Early Articles by Cheddi Jagan

Early Articles by Cheddi Jagan

RUMBLINGS IN LATIN AMERICA

(Thunder, 4 June 1960)

Latin America is famous for its revolutions. Simon Bolivar, the great Liberator first removed this area from Spanish colonial rule. Colonialism came to an end. This was the first era.

But soon afterwards followed a new era of imperialism. The big landlords and the reactionaries joined forces and assumed power. In most Latin American countries, these forces collaborated with foreign imperialism.

A feudalistic, imperialistic system developed, with the local "caudillos" becoming the junior partners sharing the spoils with foreign imperialism.

Two Tactics

Foreign imperialism, to gain an ally and thus to stabilise itself, did two things. (1) It made t he local reactionaries perpetuate their feudal – large land holdings and land idleness – hold on the masses; and (2) it used them as its local agents.

This situation created not only grave social and economic problems. It also created jealousies. The result was revolution. But the character of these revolutions has been different. Not to note this is to fall into a grave error.

For instance, Mexican revolution, with people like Villa, Juarez, Zapata, were based on the people for definite objectives – social and economic changes like land reform, nationalisation, etc. And then there were the "palace" revolutions – revolutions caused by personal jealousies among the local ruling classes for prestige and money.

Venezuela

Venezuela is a case in point. In 1948, the Betancourt-Gallegos government was overthrown by force. The big oil interests played a big part. These big interests did the same in Iran with the overthrow of the Mossadeq Government in 1951, the PPP Government in 1953, and the Arbenz Government in Guatemala in 1954.

For ten long years the people of Venezuela suffered under the heel of the hated dictatorship of Perez Jimenez . Jail, terror and torture were the order of the day, while the oil companies made millions of dollars in profits.

The end came in 1957. The people rose in their wrath, took guns in their hands, and threw out Jimenez and his gang.

Several Attempts

Several attempts have been made since 1957 to overthrow the forces of democracy. The latest attempt took place in April last at the time when the Second Inter-American Congress for Democracy and Freedom was meeting in Venezuela.

The leader of this "golpe", (revolt, or coup d’etat) was Castro Leon, formerly an air force leader in the Jimenez regime. His attempt started with an attack on San Cristobal, a city near to the Colombian border.

Support Expected

It was felt in some quarters that this revolt would not have started without the expectation of support from certain sections of the armed forces. In fact, the communists had apparently warned the Government before of this impending attack. At the same time they pointed out that certain sections of the armed forces who were in command during the regime of Jimenez dictatorship were disloyal to the Government.

On the first day of the revolt, the city of Caracas was tense. No one was sure what the forces would do. But the workers, youths and students made sure that they behaved in the right way. They all came out on strike. The hotel where the Congress guests were staying was deserted – even the clerical desk workers left.

People Controlled

This action by the students, youth, farmers, and working class demonstrated the stage of political consciousness, understanding and development. They barricaded the streets; they directed traffic. They took over all the radio stations and newspapers. The Confederation of Trade Unions ran the only newspaper Ceteve printed in the crisis period. No one could speak over the private radio and television networks unless the workers agreed.

Political Strike

Our TUC should note well. The workers were not striking for immediate personal gains – wages and working conditions. This was a political strike.

They were striking to demonstrate to the armed forces and the reactionary elements in and out of the country that (1) they were prepared to fight to preserve democracy, and (2) that the reactionaries and the armed forces must be prepared for civil war if they support the "golpe" of Castro Leon. This is evidence of the political maturity of the people.

There is no doubt that the revolt failed because of this great solidarity of the people – workers, students, youths, farmers, national capitalists – in defence of democracy.

Incidentally, the military failed the Arbenz regime in Guatemala in 1954. This is why Fidel Castro has disbanded the regular army in Cuba. In its place Castro has his rebel army, backed by the people’s militia – armed workers and farmers.

Economic Freedom

The struggle is now joined. 1960 is said to be Africa’s year – the year of political freedom for Africa. This is also freedom year for Latin America with emphasis not on political but economic. Castro has set the pace for economic freedom.

From now on no doubt we will hear many more revolutionary rumblings in Latin America – not the "palace" affairs we are accustomed to in the past, but genuine people’s revolutions a la Castro.

© Nadira Jagan-Brancier 2000

LETTER IN SERVICE OF STRUGGLE FOR FREEDOM

by Cheddi Jagan

(The following is the text of Dr. Cheddi Jagan’s letter to leaders of political parties, trade unions and various organisations all over the world. This letter solicited support for and solidarity with Guyana’s fight for independence,. It was printed in Thunder, February 6, 1960).

30^th December, 1959

Dear Sir,

         We have watched with great interest, sympathy, and understanding the growing national liberation movements in all colonial and semi‑colonial countries throughout the world. Whenever and wherever the opportunity arose, we have added our small voice in the cause of freedom for all oppressed peoples.

To use the words of His Excellency, W. S. Tubman, President of Liberia, "We insist upon the inherent and natural rights of all men to be free. We insist that the process should be speeded up and that the time will come, and not too far distant, when all nations shall gear themselves to the proposition that each is the other's brother without regard to geographical locality, racial affinity or religious concepts."

In our country, the People's Progressive Party (PPP) from its inception in 1950 has been in the forefront of the struggle for political freedom and democratic rights. Every method has been used to destroy this Party: from the show of brute force to open terror; from the destruction of the popularly elected constitutional government in 1953 to the detention and imprisonment of its leaders; from victimisation and intimidation of its militants to national bribery at the masses.

Following their traditional practice of divide and rule, forces hostile to our national movement succeeded in splitting our Party in 1955. They even gerrymandered constituency boundaries when constitutional life was restored in 1957. These tricks and stratagems greatly weakened our movement, but it did not succeed in destroying it. At the 1957 election, we won 9 out of the 14 elected seats. Today we are in the government ( a "forced‑marriage" alliance with the Colonial Office), in office but not in power!

We are about to go to London for constitutional talks. We are demanding that our country should become an independent sovereign state. We are prepared to maintain our link with the British Commonwealth, and for the next four years to share responsibility with the British Government on matters relating to defence and foreign affairs.

But today, when colonialism is a dying creed, when imperialism is on the defensive, the reactionary forces are bent on devising new chains - constitutional - to keep us in political and economic thraldom. These forces, aided and abetted by the imperialists, wish to keep our country within the colonialist fold. They are limiting their demands to internal self‑government only. They are proposing a constitutional structure with certain innovations, the chief aim of which is the defeat of the national liberation movement and the creation of a weak and ineffectual government subject to obstruction and delay.

We have noted with pleasure the resolutions passed at the Sixth World Congress of the ICFTU at Brussels in December 1959:

"That affiliates shall press for cooperation with Government's economic policy to defeat and wipe out poverty in territories and in the world."

"That affiliates shall strive to remove every obstacle in the pathway to economic and political independence."

Knowing of the great role you and your movement have played in your country, and the keen interest and sympathy which you have shown in the freedom struggles of others, I take the liberty of soliciting from you a Declaration of Solidarity with our cause. If it becomes necessary for us to approach the United Nations, we shall be very grateful for whatever assistance you and your Organisation can render us.

Sincerely yours,

Cheddi Jagan

© Nadira Jagan-Brancier 2000

We Harbour no Illusions

(Speech by the Hon. Dr. C. B. Jagan in the House of Assembly on Wednesday, 17^th June, 1953.)

This House of Assembly is pleased to record its appreciation of Your Excellency’s address delivered at the State Opening of the present Legislative session.

To the Messages of goodwill from Her Majesty the Queen and Her Majesty’s Secretary of State for the Colonies, the House respectfully requests that you convey to Her Majesty and her Secretary of State for the Colonies grateful appreciation and the assurance that we will strive to the utmost for the happiness and well-being of the people of British Guiana and will remove every obstacle which may be places on the road to peace, progress and prosperity.

The House observes with favour the initiative recently shown by Her Majesty’s Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Sir Winston Churchill in attempting to ease the present tense world situation and hope that the same initiative will be shown in bringing about an end of racial discrimination and ruthless oppression of, and aggression against, colonial and native peoples, particularly in South Africa, Malaya and Kenya. In such efforts he can be assured of the full and enthusiastic support of the peoples whom this House represents.

Your Excellency’s optimistic views about the new Constitution and in particular the State Council have been remarked. We however, harbour no illusions about the nominated State Council which can only serve the purpose of curbing the will of the people – a reactionary and undemocratic purpose.

The presence of three Civil Servants in the House and their control of the three key Ministries in the Government and the Governor’s veto are an anomaly and contrary to the professed democratic principles of Her Majesty’s Government. We shall continue to struggle for a democratic Constitution for British Guiana.

The House notes Your Excellency’s views that the new Government has been handed a fairly good financial position by the old Administration. However, it is fully conscious of the legacy of privation, malnutrition, unemployment and disease which is bequeathed to us by the old order.

We are aware of the pressing needs of the people and agree with Your Excellency that large capital sums will have to be raised for further development for British Guiana. To this end, we will initiate schemes for the re-organisation of the material resources of the county and for raising capital by way of Government loans, both foreign and local.

The House is fully conscious of the roles which private capital is playing and will play in the development of British Guiana. We will take such steps as will encourage and attract private capital for the development of the country and above all, will guarantee that the Government will honour and fulfil all its obligations and undertakings.

The House, like Your Excellency, is anxiously awaiting the report if the World Bank Mission which recently visited British Guiana and trusts that the report will provide a comprehensive and acceptable plan as to the direction in which development should proceed as well as the means by which the programme can be financed.

The House notes Your Excellency’s observations on the need for the development of a spirit of co-operation between ‘capital’ and ‘labour’. The relationship of capital and labour must not be based as hitherto on the whims of the capitalist but on the recognised rights of workers to organise and bargain through the trade unions of their own choice and to take and active part in the running of the industries in which they are engaged.

This Assembly notes with satisfaction Your Excellency’s remarks in the encouragement of ‘self-help’ amount the people of the country assisted by Government grants and loans as being one aspect of development which should be energetically pursued. To this end, it will seek to democratize all organisations touching upon the lives of the people. Finally, the House wishes to join Your Excellency in your plea for internal harmony which is indispensable to progress and assures Your Excellency that all measures conducive to the welfare of the people of the Colony will receive its full support.

© Nadira Jagan-Brancier 2000

CHALLENGE OF BRITISH GUIANA

By Dr. Cheddi Jagan

[October 1953]

Overseas British naval and military forces have occupied British Guiana. The constitution, only a few months old, has been suspended. My colleague ministers and myself have been dismissed. The House at Assembly in which my party, the People’s Progressive Party held 18 out of the 24 seats after the first election on April 27, based on universal adult suffrage, was prorogued. Meetings have been banned. Not more than five persons can assemble together. Party headquarters and homes of leading party officials have been raided. The Governor is a virtual dictator.

All these extraordinary measures, claims the British Government, have been taken because of a communist plot to cause disorder and overthrow the Government. No clear-cut proof was given of the alleged plot. Instead, a spurious statement, full of misstatements and suppositions, has been put out.

The alleged communist plot is obviously a smokescreen. It is an excuse for destroying the progressive movement and the limited constitution under which we made important political gains. If there is a plot why haven’t charges been brought against us? The British definition of treason and sedition is elastic enough. Clearly there has been no plot. Even the most bitter and. consistent enemy of the PPP, the editor of the Daily Argosy, a wartime security officer, knows “of no organised plan for such a revolt.” He said in an editorial an October 11: “What the PPP loaders were aiming at (and all the evidence points that way) was a political and constitutional crisis, in the hope of going back to the country and returning with a renewed mandate that might, with difficulty, be questioned.”

Long before the elections we criticised the constitution and pointed out its limitations. The Governor and his official advisers knew that we intended to enact a series of progressive but very controversial measures — universal adult suffrage for village and town councils; land law, bringing about land reform and establishing land authorities with powers to tax, acquire, lease and develop large estates held uncultivated by absentee proprietors; abolition of dual control (government and denominational) of primary schools; bulk purchasing of the Colony’s imports; establishment of a State Lottery; compulsory recognition by employers of unions having the support of the majority of workers, as established by the US Wagner Act during the Roosevelt    era; etc.

The Governor and officials knew, as we did, that in due course the Governor and the Governor-nominated Upper Rouse – the State Council – would become exposed in the eyes of the people. The reactionary State Council would have blocked most of the measures as it had already done in the case of the Rice Farmers (Security of Tenure) Amendment Bill. This Bill empowered the Government District Commissioner to undertake works (cleaning and digging of drains and. Canals) which landlords were supposed to do by law but had refused to do. The Governor’s veto would have been used soon enough. It is to forestall these exposures that the Government acted with so much haste and with so much brute force.

Communism has been made the issue by the British Government. But this is nothing new. There is no more evidence of communism now than prior to the elections. Long before and during the election ant-communism was the only plank of our opponents. With one voice from the pulpit, press and radio they said that the PPP was a communist party, that communism was bent upon taking away and destroying the rights of the people. The people voted with their eyes wide open. They voted us into 18 out of the 24 seats.

The action of the British Government, therefore, is in effect a challenge to the very right of the exercise of a free vote – the basis of democracy. The PPP is a broad democratic alliance of all classes struggling for the right to self-determination. Must the people be told – yes you can vote, but you hare no right to vote for a left-wing party or the left-wing element in a party? This is the fundamental question which all democratic freedom-loving people must ask themselves. Once the right to vote is restricted then the foundation of democracy will always be on shifting ground. Neither communism nor the PPP is on trial today. Democracy itself is on trial. Western democracy will stand or fall to the extent that it faces up to the challenge that it faces up to the challenge that is British Guiana’s. All liberal-minded people must accept this challenge and rally to the support of the progressive movement in British Guiana and for the preservation of democracy and civilisation.

[Editor’s note: This article was written in mid-October 1953.]

© Nadira Jagan-Brancier 2000