Decayed Political Conflicts & Ideological Differences
ONE OF the characteristic features of Guyana’s political history since 1953 was, and remains, the new opposition’s perennial obsession and failed efforts to remove a PPP Government from power and dispatch the PPP into exile. Today, the Jagdeo Administration is in office and in power.
The new opposition is not new. All through the PPP’s terms in office, between 1953 and 1964, successive PPP Governments never had something called ‘the state media’; for this reason, then PPP governments had little or no way of countering the gross distortions and half-truths on the PPP’s record, integrity, and character.
At that time, big business owned and controlled the newspapers and radio in a distinctive alignment with the opposition forces against the PPP; that was the new opposition then, and it is so today, except that the current PPP/C Administration now operates something called ‘the state media’.
Newspapers are not a new phenomenon in Guyana. As far back as 1796, the government owned possibly the first newspaper, the Royal Essequibo and Demerary Gazette; then came several small newspapers like the Creole, if you could call them ‘newspapers’ in the true sense of today’s vernacular; all did the disappearing act within a short space of time. Then came another short-lived print media experience, Working Man; its focus on advocating for the poor and the working class guaranteed its certain death by big business or plantation business at that time in the 19th Century.
At any rate, we had to wait until the 1940s to see some real action with the print media; the private ownership of three dailies – Daily Argosy, Guiana Graphic, and the Daily Chronicle. Let me stop here on the print media, except to reinforce the fact that the new opposition is not new. But we make reference to ‘new’, in order to distinguish some private media alignment with the official traditional forces; and for people to see the true complexion of this ugly political obsession to destabilize the PPP then and now.
And as we digest some private media’s role in the new opposition, let us talk about what will happen soon. In a few days, the Guyanese people will enter into the 44th Independence anniversary with an ugly political sameness, born of electoral self-interest, hovering over their heads; the driving force being the politicians who live off politics. What, nonetheless, would continue to give hope to this country is the persisting goodwill that ethnics share among each other; a shared benevolence that has the capacity to transform this ugly political sameness.
Former President Forbes Burnham in 1966 whimsically dismissed this ugliness in his appeal to Guyanese nationalism when he retorted: “The days ahead are going to be difficult. Tomorrow, no doubt, we as Guyanese will indulge in the usual political conflicts and differences in ideology. But today, to my mind, is above such petty matters. For today Guyana is free.”
Former President Dr. Cheddi Jagan and his PPP took this line against the ugly plantation sameness, really colonial hegemony from 1942 in a letter to Dr. Dummitt; where there was a profound need to harness ethnic differences against plantation sameness.

Dr. Jagan had this vision that colonialism, in order to be successful, had to subordinate to its interests, the critical institutions and processes of the colonized society. On this score, the colonial masters expressed no proclivity to acquiesce.

For these reasons, former President Jagan evolved as a tenacious fighter for Independence; and he is among the first few, if not the first, to kick off this struggle against colonial domination. This novel idea of Independence emerged in 1945 in a Dr. Jagan’s article titled COOPERATIVE WAY. Dr. Jagan said: “It therefore behooves the working class people to get control of government through their constitutional ballots in our forthcoming election, with a view towards complete independence…”

Securing Independence for Guyana was probably the most predominant PPP agenda item since 1950, but whose evolution dated back to 1942. At any rate, securing Independence meant the annihilation of King Sugar and big business, end to social and economic inequality, and an end to poverty, and ultimately, an end to colonial exploitation.

And just that you know, Jagan talked about labor disaffection since 1942 in his letter to Dr, Dummitt, all in the name of removing colonial hegemony for Independence. He then on May 7, 1948, moved a notice for a motion in the Legislative Council to review all factors contributing to increased costs of production and profits, in order to ameliorate sugar workers’ wages, working and living conditions; and to replace the plantation sugar cultivation system with cooperative cane farming; whereby workers could obtain sugar estate lands.

The fight against plantation sameness was a regular PPP agenda item; nonetheless, when Independence did arrive in 1966, the features of the plantocracy persisted.

For these reasons, the PPP took a strong position when the British gave legal Independence to Guyana. Vernon Nunes while in detention at Sibley Hall, penned “INDEPENDENCE YES! CELEBRATIONS NO!” a front-page caption in Thunder of April 1966.

Dr. Jagan also then advanced these reasons for not celebrating Independence: (1) the colonial Constitution did not protect fundamental rights, a pre-condition for national unity; (2) the colonialists’ marionettes gained power through a rigged constitutional arrangement; (3) detention without trial was still the order of the day; (4) colonialists still exerted political and economic domination via firming up the economy rooted in primary production and extraction, and the escalating debt burdens; (5) the state of emergency was still in place to silence and bully the working class; (6) PPP comrades were still languishing in detention at Sibley Hall.

Clearly, Jagan found that ethnic relations in Colonial Guyana were acrimonious to promoting cultural identity, a persistent bug at Independence in 1966; an acrimony not primordial to Indians and Africans, but constructed and manipulated by politicians. Here, too, Jagan’s advocacy for the political institutionalization of each ethnic group’s culture was an effort to dissipate the emotive language of race and race conflict and contribute to national unity. In this sense, Jagan really advanced the case for apportioning political space to all cultures in the drive toward national unity, working-class unity, and racial unity.

And he expressed, too, his vision for developing a cultural mosaic in this multiethnic society. Jagan points to the utility value of cultural differentiation in the pursuit of national unity. Jagan noted that race was never a serious problem in Guyana. He believed that the problem was one of class. The early division of labor produced and reproduced racial antagonism and cultural loss to divide and exploit the working class.

Nonetheless, Independence since 1992, has come to mean political inclusiveness; human empowerment; protecting and consolidating Guyana’s vested economic and political interests; withstanding foreign economic and political domination; safeguarding fundamental human rights; but in the end, Independence also must mean freedom and prosperity for all. But there is this ugly political sameness limiting freedom and prosperity; something for which the Jagdeo Administration has zero tolerance.