This weekend’s PPP Congress on the Essequibo Coast is arguably one of the most important in the history of the 66-year-old party. Or at least as important as the one held in 1956 in Berbice when Dr Cheddi Jagan made a famous presentation in absentia. He was then under house arrest and conceded the PPP was an “Indian” party, following the departure of Forbes Burnham.
Reviewing the impact of the split of the PPP, Jagan frankly acknowledged the challenges to what had been up to then a “national movement” consequent to a large swathe of African-Guyanese following Burnham. Jagan argued that without a mass base, the PPP would become a fringe party and proposed this base should be mobilised from the Indian segment of the population. He explicitly justified his invitation of the Indian middle-class on the grounds that they were “progressive” for displacing the Portuguese class, who were the allies of the British Imperialists. From a rational choice perspective, Jagan’s decision made sense since with their wide geographical distribution, “his PPP” could win elections based on the constituency system.
But Dr Jagan was caught in a contradiction of his own creation – a mass Marxist party with its support base defining itself ethnically. In terms of the African vote, as one analyst Malcolm Cross pointed out: “the urban African and ‘coloured’ (mixed) middle-class could not support a party of what appeared to be such extreme left-wing views …(They) were obviously far less swayed by ideological considerations and much more by racial distaste; a feeling that was exacerbated by the increasing migration of Indians from the country to the urban perimeter.” It is often forgotten that this segment was also sceptical of Burnham’s leftist protestations and only made common cause with him after the latter failed to garner any significant Indian support in the 1957 elections and moderated his posture and rhetoric.
Jagan and Burnham had to devise strategies to deal with the reality of restricted legitimacy since even though they both disavowed “racial” politics, they garnered their support from “ethnic” bases. They fell back on “token” cross-ethnic leadership. They both insisted on individuals from the “other” ethnic bloc to be in the top ranks of their parties – but never at the summit. Not surprisingly, these individuals were then seen as “token” window dressing. The history of Guyanese party politics since the split of 1955 has been one of seeking tokens who wouldn’t be seen as tokens. After years of cultivating “domestic” tokens to no effect, the most recent initiatives have been to “go outside” – witness the PPP’s “civic” of 1992 and the PNC’s AFC of 2015. Very quickly after their introduction, however, they fooled no one.
One proposal, of course, was to suggest that the two parties coalesce to form a “Government of National Unity” but after fifty years of being shot down, even though at different times, both parties have proposed this suggestion, it is not expected to be raised at this weekend’s PPP Congress. What then for the PPP? Firstly they have to accept that in general, most Guyanese still identify their political interests along ethnic lines.
And as we have been proposing post-2006, demographic changes would (and now has) vitiate Dr Jagan’s major 1955 premise on Indians being able to deliver the government – which would be run on “non-ethnic” lines! This weekend therefore the PPP will have to devise another strategy that would make other ethnic groups – in addition to Indian-Guyanese – accept that their interests can be represented by them. How to do this since the “token leadership gambit” has failed abysmally? One suggestion we have made for decades, and offer it again, is for the PPP (and the PNC) to accept the utility of “ethnic caucuses”. Have individuals in their party who identify strongly with ethnic interests – Indian, African, Amerindian and Mixed – meet separately as “caucuses” when the interest they represent is affected by policies. They then meet with the plenary party to present their proposals arrived at without pressure and political correctness. This might allow citizens outside the core constituencies to see their interests being represented.
