A leap of faith

A leap of faith
Editorial
Stabroek News
November 9, 2002

*Related Links:*	Articles on the PPP
Letters Menu	Archival Menu

The original 1953 People's Progressive Party (PPP) was a fully multi-ethnic Marxist-Leninist party, showing in its writings and statements a strong admiration for the Soviet Union and its achievements. In the circumstances of that time, the cold war and in particular the anti-colonial movement, there were parallels for radical left parties in other then colonies though no other Marxist-Leninist party had widespread support or came to power in the British Caribbean.

The party remained committed to its ideals after the split in 1955 and the later departure and/or expulsion of the "infantile" or extreme left.

While in power from 1957 to 1964 the party under Dr Cheddi Jagan, as is well documented in his book "The West on Trial", was subjected to severe pressures from those in Guyana opposed to its ideology and from the colonial power and the American government. In a famous letter Dr Jagan sought to give the American government, thoroughly alarmed by events in Cuba, all necessary assurances about security and other concerns. But this did not help. By then, too, ethnic division had become an important factor as ethnic voting patterns had been clearly established in the 1957 elections. The electoral system was cynically changed by Britain to that of proportional representation and the party lost power in 1964 to the PNC/UF coalition. A duly elected government had been destabilised and manoeuvred out of power for ideological reasons.

There had been since the mid fifties an unresolved contradiction in the PPP between its left ideology and the ethnic, at least partly conservative, basis of its support. It got increasingly few votes from the urban working class.

Dr Jagan, a charismatic popular leader had since the split mainly attracted the vote of Indian voters of all classes. The party refused to recognise the ethnic problem.

The PPP endured 28 long years in the political wilderness (1964-1992) due to rigged elections from 1986 onwards. The fact that it more or less hung together in all those years with no power and little to offer its executive members and its supporters must be attributed to some extent to the organisational skills and tenacity of Mrs Jagan. During this period the party remained a surprisingly loyal opposition given the basic circumstances of being kept out of power essentially by force. It never adopted a strategy of violent opposition though it did undoubtedly sanction strikes and perhaps arson in the sugar industry. On the other hand it offered support for the PNC's programme of nationalisation of the bauxite and sugar industries in the seventies.

The party's return to office in 1992 was primarily due to the change in the global situation. The end of the cold war and a new emphasis on democracy in the hemisphere made the West and in particular America more receptive to protests about the situation in Guyana. Though the PPP was part of these protests there are many who claim, with some justice, that the WPA and other opposition elements played at least as vigorous a role in carrying the fight at home and internationally for a return to democracy. With the return of counting at the place of poll and other concessions the PPP won an majority at the 1992 elections and the PNC got the level of support it had always had electorally, about 42%, surprisingly strong given the overall state to which the country had been reduced by the end of its long rule despite some improvements in the last two or three years.

In power since 1992, the party has been under severe pressure almost from the outset. Perhaps its worst period in terms of its own performance was in the first couple of years. It failed to appoint the kind of high-powered, broad-based cabinet many had hoped for. It slowed down the push for privatisation and investment that had achieved some momentum under Mr Hoyte, perhaps out of a partly understandable desire to get to grips with things but thus wasting the "democratic dividend" and the goodwill it had inherited. And in an again partly understandable reaction to the politicisation of the public service under the PNC it made more changes than it need have done and got rid of some competent people in areas for example like the foreign ministry.

Despite this, there were some achievements from 1992 to 1997 but since the 1997 elections the ruling party has virtually been under siege, trying to keep its mind on the job despite repeated protest marches, some of which became violent, and obstacles of every kind. And then there has been the unprecedented crime wave since February 2002. The strongest men and women would have had their nerve tested by all these extraordinary pressures.

The PPP has undoubtedly changed over the years under the impact of world events, in particular the collapse of the Soviet Union. It may still at heart have the old ideals but it has pragmatically accepted that for the foreseeable future private enterprise has to be the driving force in the economy. One of its weaknesses has been its unwillingness to appoint independent people of the highest ability though the appointment of Dr Kenneth King to Brussels was an obvious exception to that rule and it was also clear after the 2001 elections that other independent people were sought to be Minister of Economic Development but were not willing to serve given the political climate. But perhaps the party's biggest strategic weakness has been its unwillingness to face up to the ethnic division in the country and the implications of this for governance and development.

We are not among those who believe that the party in government has sought to marginalise African Guyanese. That would be rank foolishness. But it has perhaps not been able to accept or get its mind around the level of alienation that exists among the African population which perceives that its party has lost power, perhaps for some time, and which has also not benefited from the removal of subsidies and the dismantling of the state sector started since the time of Mr Hoyte's Economic Recovery Programme. Though poverty levels may have been reduced in the country as a whole the PPP cannot expect to be given the benefit of the doubt in the present situation of economic stagnation and hardship.

Perhaps the time has come when despite the many wrongs it has suffered and the grievances it legitimately has and despite the fact that it has been duly elected and can probably win another election, the party should consider for the good of the country making a leap of faith across established political and ethnic boundaries and exploring new forms of governance, not necessarily but possibly including executive power-sharing. That would demand putting aside old and new hatreds and re-engaging in dialogue, trying to get the new parliamentary committees appointed and a parliamentary management committee, allocating more resources to implementing decisions already made in the dialogue process, and generally giving more energy and commitment to a structured dialogue process.

It would demand an act of considerable statesmanship but it could be the party's finest hour, transcending its formal governmental power in an effort to bridge the gap that now exists and making a gesture of reconciliation.