan and Burnham travelled abroad and formed alliances with external forces in furtherance of the cause. Together, they went to Britain and presented and defended the case for our independence. Though Jagan and Burnham parted company in 1955, having co-founded the People’s Progressive Party in 1950, and Burnham became the Founder Leader of the People’s National Congress in 1957, it did not deter them or the people’s fight for independence.

What cannot be ignored, however, is that the separation did have some impact on race relations, including racial upheavals (1961 and 1964), and brought to the fore that independence would be won under the leadership of one or the other. And though there were reservations that such should not happen, one cannot ignore forces, domestic and foreign, along with ideological leanings that played a role in influencing what took place in colonised societies of that era.

Where there were doubts about commitment of both or either to independence, when they embraced each other on the hoisting of the Golden Arrowhead in 1966, it was confirmation of their united commitment to struggle, a shared sense of victory in their efforts, and testimony that all Guyana have won.

Neil Marks, this paper’s Sunday Editor, posted a picture of Jagan and Burnham on his Facebook page which I shared to mine, but think it worthy enough to share with all. It is reproduced here, and shows Opposition Leader Jagan and Premier Burnham in engagement, reportedly on the eve of independence. What this picture shows is that these men were political rivals, not enemies; nor were they intolerant of the other’s views or disrespectful of the other’s intellect.

It also brings home the fact that similar camaraderie is so missing from our politics today, yet we blame them for it. There is need to go back to the drawing broad, recognise and appreciate that rivalry does not necessitate taking on the clothing of enmity, being acrimonious and contemptuous of the other. Even though it is 50 years hence, the relationship Burnham and Jagan shared is still worthy of emulation.
Happy anniversary!