Articles by Janet Jagan
It would be well for us to examine, the question of Proportional Representation and new elections. Actually, the issue of PR does not arise unless there is a strong case for new elections.
Is the case for new elections very strong?
The argument bandied about by the People’s National Congress and the United Force is that the PPP received less than a majority of the total votes in the 1961 elections and thus cannot speak for the majority of people.
If this argument were to hold water, it would mean that the first-past-the-post system which is inherent in the Western democracies does not work. So it would mean not only the condemnation of our electoral system, but also a complete denial of the use of this system in the countries which use it. Britain and the USA have governments, like ours, in which the ruling party does not necessarily receive the majority of the total votes.
Independence
But a stronger argument against new elections is the fact that in 1960 there was a Constitution Conference in Britain which may be regarded as the prelude to independence.
At this conference, the PPP delegation put up a strong case for immediate independence. This was not supported by the PNC, which at that time was riding the Federation issue, and felt that independence would interfere with BG’s entry into the West Indies Federation.
Thus, their cry was “Self-Government, Not Independence.” The PNC brought up the proposition of PR at that time, but it was thrown out and given little serious consideration by the British, who could hardly be expected, in view of their own electoral system and that of the Commonwealth countries, to view it as a workable proposal.
But what is more significant to the question of new elections before independence is the intention behind the introduction of a new constitution which gave internal self-government to BG.
The self-governing constitution, under which we now operate, was discussed at the 1960 London Conference and introduced with the August 1961 elections.
This Constitution stated that elections would take place every four (4) years and put the winning party in office for a four-year period.
Significant point
This is the significant point for, at that time, arrangements were also made for the next stage to independence.
The British Government, at the 1960 conference, accepted the principle of independence for BG and stated that a conference to discuss the issue would be convened one year after the introduction of the self-governing constitution or after the West Indies Federation obtained its independence, whichever period was shorter,
Therefore, the intention was clear that roughly one year after the introduction of internal self-government, talks would be held for transfer of the remaining power held in the hands of the British over to the Guyanese.
New elections
Now, if it was intended that a new elections would be required before the country moved into independence, the self-governing constitution would not have included the clause for elections of a four-year duration, but would have provided for elections after one or two years.
Thus, it is clear that the British Government had not conceived the idea of any new elections when the country became independent. The British Government at the 1962 London Conference had only one role to play, and that was to rule out the contending point of new elections.
And this is where the British Government was dishonest in taking a neutral stand, or no stand, on the so-called deadlock issue.
(Thunder, 24 November 1962)
© 2001 Janet Jagan
CLAUDE CHRISTIAN – AN EXAMPLE FOR ALL
When we examine Claude Christian’s life and his contribution to our movement, we see it as a guide to our members, for in few others do we find such qualities.
Comrade Christian wanted nothing for himself – neither position, money, power. When he worked – and few have ever worked as hard – he worked for the Party, not for himself. We who have worked with him at Freedom House knew him to work at times from 6 a.m. to midnight, with a bun and sweet drink his only food for the day. When he went on money raising tours throughout the countryside, he was prodigious in his physical endurance. He would drive others to work as hard as him, to be as disciplined and selfless as himself.
He demanded a lot from others, but he did not sit at a desk and make the demands; he showed them how to work and always set the pace. He made our comrades give of their best. I can remember one occasion when there were a lot of items to be removed from Freedom House – heavy items like benches and tables. Some of our comrades at Freedom House, who were responsible for this activity, sat around and left the moving to others. Claude was furious at their laziness or refusal to do manual work. He quarrelled with them, then took off his shirt and began hauling the benches on his back. They soon were ashamed and helped in the work. This is one of the lessons he taught us all – no one is too high and mighty to do any work, no matter what it may be.
Self discipline and discipline for others was his belief and those with whom he worked had to learn discipline. No more coming to work when one pleased, no more half measures in doing a task, no more forgetting assignments or responsibilities. During the two periods of Comrade Christian’s management of Freedom House, he established a high standard of efficiency and dedication to work.
As the Party Chairman said, “Claude shaped the Party’s finances.” This is very true, for it is to Claude that the Party can be grateful for its buoyant financial position. Prior to his management, funds were so scarce that normal payments could hot be met. But with his tremendous drive and his wealth of ideas, he soon lifted the financial gloom. Fund raising drives which at one time flopped, under his management brought surprising results. Dances, barbecues, fairs, were not only fun for everyone, but were smashing financial successes. His contribution to our Congress meetings, our educational seminars, our women’s congresses, etc., was sweat and good organisation. He could never be persuaded to receive the thanks, the garlands, the bouquets – he wanted none of that. He was pleased and happy when things went smoothly and his reward was to see that there were no complaints, no criticisms and that everyone was satisfied with how things went.
A look at the books Claude had in his library reveals the man. He believed in socialism. He read books on the subject and although he never considered himself very learned on the subject, he quietly read and quietly digested what he read. He was an anti-imperialist to the bone. No one was more disappointed than Claude when the London conference last year failed to set a date for the country’s independence.
One of Claude’s failings was his utter disregard for himself. When his health started failing about three years ago, he had to be forced to visit a doctor. When the doctor advised hospitalisation, he refused, and again pressure had to be put on him to enter a hospital. Even on the last occasion, when he was lying weak in his bed, he insisted that he would leave the hospital in a few days.
While some were fighting to be candidates at elections, officers of the party or to achieve ministerial rank, Claude spurned these honours. He flatly refused to be a candidate at the last general elections and firmly stated that he would make a better contribution to the Party by remaining as office manager.
At the last Party elections he declined nomination to one of the officers’ posts. He had to be virtually forced to become a Minister, always declaring that he wanted no honours – he just wanted to keep the Party organisation and finances in good shape. Money, too, had no real attractions for Claude. Whatever the Party could afford to pay was satisfactory to him.
As a human being, a comrade, a friend, Comrade Claude was all things to all men. Few could dislike this full-blooded, warm-hearted, fun-loving giant of a man who endeared himself to all those with whom he worked, even those who did not agree with his politics. He was a great success as a Minister. When the Leader of the Opposition at the London Conference, 1962, made a scurrilous remark about the type of Ministers the PPP was choosing, and referred directly to Claude, a high Government official curtly remarked that the Minister of Home Affairs was by far one of the most capable men he had known.
Claude was rough and tough when his orders were not obeyed or when he felt an injustice was being done. He could shout and curse with the best, but when he was finished, he carried no malice to the wrong-doer, the incompetent or the one who miscarried his directions. He was a humble man, and knew no false pride. If he was wrong, he admitted it; he was not afraid of criticism, nor was he afraid to criticise the highest if it was necessary.
In short, Comrade Christian brought discipline, efficiency and organisation to the Party He personally set a high standard by his own devotion to duty, respect for his seniors, absolute honesty, and his love of Party and country. He was a reliable and trusted comrade, a man of good humour and amazing generosity. He set the pace for many to follow. We need more men of Claude Christian’s calibre in the movement. His contribution will never be forgotten.
(Thunder, June 1963)
© 2001 Janet Jagan
