Skip to main content

October 1953
The first elections under universal adult suffrage was held in British Guiana on April 27, 1953. It was won by the Peoples’ Progressive Party which had been formed in 1950 during an era of anti-colonial upsurge in the British Empire, particularly in South Africa, Malaya and Kenya. Cheddi Jagan had expressed solidarity with the anti-colonial struggles in these countries in his speech at the opening of the Legislative Assembly on June 17, 1953. Many at that time, and for the rest of his political career, would have preferred that he remain silent about the foreign domination and oppressed.

The government lasted until October 9, 1953, when the constitution was suspended and the government removed from office. The historical background and secret communications surrounding this traumatic event has been well researched and publicised. The Government held office at the sufferance of the British Government whose local representatives were merely watchful and cautious. But anti-communist agitation by leaders wedded to colonial privileges, perfidiously exploiting the hysterical atmosphere created by the Cold War, one of whose architects, Winston Churchill, was the Prime MInister, resulted in the suspension of the Constitution. History has already delivered its judgment on the events of 1953 and the leaders of the PPP, but profound and relevant lessons remain for the Guyanese people.

 

The leaders of 1953 were all young men and women who had either formed the PPP in 1950 or joined it shortly after. But they already knew, because the social and cultural history of British Guiana had already taught them, that only a national movement consisting of ethnic and class unity would bring success in the struggle for independence and social justice. The 1953 movement represented that ideal and achieved it for a short while. The united PPP was the first political party which mobilised working people to struggle in unity for their freedom.

For reasons that are well known, the unity did not last, and the division led inevitably to severe ethno-political discord thereafter. The political divisions and discord which were a direct consequence of the suspension in 1953 has created a permanent scar of ethno-political instability which has dominated political debate since then. Shortly after the split in the PPP in 1955, voices began to be heard, and efforts began to be made to retrieve some sort of political unity. Most were aware then, and it has been proven by events since, that Guyana will not realise its full potential until the ethno-political division is moderated, which is possible without there being any losers. Unless this happens, our oil wealth will become a political football.

October 1992
On October 5, 1992, free and fair elections were restored to Guyana after 24 years of hard political struggle. Many suffered, some lost their lives and the country has yet to recover. But 1992 restored a semblance of democratic norms and allowed Guyana to resume its respectability among the community of nations as a country where the will of the people is respected. The years since then have proved beyond any doubt that progress can only be made in Guyana if democracy is sustained and nurtured. They have also proved that although it takes time, and will take some more, ethno-political domination will not always win out. PNC supporters expressed their disapproval of their party in 2006 by significant numbers by supporting the AFC. Supporters of the PPP expressed their disapproval of their party in 2011, and to a lesser extent in 2015, by significant numbers supporting the AFC. The PNCR proved in 2015 that a creative coalition in the right political conditions can negative ethno-political rigidities. Only a democratic culture will permit such new formations and encourage innovative debate

October 1992 was not possible without the active and passive support of the majority of the Guyanese people, in and out of Guyana, together with international solidarity. The PPP struggled alone from 1968 to 1973. In 1975 the WPA energised the struggle and mobilized and inspired additional forces. Trade union unity, especially between bauxite and sugar workers became a major factor. Towards the end of the 1970s civil society groups became vocal and in the fight against the referendum, organizational unity in civil society and among political groups made an enormous impact on the struggle against authoritarian rule. It was so severely wounded that it never recovered.

There is no doubt that the end of the Cold War played an important role in dismantling the narrative that kept in place the West’s rationale for supporting rigged elections and keeping the PPP out of office. But Guyanese at home and abroad were well aware that only hard, continuous and unrelenting efforts and national and international pressure would end authoritarian rule. It was not going to be a gift from the West and the PNC was not going to give up power unless forced to do so.

The lesson of October 1992 is that Guyana must never allow the return of authoritarian rule. Many argue that Hoyte made a mistake by conceding free and fair elections. Others whisper that ‘we must never allow what happened in October 1992 to happen again.’ We must stand guard at the gates of freedom to ensure that such forces do not gain entry.

Replies sorted oldest to newest

October 5

https://www.stabroeknews.com/2...l/10/08/october-5-2/

 

Last week everyone was in nostalgic mode: there was the 60th anniversary of the PNC engaging the attention of the one side, with the twenty-fifth anniversary of the 1992 general and regional elections being the focus of the other. Reams of paper have been expended on the latter topic, in addition, no doubt, to quadrillions of words in virtual space. It did, of course, mark the end of the 24 years during which the PNC rigged elections in order to stay in power, and for that reason a certain mythology has grown up around it.

Those who were part of the PPP diaspora during some of those years have tended to emphasise the role played by themselves through demonstrations in New York and Washington, and the lobbying of important figures in the US government, in bringing about free and fair elections in Guyana. In their opinion it was the international pressure which followed these efforts that was instrumental in forcing then President Desmond Hoyte to hold open elections.

Led by one particularly prolific letter writer, this version downplays the role played by an unrelated event – the fall of the Berlin Wall – which became the symbol of the collapse of communism itself. More measured writers, however, such as Ralph Ramkarran (see page 7) acknowledge that this was a factor in the sequence of events, because the West no longer saw the need to keep the “communist” Cheddi Jagan out of office here by tolerating fraudulent elections. As a consequence, they were more susceptible to democracy arguments.

The ‘diaspora lobbyist’ chroniclers also miniaturise the part played by Guyanese Action for Reform and Democracy (Guard)  ‒ the negotiations aside ‒ in the early 1990s which held public platforms on which members of civil society who had never spoken on politics before, did so. Some Guard members who spoke out were leading figures in their fields. It might be observed that had there been no significant local movement, the United States government in particular would have felt under no particular constraint to apply pressure; a widespread movement locally was critical in these circumstances. In addition, it could be argued that even without international pressure, the local movement given sufficient time, would have achieved the same result.

There can be debate about which of these causes should take precedence, or how they interacted with one another, but satisfactory answers also must include motive: ie what was in Hoyte’s mind when he agreed both to free and fair elections, as well as to the changes which were necessary to achieve these, including the presence of international observers.  Was it just that he felt he could not hold out against US pressure in particular?

Where that is concerned the role of Caricom in the story is generally ignored altogether by commentators.  Following Forbes Burnham’s death, an election was held on December 9, 1985, that was heavily rigged. According to former Prime Minister of St Vincent and the Grenadines, Sir James Mitchell, his Dominican counterpart Eugenia Charles was so incensed that she wanted Guyana thrown out of Caricom. She eventually agreed that prior discussion was the way to go initially, and Sir James then convened a meeting in Mustique, where six Caricom heads of government gathered, in addition to Hoyte. (Not all of them could go, because the notice was too short.)

St Vincent’s former prime minister has related that he and the other heads emphasised the importance of free and fair elections, as well as need for observers so the poll could be seen to be free and fair. For his part, Sir John Compton, the former Prime Minister of St Lucia, recalled that Hoyte was told he should not continue the legacy of Burnham, and that in order for free and fair elections to be held, there would need to be a free press and a level playing field for all the political parties, since the former were not possible without the two latter. Hoyte assured his fellow heads that opening up the press and giving space to political parties to function was part of his goal, and as an example he said the House of Israel would not be allowed to operate.

Former Prime Minister Mitchell subsequently relayed that in 1990, he wrote Hoyte and reminded him of the Mustique meeting, and in particular what had been agreed to in respect of observers. The Guyanese President then sent “someone” to St Vincent to be briefed in this connection.

Most of this is contained in James Mitchell’s autobiography, while both he and the late John Compton spoke to Stabroek News on the subject some years ago, not for the newspaper, per se, but for background to an account of the origins of this paper. At that time, all those who had attended the meeting were dead, save for three, one of whom SN was unable to contact.

So was Hoyte genuine in his commitment from 1986? The only thing that it is known he said publicly about it, was his response some years later to former Ambassador Ronald Austin when he asked about what had transpired on Mustique. Hoyte replied that the six heads wanted him to give opposition parties more political space to function, to allow a free press and to hold free elections, and that he had assented to all of it.

This accords with both Mitchell and Compton’s accounts, and in his favour it has to be acknowledged that he did allow a free press and he did give opposition parties more political space, otherwise Guard would have been unable to function. And as he told the prime ministers, he did too bring an end to the thuggery of the House of Israel. Further-more, Hoyte had reason to believe he might be ejected from Caricom, since a meeting of the organisation’s Council of Ministers due to be held in Georgetown was boycotted (although it wasn’t expressed in those terms) by several states at the beginning of 1986. After Mustique it was rescheduled.

But what the Guyanese President was thinking at any given stage in the six-and-a-half years following Mustique is not really known, and would require some research among the records of his statements to heads of mission meetings and various party and government groups. That he seemed to want to open up the society was apparent even before the meeting with the heads, but whether that preference extended to eventually conceding a democratic framework cannot be said, any more than it can be said that he recognized he would eventually have to hold free and fair elections if he opened up the society.

At this stage we still don’t know what pressures the late President Hoyte was responding to ‒ regional, international or local, or a combination of all three at different stages ‒ or whether he was operating with his own timetable in order to give his economic reforms in particular time to work. In this way he might have thought he could win an open election which he knew must come, independent of what outside and local forces wanted.

Sometimes what seems an obvious explanation for a historical event is not always so.

Django

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×