A tribute by Joe Tyndall
I FIRST met Clarence Ellis in the summer of 1965 in England when I accompanied my wife, Belle, on a visit to his home in Wimbledon, London to see Patty (Patricia), Clarence’s wife, who was Belle’s good friend from their Bishops’ High School days.  Clarence had graduated two years earlier from the University of Leicester with a first degree in economics.  Gareth, their first child, was a baby, just months old, and Patty was about to enter a teacher’s training college in the fall.  Clarence had not yet returned from his British civil service job when we arrived.  We had a rollicking good time with Patty, which would not surprise anyone who knew her.  Clarence came home well into our visit and, after a brief introduction, we began to converse as if we had known each other all our lives.  I learnt, then, that he would be entering the London School of Economics (LSE) in the fall to read for a Master’s degree in Development Economics, a two- year programme.  It was the beginning of a friendship that lasted to the end of his life.
I returned to Guyana in September of 1965 and within four months moved from the Guyana public service to the newly established central bank, the Bank of Guyana.  One of my responsibilities, as Secretary and Chief Administrative Officer of the Bank, was to assist the Governor in the recruitment of staff.  I had no difficulty identifying economists, and Clarence was the first on my list, along with two other brilliant young Guyanese, Haslyn Parris, who had just graduated from LSE with a Master’s degree, and Wilbert Bascom, who was an economics lecturer at the then City of London College, now City University.  Horst Bockelmann, the German Governor, on assignment from the IMF, interviewed the three Guyanese in London and, to my great delight, was highly impressed.  Bascom and Parris were in a position to take up their appointments, but Clarence had another year to complete his degree.  We decided to lock him in by offering him a contract.
After completing his degree, Clarence returned to Guyana in 1967 and joined the Bank as senior economist.  It took just eight years for him to rise through the ranks to the office of Deputy Governor in 1975. Three years later, he was appointed concurrently as Chairman of the State Planning Commission. Clarence’s meteoric rise was in recognition of the great skills, leadership qualities and dedication he brought to his job.
As an economist, Clarence was very distrustful of conventional economic thinking as applied in the development of policies for developing countries. This was especially so after his period of study and research in the early 1980s at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.  He was also very skeptical of the application of imported ideologies in the shaping of social and economic policies.  This gave the impression in his early years that he was unsure of himself because he was not as assertive as some of his colleagues in debates on policy issues.  In fact, his posture was more a manifestation of his humility as an individual and his courteous regard for his seniors and more vocal colleagues than his ability as an economist.  I used to prod him by saying that he was a far better economist than he was allowing his colleagues to believe.  I have said all this only to show how much Clarence grew over the years to be the giant he was in his thinking and writings about the social and political problems of Guyana.
Clarence’s skepticism about conventional economic thinking and prevailing social and political ideologies determined the way he approached his work.  He felt that sound economic policies must be rooted in an adequate understanding of the economic system.  Quite early in his career, he set out to develop a thorough understanding of the Guyana economy.  Among the things he did was to plunge into the arduous task of learning how the financial and economic data presented to the Bank were compiled and how reliable they were.  It took him into the vaults of the Treasury to study the financial records.  He developed such a solid understanding of the Guyana economy that he became a key figure in the preparation of the Government Budget.
I don’t think that there was anyone in Guyana who worked as hard as Clarence. He was totally dedicated to his work, even at the expense of his personal interests.  His answer to those who questioned this unusual dedication was very simple and direct: “I have a country to serve.”
Working through the night was a way of life for Clarence, especially at budget time.  Once, after working through the night, he decided to go home for breakfast and a shower.  Driving down Homestretch Avenue, he fell asleep at the wheel and had an unscheduled encounter with a telephone pole.  Luckily, he did not sustain serious injuries and his car, though badly damaged, was still in driving condition, to a point.  Clarence drove the wreck noisily home, had breakfast and a shower, and drove noisily back to continue work on the budget.  Such was the dedication of the man.
As an adviser to the government, Clarence was not a sycophantic official.  One of the responsibilities of the State Planning Commission, of which he was Chairman, was to examine and approve the capital budgets of the various Ministries.  The Commission had a very able staff with Carl Greenidge, who later became Minister of Finance, as Chief Planning Officer of the Secretariat.  Under Clarence’s leadership, the State Planning Secretariat became an institution that was highly respected and even feared by officials who had to endure its deeply probing questions.  Clarence Blue, who succeeded Carl Greenidge as Chief Planning Officer, reminded me of one of those examinations at which I was present as Minister of Trade, along with other Ministers.   The session was chaired by the President himself, Mr. Forbes Burnham.  Let me rely on Blue’s memory.  Clarence was examining the presentation of one of the Ministries and was systematically taking the proposals apart.  A Minister interrupted:  ‘Who is running the country,’ he asked the President. ‘You, or Comrade Ellis?’ The President ignored the question, and Ellis continued with his examination.  Donald Augustin, a former Secretary to the Treasury, reminded me that Clarence was the only official who could keep the President, a stickler for punctuality, waiting, without incurring his displeasure.  Clarence would tell the President that he was finalizing his presentation or getting up some figures, and the President would patiently await his arrival.
Clarence rejected imported ideologies and copycat practices as relevant to the solution of Guyana’s problems. I remember, once, Cabinet was considering the establishment of a Children’s Palace in Guyana, based on the Chinese model, as seen by the President on a visit to China.  Clarence attended the Cabinet meeting as an official and sat behind his Minister, Deputy Prime Minister Desmond Hoyte.  Officials attending Cabinet meetings only spoke when requested by their Minister, and with the approval of the Chairman of the Cabinet, President Burnham at the time.  The Cabinet was divided, with the majority leaning in favour of the Palace.  Immediately after I spoke in opposition to the idea, Clarence, without the authority of his Minister, who had not yet spoken, asked the Chairman’s permission to intervene. Clarence gave a very courageous and powerful critique of the idea.  As far as I can remember, the debate was wound up shortly after.  The children’s palace was never established.
Clarence, as an economist, social thinker and a government adviser, was often misunderstood.  Many of his critics judged him by the stream of letters he published in the press in recent years, until his illness brought a halt to this avocation.  His letters had two
phases.  At first, he was concerned primarily with the economic policies and problems of Guyana, particularly with what he considered were misguided policies and decisions.  Many persons criticized him as being just anti-government.  But, in his criticisms, he was no different from what he was throughout his career as an adviser to government.  The only difference was that, as a public servant, he could not have gone to the press, but expressed his dissentient views in internal memoranda and at meetings.  I was there for part of the time, and I witnessed his fearlessness, his dedication, his sincerity, and his patriotism.  Was he against the government then?