KN July 18, 2008 | Features / Columnists >

Freddie Kissoon

The non-existent legacy of Cheddi Jagan

As Guyana grows older as a nation, more facts on its history will become known. It is the same with all countries. There will be more revelations on some of history’s great and not so great personalities as researchers dig deeper and deeper into the fountain of knowledge.
Writers need to revisit the traditional explanations the world has grown accustomed to. There is an unlimited amount of material out there that the world needs to be exposed to.
In Guyana, it is my belief that the greatness of Cheddi Jagan has been exaggerated both by Jagan himself in his autobiography, “The West on Trial” and by his protégés.

I also believe that there is a conspiracy in Guyana and the Diaspora to preserve a picture of Jagan as a hero as a reaction to the facts that are slowly tumbling out that he was an extremely flawed and incompetent political activist.
As Guyana grows older, the negative side and brutally selfish politics of Cheddi Jagan are being researched.

Those who write about the positive legacy of Dr. Jagan, people like Dr. Randy Persaud, Dr. David Dabydeen and recently Jang Singh of Canada, need to cast off their emotional attachment to Jagan and dispassionately examine the growing body of research material that exposes his infamous, myopic and narrow-minded approach to politics.
Four such manuscripts provide valuable insight into the nature of Jagan. I would advise scholars sympathetic to Jagan to read them. They are Clem Seechararan’s “Sweetening Bitter Sugar”; Baytoram Ramharack’s “Against the Grain”; Halim Majeed’s “Forbes Burnham”; and “The Anatomy of Cheddi Jagan’s Marxism” by Seecharran.”

One must also take into account bits of information that have been offered throughout the decades by various individuals who lived in the sixties. Former UG lecturer, Michael Parris wrote that it was Jagan who started the politicization of the public service during his Premiership of British Guiana by deploying a PPP teacher from Queen’s College to become his Permanent Secretary.
Premier Jagan defended his unorthodox move by asserting that a PS must be partial to the government of the day.

It was Jagan in 1992 that took an executive member of the PPP, Dr. Roger Luncheon, and assigned him as Chairman of the NIS. The Stabroek News in an editorial last year described how Dr. Jagan demoted his Permanent Secretary, Arthur Abraham (he was replaced by the Queen’s College teacher).

The consensus of researchers and those that lived in the sixties was that Arthur Abraham was one of the most professional and decent public servants Guyana produced. Abraham’s house was searched, his opposition activist daughter was charged with sedition, and soon after arson took the life of Abraham and six of his children.
Jagan’s son said on CNS- Channel 6 that his father used to meet Burnham on the seawall for friendly chats while the supporters of the two men were locked in violent battles.
It borders on academic dishonesty to argue for a great legacy left by Cheddi Jagan without examining these records.

There are two situations that must be contemplated by those who think Jagan was a heroic contributor to Guyanese social evolution. One is that we tend to be sympathetic to Jagan because the mighty United States harassed him when he led Guyana.

Secondly, we tend to admire Jagan’s perseverance in the light of Burnham’s insane descent into tyranny. What all Jagan researchers must ask themselves is if the Americans didn’t harass him and Burnham didn’t behave so erratically would Jagan have been such an admired person.
We can get a glimpse into the answer by looking at the trenchant way Walter Rodney eclipsed Jagan during the seventies. In the rising prominence of Rodney, Jagan faded.

He couldn’t compete with Rodney for the hearts and minds of Guyanese. We grew up admiring and liking Cheddi Jagan because we hated what the Americans did to him and we hated what Burnham did to Guyana.

It is time scholarship replace emotion and we take a revisionist investigation of the entire career of Cheddi Jagan. We must examine his legacy not on who did him wrong but what constituted the essence of Jagan.

If one examines the policies of Jagan from October 1992 to March 1997 when he died, one will get a picture of the real man.
He refused to rescind the sugar levy. He miniaturized the public sector putting hundreds of poor people out of a daily bread. He took away duty free concession from UG lecturers.
He victimized innocent state managers who worked under the PNC.

He refused to extend an inclusive hand to those who struggled with him over the long decades. Look at the type of politicians he nurtured. Neither Burnham nor Jagan left a good legacy.

Jagan's legacy is continually redefined to suit the various purposes of people for or against him. But what is most profound about this legacy is the current state of the PPP and its government.

If this is a barometer of his leadership in ensuring continuity of his vision (every legacy has to be undergirded by a vision), then his vision was blurred and his legacy is tarnished.

On the other hand, if we want to focus on his early days fighting to end colonial rule, we can safely say he was a pioneer. But then we have to ask ourselves if his fight here was worthy of legacy status given that the very colonialists we chased out are now hosts to multiplied thousands of Guyanese who fled their homeland because of the policies of their governments (PPP and PNC) for the ABC countires.

quote:

Originally posted by Communicator:
Jagan's legacy is continually redefined to suit the various purposes of people for or against him.

Never has a man’s life been so politicized for divisiveness.

I greatly admire Walter Rodney, probably the best politician Guyana ever produced but should we blame Rodney for the failure of the WPA after his death? Why then all this blame thrown upon Jagan for the current fiascoes? I am too young to know what is fact or fiction in history although there are those who lived through it and know what is reality and what is revision but too much time is being spent looking back and placing blame for personal/party gain when we really need to look forward to fix the problems facing the anarchist state Guyana is now becoming.

Despite the fact that the PNC has long been gone we are now seeing the end results of Burnham’s policies and the results of the failure by the PPP to restructure the framework of governance, to restructure the joint services, to enhance literacy and to catch up to technological advances. These compounded with underhanded dealings and micromanagement are proving to be disastrous. I truly feel sorry for Jagdeo.

Freddie ought to look at this picture and sweeten his bitter soul:

quote:

Freddie ought to look at this picture and sweeten his bitter soul:

Petal, I would find it rather difficult to smile in such a manner when my land has been taken away from me,my movements are restricted and my basic humanity is denied. Having said that,please not that Tony Blair is also not a honest broker in this process.Abu Mazan is the President of Ramallah and more than likely Olmert is a crook.

Ire, my point was that despite their differences, politicians do talk and those seawall walks by Jagan do not necessarily reflect a lack of concern for the welfare of his supporters. He probably understood Burnham and his capabilities much more than any other politician.

quote:

Originally posted by Petal29:

quote:

Originally posted by Communicator:
Jagan's legacy is continually redefined to suit the various purposes of people for or against him.

Never has a man’s life been so politicized for divisiveness.

I greatly admire Walter Rodney, probably the best politician Guyana ever produced but should we blame Rodney for the failure of the WPA after his death? Why then all this blame thrown upon Jagan for the current fiascoes? I am too young to know what is fact or fiction in history although there are those who lived through it and know what is reality and what is revision but too much time is being spent looking back and placing blame for personal/party gain when we really need to look forward to fix the problems facing the anarchist state Guyana is now becoming.

Despite the fact that the PNC has long been gone we are now seeing the end results of Burnham’s policies and the results of the failure by the PPP to restructure the framework of governance, to restructure the joint services, to enhance literacy and to catch up to technological advances. These compounded with underhanded dealings and micromanagement are proving to be disastrous. I truly feel sorry for Jagdeo.

Freddie ought to look at this picture and sweeten his bitter soul:

Stop crying PNC and burnham. It has been 16 years since the PPP is in power and they have done nothing but sunk Guyana further than in the 80 when Burnham wrote that nonsense constitution.

They are a total failure and Cheddi is to be blame also.The faster you admit,the better for your soul.

quote:

Ire, my point was that despite their differences, politicians do talk and those seawall walks by Jagan do not necessarily reflect a lack of concern for the welfare of his supporters. He probably understood Burnham and his capabilities much more than any other politician

Petal, I agree with all you say and indeed it does appear that 'Odo' and Dr Jagan understood each other.I am anxious to learn in greater details what was the mindset of both leaders when at the time of 1985 merger talks.Was Burnham at the time coming to terms with the reality that he was failure.

You and your YSM and PNC Cronies got Guyana to become FILTH. Now someone is trying to clean the FILTH but you are so accustomed to FILTH that you will do everything possible to always live in FILTH!!!

Ireton,

There were several factors that come to mind.....Burnham knew that he was seriouslly ill (he was told this by his doctors).....he was influenced by outside forces example the Cubans, and other progressive African leaders, also many believe he had developed a distruct of several of his "close" associates and of course he saw reality in the economy he helped to wreck.....he was smart enough to realise that the PPP was needed to save Guyana.....he was even talking about a co-presidency with Cheddi.....

quote:

There were several factors that come to mind.....Burnham knew that he was seriouslly ill (he was told this by his doctors).....he was influenced by outside forces example the Cubans, and other progressive African leaders, also many believe he had developed a distruct of several of his "close" associates and of course he saw reality in the economy he helped to wreck.....he was smart enough to realise that the PPP was needed to save Guyana.....he was even talking about a co-presidency with Cheddi.....

Churchill,that is what I have been told, and Hoyte put an end to it.As I said yesterday some, and a specific individual who was part of those talks even attempted to have a certain foreign embassy intervene so as to prevent Hoyte from taking over. I am sure you are also well aware of what Hoyte did to those forces who were part of that merger talks.

Ireton:

It would appear that by 1985, Odo was finally realised that the PPP and PNC should merge as the party it once was in the early 1950's.

The base issues was the same in 1950 as was in 1985. ODO still wanted to be the "Bossman".

In 1950, that is why it was agreed that Cheddi Jagan be the Leader and Forbes Burnham be the Chairman of the PPP.

In the early 1060's there were talks about merging, and even though Forbes Burnham was the Leader of the Opposition, Jagan was agreable to a rotating Premeirship.

It is conceivable, that by 1985, Forbes Burnham was fully convinced that he and the PNC cannot govern Guyana in a cohesive manner, and hence he became more agreable for a merger.

Were a merger to have taken place relative to the 1985 time period, the proposed "new merged party" could have garnered perhaps 75% or more of the national support.

Of course, there would have been people/groups from both the PPP and PNC that would have left due to their personal views, disgruntledness, etc.

There was a certain indescribable understanding that notwithstanding the public disagreements, there was a particular link/bond between Cheddi Jagan and Forbes Burnham.

quote:

Originally posted by Ireton:

Churchill,that is what I have been told, and Hoyte put an end to it.As I said yesterday some, and a specific individual who was part of those talks even attempted to have a certain foreign embassy intervene so as to prevent Hoyte from taking over. I am sure you are also well aware of what Hoyte did to those forces who were part of that merger talks.

Right Ireton. And, the rest is history ... "Slo fyre .. more fyre."

Dr.Jagan left his leagacy in three books; Forbidden Freedom, The west on Trial and the caribbean revolution.. These books told of a stuggle that The Jagans were compelled to fight against. A struggle against the Britsh and the Americans who impoverish the land of Guyana. His Legacy can found in the many papers that Chedi wrote over the Years. The lagacy has nothing to do with his friendship with Burnham and his son's stupidity.. Apparantly Nadira has a better understanding of her father's lagacy than anyone else in the world except probably Janet.

By 1985 Guyana was a true basket case,the economy had collapsed,we had become uncreditworthy,shortages and despair was the order the day,yet in the end Hoyte decided to go it alone.He had a healthy disdain for the PPP and for a matter of fact many of the old hands in the PNC.What would such a merger do for the future of Guyana had it taken place?

quote:

Right Ireton. And, the rest is history ... "Slo fyre .. more fyre."

DG, HD will tell you that he was pushed into that corner because the PPP was not living up to their end of the bargain in terms of deepening the democratic process.He also had total contempt for Janet Jagan, he simply hated that woman.

That might be one aspect, but not a complete perspective, Ireton.

Given the situation within the PNC, after the 1992 defeat, there were, and still exist, forces that want to regain their "taste of power".

While HDH might appear to have consolidated his control of the PNC, he had his hands full with internal issues.

Currently, as in the past, a much more stable and achievable form of governance is not practical under either the PPP or the PNC.

quote:

Given the situation within the PNC, after the 1992 defeat, there were, and still exist, forces that want to regain their "taste of power

It was very evident during the 1992 campaign if you can recall

quote:

RAMA: Dr.Jagan left his leagacy in three books; Forbidden Freedom, The west on Trial and the caribbean revolution.. These books told of a stuggle that The Jagans were compelled to fight against. A struggle against the Britsh and the Americans who impoverish the land of Guyana. His Legacy can found in the many papers that Chedi wrote over the Years. The lagacy has nothing to do with his friendship with Burnham and his son's stupidity.. Apparantly Nadira has a better understanding of her father's lagacy than anyone else in the world except probably Janet.

Of course he has a legacy written in his books and papers. But dont you think they will ultimately reflect one side of history?

BTW, you forgot: The Caribbean: Whose Backyard?

quote:

Originally posted by TK:

quote:

RAMA: Dr.Jagan left his leagacy in three books; Forbidden Freedom, The west on Trial and the caribbean revolution.. These books told of a stuggle that The Jagans were compelled to fight against. A struggle against the Britsh and the Americans who impoverish the land of Guyana. His Legacy can found in the many papers that Chedi wrote over the Years. The lagacy has nothing to do with his friendship with Burnham and his son's stupidity.. Apparantly Nadira has a better understanding of her father's lagacy than anyone else in the world except probably Janet.

Of course he has a legacy written in his books and papers. But dont you think they will ultimately reflect one side of history?

BTW, you forgot: The Caribbean: Whose Backyard?

The otherside is Burnham's legacy. One that has a history of failures. It is written in a 'destiny to mould'
Feed,house and clothes the nation by 1976. national service, A one party state, Black power. President for life.

quote:

Originally posted by Ireton:

quote:

Given the situation within the PNC, after the 1992 defeat, there were, and still exist, forces that want to regain their "taste of power

It was very evident during the 1992 campaign if you can recall

Yes, indeed, Ireton. I was quite surprised at what took place during the transition period from one government to the new one in 1992.

Even at another level, polling agents presented varied reports of indiscretions, during election day.

quote:

RAMA: The otherside is Burnham's legacy. One that has a history of failures. It is written in a 'destiny to mould'
Feed,house and clothes the nation by 1976. national service, A one party state, Black power. President for life.

True...but what's your point?

quote:

Originally posted by TK:

quote:

RAMA: The otherside is Burnham's legacy. One that has a history of failures. It is written in a 'destiny to mould'
Feed,house and clothes the nation by 1976. national service, A one party state, Black power. President for life.

True...but what's your point?

You asked for the other side of the coin and I gave it to you!!

TK,

Don't get too excited about Freddie's view of Cheddie. He has something up his sleeves for BSR and his modern day admirers.