Farewell to a political icon

> This excerpt of the document, appearing some fifty years after the first election in British Guiana based upon universal suffrage in 1953, provides a frank and realistic assessment of political life of the former British Guiana. This essay situates the contemporary "crisis of governance" in Guyana within the context of 1953, when the People's Progressive Party (PPP) rose to prominence through its victory at the polls. The central argument is that the events of 1953 fractured the nascent political triumph of the nationalist movement and undermined the search for a new constitutional order that would accommodate both self-government and social**[End Page 21]**cohesion in a multiethnic British Guiana/Guyana. The country has not recovered from the crisis of political legitimacy of that critical year. The crisis unleashed the centrifugal tendencies within the colony, and the nationalist leadership thereafter adopted strategies of ethnic/racial mobilization that have left it unable "to do the things necessary to transcend the historical and demographic inheritance." This essay argues that the crisis of 1953 in British Guiana was a product of the political immaturity (if not näiveté) of the PPP leadership and its collective failure to understand the constraints under which it operated. In effect, it is possible to argue that the PPP leadership failed to recognize that winning the elections was only the first step in governing the colony—a failure from which the party has never recovered and that contributes to the "crisis of governance" identified by the World Bank in 2003. In sum, the 1953 elections demonstrated the popular appeal of the PPP but left open the question of its competence to govern—and fifty years later very little has changed. This essay also helps to widen the context in which the 1953 events should be considered. It suggests the ways in which the events in British Guiana represented the intensification of the crisis of colonial rule in the British West Indian colonies, a crisis that rocked the Caribbean in the 1930s. In British Guiana, the introduction of universal suffrage and internal self-government was part of the reform strategy implemented by the British government in response to labor unrest in the colony in 1948. The Colonial Office recognized that the changes in British Guiana were far-reaching and that the pace of future reform would be measured by the progress achieved under the new dispensation. For the nationalist leadership in British Guiana, the elections of 1953 represented an effort to accelerate the process of constitutional devolution within the colony and within the wider West Indian context. The clash of expectations between the Imperial government and the nationalist movement in British Guiana led to the suspension of the constitution and the fracturing of the nationalist movement. The events in 1953 represented a historic reversal of the process of constitutional devolution to which the British government had committed itself in the postwar period. Just as important, this essay also highlights the level of fragmentation within the PPP and the wider society in 1953, which contributed to the breakdown of the Waddington constitution. This essay details the factional infighting within the PPP, which limited the party's effectiveness as an agent of executive power, and the ways in which the governor and the business community exploited the situation to provoke military intervention by the Imperial government...

after the ousting of ... PPP Government, numerous reactionary ... in Guyana and ... By the end of 1954, it was clear that some party leaders had been influenced by the British authorities to seize control of the PPP from Dr. Jagan and his supporters. At a meeting of the Party's Executive Committee held at that time, Burnham, as Chairman, used his casting vote to approve a motion for the holding of a congress on 12-13 February 1955. Five members could not attend the meeting because they were in prison and three others were restricted to their home districts. At a next meeting when only 6 of the 16 members were present, a decision was taken to hold the congress in Georgetown, instead of Berbice, as was agreed upon at the previous congress. Dr. Jagan objected that this decision was unconstitutional since seven members were required for a quorum of the Executive Committee. In mid-January, Burnham announced that the congress would be held on 12-13 February in Georgetown. Meanwhile attempts to convene meetings of ... Party's General Council to discuss the issue ... there would be no ... hold a series of meetings to resolve the ... this issue. However, ... were still in prison and ... could not attend. ... General Council of ... that according to ... holding of a congress in February was illegal and unconstitutional ... A meeting of the Executive Committee in 8 February decided that Dr. Jagan and Burnham should meet to work out a solution to the impasse. Following these discussions, the Party issued a statement on 11 February signed by Burnham, as Chairman, and Janet Jagan, as General Secretary, declaring that the meeting to be convened on 12-13 February would be a special conference and not a congress. ... held at the ... Metropole Cinema ... Shortly after the meeting started on the second day, Burnham's close associate Clinton Wong, who had resigned from the Party in 1953, requested the suspension of the standing orders on the grounds that he wanted to move a motion of no confidence in the Executive Committee and for the holding of new elections. Even though the majority of the members of the Executive Committee disagreed, Burnham allowed the motion. Immediately, the majority of the Executive Committee (Dr. Jagan, Janet Jagan, Rory Westmaas, Fred Bowman, Martin Carter, George Robertson, Naipaul Jagan and Lionel Jeffrey) and 200 other members - the majority - walked out from the meeting. Burnham's action, which breached the decision he agreed to only two days before, decisively spit the PPP. The splitters "elected" a new "leadership" which comprised of Forbes Burnham as leader, Dr. Lachhmansingh , chairman; Cheddi Jagan, senior vice-chairman; Clinton Wong, junior vice-chairman; Jai Narine Singh, secretary; Jessie Burnham, assistant secretary; Janet Jagan, treasurer; and as general council members Sydney King, Rudy Luck, Ulric Fingal, E. Bobb, A.P Alleyne, R. Mitchell, Surajballi, H. Sargeant, Pandit Misir, Pandit Ramoutar, Jagnarine, Mohamed Khan, R. Fields, Jane Phillips-Gay and M. Edinboro. Some of these persons "elected" were not part of the Burnham faction, but Burnham and his followers wanted to create an impression that they were in control of the united PPP. However, since ... great majority of the PPP membership refused to follow the splitters, Burnham's group was clearly another entity. ... called itself the People's Progressive Party which also began publishing a newspaper - also given ... (This situation was ... 1957 when the Burnham group merged with the UDP ... named itself the People ... s National Congress ... changing its paper

The spectacular, failed assassination attempt on Ramsammy in front of the Co-op bank in Georgetown in October 1971 has a way of defining him; in other words, the “Joshua Ramsammy get shoot” mystique. And for a time, in this country of short memory, his was a household name in political terms. The incident perhaps had the unintended consequence of dramatising his political activism although Josh was more than the measure of the famous incident. Yet it was scary enough. In one interview, Ramsammy recalled his chilling, near death experience: “As I was reversing to park in front of the bank, I heard a shot and smelt gunpowder. Then I saw a fellow in a car alongside aiming a pistol straight at my head…the first shot had hit a stanchion in the car and was deflected. My assailant was about to take a second shot, so I immediately dived to the floor. The shot went across and hit the glass on the passenger side. Next, he pointed the gun down at my prostrate figure and fired. The third shot hit and ricocheted off my hip; and because of the way my body was contorted, re-entered my abdomen, pierced my liver and right lung, and ended up near to my heart.” (Frank Birbalsingh, “The People’s Progressive Party of Guyana 1950-1992: An Oral History)” ... Joshua was rushed to the Georgetown hospital by a fireman, Neville July, where he was operated upon in a valiant life saving effort by a team of doctors, among them his surgeon brother Herman Ramsammy. There was remarkable social and civil response from many quarters to the shooting. What was significant about the reaction in Guyanese society to the attempted murder was the outrage, cohesion and solidarity of opposition groups, some of whom who did not see eye to eye with his political views, but found it necessary to join in solidarity over the Ramsammy incident. Ramsammy, who was active in Ratoon (founded in 1969 by Omawale, Andaiye and Maurice Odle and later joined by Josh and Clive Thomas) at the time of the shooting, courageously continued his work among the people and when Ratoon and other organizations and individuals merged to form the Working People’s Alliance (WPA), Josh was available in spirit and practice. Indeed, he was responsible for the title given to the WPA’s news sheet, ‘Dayclean’. ... It is from his activism in the WPA that I, and other activists, came to know and appreciate Ramsammy. He served on many party committees, was active on the streets, and held the position of chairperson of the Executive Committee at one time. He campaigned tirelessly with the WPA in many parts of the country, but no place derived more pleasure than Berbice. For him it was always ‘home-going’. Many of us associated Berbice (especially Corentyne) with Josh and activists would look to him for strategic advice once that terrain was visited by members from other parts of the country. Ramsammy’s rich and deep accent brought back one striking memory for WPA activists during a campaign in Berbice in the early 1980s. This group fondly recalled Ramsammy’s refrain to hungry activists late in the evening, at the end of a hard day’s slog: “Grab a sandwich, lads”. The problem was that the location where Josh uttered the remark was miles from any eating house. His remark became the stuff of WPA camaraderie and ‘tantalise’. In later years, he would laughingly deny that any such comment was uttered. His anger at repression and his concern for the people’s plight was manifest. At one public meeting in New Amsterdam, Ramsammy lamented the “effects of a decaying environment on the mass of the population, especially the youth” and called on the people “to arrest the decay of sanitation, drainage and healthy values taking place all around them.”