Opposition should offer alternatives, not cynicism

Dear Editor,

Recently, I posed a question to a colleague from Guyana: “Why do opposition parties refrain from recognising even a single achievement among the numerous transformational projects implemented by the PPPC government?” His reply was direct: “The opposition maintains that its role is to oppose, not to offer any comfort to the government.”

This perspective recalls a statement by the late Mr. Peter D’Aguiar, a prominent Guyanese business leader and founder of the United Force party in 1960. He was invited by the Leader of the PNC party, Mr. Forbes Burnham to form a coalition government in 1964. While Mr. D’Aguiar served as Minister of Finance within that coalition until 1967, he left little enduring influence on Guyana’s political landscape. He asserted unequivocally, however, in the early 1960s that the purpose of the opposition “is to oppose, expose, and depose the government.”

Mr. D’Aguiar’s slogan exceeded the broad traditional role of the opposition, which is primarily to hold the government accountable and offer alternative policies. This hostile approach by Mr. D’Aguiar and others has presented significant challenges to democratic governance and stability in Guyana. Mr. D’Aguiar’s role in the 1962-1964 mayhem is well known. Thousands of Guyanese (mostly Indo-Guyanese and Afro-Guyanese) were uprooted from the safety and comfort of their homes and fled for safety to find refuge in the squatter communities that they were forced to create. It is still not clear what role the UF or its supporters played in the 1969 Rupununi uprising^[1]?

However, during the period from 1968 to 1992, when the PNC exercised full control over the State, the PPP, in opposition, focused on maintaining governmental accountability and offering alternative policies rather than destabilising the PNC administration. The major challenge to PNC governance was self-inflicted in 1978 when the Jonestown commune blew up in their faces with the murder-suicide of over 900 Americans.

Although the PPP faced fierce opposition, including racial convulsions, from the PNC, UF, and other groups in the early 1960s, it did not seek retaliation but always sought to hold the PNC government accountable. When the PNC proposed nationalising sugar and other industries, the PPP shifted from resistance to critical support: “In August 1975, we changed our political line from non-cooperation and civil resistance to critical support, with the possibility of a political solution.” (NK Gopaul: 1977).

The sugar industry was nationalised on May 21, 1976. The PPP was always in search of conciliation under Dr. Jagan’s leadership. Prior to 1976, the PPP and PNC were engaged in ‘unity talks,’ which eventually collapsed in December 1976. Having national over sectional interests, the PPP pursued the idea of a National Patriotic Front government in 1977 and beyond (inclusive of the major parties), but that effort also failed.

GAWU was unable to resolve its profit-sharing dispute with GuySuCo and the PNC government, prompting PPP intervention. They argued sugar workers deserved their fair share of increased profits due to the sugar tax levy, and were also owed their profit sharing from previous owners (Bookers and Jessels) for 1974. Dr. Jagan’s engagement on this matter with Prime Minister Burnham proved unproductive. The government’s intransigence led to a 135-day strike (8/23/1977-1/5/1978), which GAWU deemed necessary, though the PNC government claimed it was politically motivated—a claim GAWU rejected. The strike brought no positive results for the workers.

Despite that terrible setback, the PPP continued to prioritise national interests, offering critical support, even though some of its supporters were uneasy about their party’s position. While the WPA was not a Parliamentary party then, the PNC viewed its leader Dr. Walter Rodney’s politics as confrontational, though Dr. Jagan held a different view. A forceful opposition action that Mr. D’Aguiar had contemplated did not end well for Dr. Rodney as he was allegedly assassinated by the PNC regime.

After 1992, the PNCR led by Desmond Hoyte used confrontational tactics against the PPPC government, including provocative rhetoric (“slow fyah, mo fiah”) reminiscent of earlier political strategies. There was the post-1992 election mayhem, and the post-1997 election mayhem and the shortening of the PPPC’s term in office. In 2002, opposition elements stormed the President’s office, and chaos ensued, followed by a Georgetown prison break. The slogan, “slow fiah, mo fiah” survived Mr. Hoyte’s death in December 2002 as unrest persisted with incidents like the Ocean Eleven uprising (2002-2008), the Mazaruni prison breakout (2007), the Lindo Creek (2008), the Bartica (2008), and the Lusignan (2008) massacres.

Negative narratives and assertions of oppression directed towards the government are unlikely to have a lasting impact. An informed electorate prioritises reliable information over sensationalised accounts. Opposition parties may enhance their credibility by emphasising clear policy proposals, presenting constructive alternatives, recognising successful initiatives, and supporting programmes that benefit all Guyanese, as demonstrated by Dr. Jagan.

Political achievement is reliant upon robust ideas, strategic vision, integrity, unity, charisma, and effective leadership. Today, Guyana requires more pragmatic problem solvers and fewer cynics.

References

1. The Rupununi Uprising of 1969 – Guyana GY — guyanagy.com ↩