Ralph Ramkarran shares some clarity on PPP-WPA relations

Oct 24, 2022 Letters

Dear Editor,

I refer to Mr. Freddie Kissoon’s article in KN of 22 October headed ‘New book on Walter Rodney generates eerie curiosity about WPA.’ In the article, Mr. Kissoon wrote about a new book by Jay and Joan Mandle that is soon to be published, entitled ‘Walter Rodney: In search of revolution.’ Mr. Kissoon describes Professor Mandle as a “top class” scholar with an interest in Guyana.

He goes on to say that “Perhaps the most interesting dimension of the Guyana section of the book is the WPA’s criticism of the PPP for not joining the WPA to ferment the revolution that would have toppled President Burnham.” Mr. Kissoon said that Dr. Mandle quotes from Dr. Roopnarine who blamed Cheddi Jagan for not joining with the WPA to create revolution. Dr. Mandle is reported to have complained that Clement Rohee’s autobiography mentions nothing about the matter. Mr. Kissoon’s own opinion on why the PPP did not join the WPA in planning and organizing what the WPA called a “revolution” was that the PPP saw it as “adventurism” by a “radical bourgeois group contemptuous of the time consuming efforts it takes to organize the masses for anti-dictatorship struggle.” Mr. Kissoon refers to an article by Cheddi Jagan, ‘Guyana: A New Stage’ published in 1971 dealing with the issue of the PPP and revolution in Guyana.

For about a year during the period 1978-1979 Cheddi Jagan and Walter Rodney met once a week at the GAWU’s Conference Room in its office in Regent Street. I and one other available comrade, usually Harry Nokta, was present at all of these meetings and Tacuma Ogunsaye and sometimes one other WPA comrade accompanied Dr. Rodney.

The meetings were informal discussions of current political issues. There was no agenda, no notes, minutes or other record of the meetings and both leaders raised issues for discussion. This period marked the height of political cooperation between the parties with each rendering solidarity to the other in events that had been organized. This manifested itself mainly in some joint political meetings and active solidarity with industrial action organized or inspired by each. There were other joint activities such as in relation to Arnold Rampersaud.

The PPP’s views on moves to remove the PNC dictatorship at that time, if not explicitly expressed, was well known by all. Revolutionary armed struggle was off the table because of the danger of a race war. The international situation was not conducive because the PNC was still strongly supported by the West. A united, multi-ethnic, multi-class, organic, struggle encompassing the trade union movement, business community, civil society, religious groups and others had not yet matured for a successful removal of the PNC. The unity of the PPP and WPA offered the possibility of triggering such unity but much more needed to be done. The potential was clearly evidenced by the unity against the referendum in 1979. This thinking of the PPP was well known and made public on many occasions by Jagan.

The final meeting between the PPP and the WPA was held at the beginning period of what the WPA called the “civil rebellion.” The PPP noted the upsurge in activity sponsored by the WPA but was concerned that its objectives were not defined. The PPP felt that in the absence of planned activities leading to a defined potential outcome the movement could invite repression. At the meeting neither Cheddi Jagan nor Walter Rodney was present. Jagan was abroad. I don’t know or cannot now recall why Rodney was there. I led for the PPP and Dr. Clive Thomas led for the WPA. Before Jagan left to go abroad, he asked me to raise the issue of the upsurge of WPA’s activity to get a sense of what was on the agenda. Failure of the activity could invite repression not only against the WPA, but also against the PPP. Those were dangerous times.

I do not recall what was discussed at the meeting but I do recall that an opening did not arise for me to raise the matter. After the meeting we congregated around our cars to depart, and I invited Dr. Thomas aside and asked him about the issue. He responded that the whole objective of the movement was to keep everyone guessing. I reported that to the PPP and thereafter the PPP did not, and was not invited by the WPA, to participate in the “civil rebellion.” Just as I have remembered little of those discussions, I would not be surprised if Dr. Thomas does not remember the conversation. For me, the specific issue was an important assignment and Dr. Thomas’s response was discussed in the PPP leadership and it determined the PPP attitude to the “civil rebellion.” It was clear that the WPA wanted to own the event and was not looking for PPP support since we were also supposed to be ‘guessing’ at the WPA’s objectives. The “civil rebellion” failed as the PPP anticipated that it would. I cannot now say if any effort was made to continue or resume the meetings but the WPA had thereafter decided on a trajectory of struggle that was different from the PPP. However, relations with the WPA in different forms continued until the 1992 elections, but did not survive for much longer.

I hope this brings some clarity to the events at that time and the PPP’s attitude to them.

Regards,

Ralph Ramkarran 
Hari N. Ramkarran

Senior Partner

Cameron & Shepherd, Attorneys-at-Law