IN part six of June 10, 2026, my last paragraph read like this: “Under Granger’s presidency, the PNC as a party did not grow and there was a complete absence of regeneration. The PNC under Granger produced no young leaders with access to government experience from which they can grow and learn. When the PNC lost power in 2020, the PNC was on its death bed. Anyone could have become its leader. What happens next was the final nail in the coffin.”
The story of the PNC from 2015 constituted the worst period in the history of the PNC. This is ironic because how can a party return to power after 23 years as opposition yet fail to energise itself and thrive. In its long history, the PNC went through deep political misery but though it may have been weakened by periodic upheavals, it maintained its equilibrium and preserved its ontology.
There were distinct periods of trials and tribulations since the PNC founded by Forbes Burnham in 1957. The first crisis was the split with Peter D’Augiar’s United Force (UF) between 1966 and 1968 when both parties were in government. The second disaster was the rise of Walter Rodney in the mid seventies. The third trauma was the crumbling of Burnham’s invincibility and the extensive loss of Burnham’s popularity over the assassination of Rodney.
The fourth period of political damage was Burnham’s confrontation with the West after over socialism at home and foreign policy from the late 1970s to the middle of the 1980s. The fifth episode of disaster was the crumbled economy in which nothing could have stopped the descent in economic chaos. The sixth phase of trouble with the PNC was the initial psychological destabilisation that crept into the PNC after the loss of power in 1992. The seventh crisis was the fading PNC under Robert Corbin.
In all these moments of existential inflictions, the PNC never looked like it was lifeless, deenergised, and hopeless. Those syndromes occurred ironically after the PNC regained power in 2015. No analytically competent history of the PNC could be complete unless the research looks at how survival was achieved in those six periods. In the spilt with D’Aguiar, the PNC actually strengthened itself for four reasons – one was that colour and class worked to the disadvantage of D’ Aguiar. Guyanese saw the UF as a White elitist party so there were no cries went it went out of office. Secondly, the Mulatto/Creole class did not remain with the UF but supported Burnham. Thirdly, the PPP at a psychological level was more comfortable with the PNC than the pro-imperialist UF. Fourthly, the diminution of D’Aguiar’s power did not result as D’Augiar expected in the withdrawal of patronage by the Americans.
In the second stage of headache created by Rodney, the PNC, though it lost meaningful national support of African Guyanese, had complete control over the state and there was money from sugar to stabilise the economy.
The third period, when Rodney was assassinated, took a heavy toll on the PNC and most parties around the world would have faced some form of collapse because the assassination was an evil never witnessed in the CARICOM region. Burnham survived because of the spirit of resistance in Guyana, which was later replaced by fear. It was this prolongation of societal resignation that caused the PNC to survive after Rodney’s murder.
In the fourth period, the PNC was under severe pressure from Western imperialism but it remained intact for three reasons. One was that Guyana’s presence in the Non-Aligned Movement brought vital international support. Secondly, Cuba raised its presence in Guyana. Thirdly, imperialism was unable to use the divide and rule methodology. The PPP and the PNC were locked in intense deliberations for joint government.
In the fifth moment of weakness, the PNC remained intact due to the astute politics of Burnham. He reached out to Jagan and that brought some breathing space. In the economic sphere, Eric Wiliams helped by allowing Burnham unlimited access to the CARICOM Clearing Facility which brought foreign currency relief.
In the sixth period with the defeat of the PNC at the 1992 elections, the PNC was at its lowest level. Burnham was not there to steady the ship. Burnham’s presence within the PNC was strong enough to hold the PNC together.
In the five periods of deep anxiety, Burnham was always there. But he died in 1985 and his successor did not have the brilliance and gravitas to hold the PNC intact. Deep, poisonous rivalries penetrated the PNC under Desmond Hoyte.
First, it was Green versus Hoyte then Hoyte versus the Young Turks led by Raphael Trotman and Deborah Backer.
The seventh period under Corbin was the beginning of the end of the PNC.
To be continued.
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Guyana National Newspapers Limited.
