Jun 23, 2021 Letters
It is the month of June—the month when the media are inundated with commentaries about the life, activism and legacy of Dr. Walter Rodney. At one level, this is a healthy development because long after Rodney was assassinated only the WPA and Rodney’s staunch admirers had the courage to write and speak about him in the public space. One could have lost employment, suffer harassment and worst, face elimination. Even when the government changed in 1992, the custodians of the power that Rodney died fighting for steered clear of his name and legacy, because to them he was a good scholar, but a poor politician whose sacrifice did not measure up to the winners of the 1992 elections. It is only in recent years that non-WPA people have begun to publicly show Walter Rodney some love.
Mrs. Jagan told his son, Shaka, to go home when he picketed the PPP government in 1993 pleading for a Commission of Inquiry into his father’s death. The PPP promptly declined Shaka’s request. Dr. Jagan wondered aloud—what would a COI do? It was the WPA that stood with Shaka. It was the WPA, through Eusi Kwayana, that brought a private murder charge against the alleged assassin, Gregory Smith. When the French Government requested of the Jagan Government an undertaking that Gregory Smith would not be given the death penalty if found guilty of Rodney’s murder, the government dithered until the matter was forgotten. I don’t quite remember at that time any chorus about anyone betraying Walter Rodney. I cite the above not to deny anyone the right to celebrate Rodney today, but to set the record straight for younger generations and for older strangers to the history of and truth about Rodney.
What is unhealthy about much of the commentaries in recent years is that they reflect an intentional and malicious attempt to drive a wedge between the Rodney legacy and the party to which he belonged, the WPA. This is part of a larger attempt to misappropriate Rodney’s activism and legacy as part of one of the ethno-political poles in our ongoing divisive politics. In so doing, these advocates are wittingly and unwittingly isolating Rodney in one section of our ethnic divide and in the process, setting him in conflict with the other major section.
It is a development that runs against one of the important elements of Rodney’s broad and varied political praxis—a multi-racial or “jointness” solution to Guyana’s ethnic problematic. But it is a development that is inevitable given the inflexibility of the top post-Corbin PNC leadership on the “Rodney question” and the concomitant readiness of the PPP to take full political advantage of that inflexibility. The PPP’s attitude is driven by two objectives–partly to erase its own earlier reluctance to engage the Rodney question and partly to embarrass its opponents–the PNC and the WPA. This is not to say that there are not individuals in the PPP’s leadership who genuinely admire Rodney and want to help cement his rightful place in Guyana’s national consciousness. But political parties generally do not commit to big change on controversial issues if there are not benefits for the organisation. It is against the above background that one should analyse the PPP’s decision to hold the 2014-15 Rodney Commission of Inquiry and to agree with Rodney’s to pursue the more recent initiatives announced by the Attorney General in the National Assembly.
As one reads the outpourings these past weeks, the silencing of huge chunks of the Rodney praxis is evident. It has been so difficult to come to grips with. His activism in Guyana has been pigeonholed to “fighting for free and fair elections” and “fighting Burnham and the PNC.” This was not the sum-total of Rodney’s activism in Guyana. This was the PPP’s agenda—free and fair elections were the sum-total of that party’s agenda because it was their route to power given the demographics of that time. Rodney and the WPA’s agenda and struggle were much broader. They struggled to dismantle post-colonial authoritarianism in Guyana, for bread and Justice for the poor and the powerless, for a genuine multiracial democracy, for a democracy that went beyond elections and for a power-sharing government that was broader than a PPP-PNC Front.
It was no accident that Rodney’s battle cry was People’s Power – No Dictator and not People’s Power – No Election Rigging. For Rodney, election rigging was a symptom and not the cause of the problem. It is for that reason that Rodney and the WPA characterised the PNC government as a dictatorship period, the PPP characterised it as a “creeping dictatorship.” While Rodney and the WPA placed a condition on alliance with the PNC, the PPP placed no condition. While Rodney and the WPA opposed the 1980 constitution as a recipe for dictatorship, the PPP opposed Burnham governing under the constitution rather than the constitution itself. While the WPA boycotted the 1980 election on the grounds that it would be massively rigged, the PPP participated in those elections.
What now? For me, the struggle to disentangle Rodney and his legacy from political intrigue must be joined in earnest. I intend to play my full part in that struggle. As a teenager, I sacrificed my education, a career and my liberty, put my life at risk and caused my family untold misery to, along with others; fight with Rodney and for the Rodney. That must count for much and should be respected by those who now revere Rodney but did not revere his struggle enough to join it. As a mature adult, I supported a conditional alliance aimed at healing our nation. It failed and I supported a withdrawal. In politics, one must make judgments based on concrete reality and not based on “parked history.” The Rodney I knew and have studied was a concretist who was never a victim of parked history.
Jul 24, 2021By Sean Devers Kaieteur News – When Shimron Hetymer twice failed his fitness tests and failed to produce the runs his obvious natural talent suggested he should due to his erratic...
Jul 24, 2021
Jul 24, 2021
Jul 24, 2021
Jul 24, 2021
Jul 23, 2021
Kaieteur News – The Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA) has replied to my “constant banging,” that is, my consistent... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]