Articles by Janet Jagan
British Guiana wants
INDEPENDENCE IN 1962
The title ‘government minister’ as a rule induces a healthy respect on the part of the interviewer. But when Mrs. Janet Jagan, former Minister of Social Welfare and at present General Secretary of the People’s Progressive Party of British Guiana,(the government party of the country) calmly carried my typewriter into her tiny hotel sitting room and smilingly urged me to take a comfortable seat, I couldn’t have felt more at ease. Conversation came easily, effortlessly. Her informal and unaffected manner belied the difficult and often severe struggle that she, together with her husband Dr. Cheddi Jagan, premier of Br. Guiana, have led and are leading for their nation’s independence. They met as student, have gone through thick and thin together – including gaol, and have remained undaunted and confident in their nation’s future.
Below are the questions put to Mrs. Jagan by our correspondent J. M. Kohoutova, and her replies:
WHAT ARE THE MAIN PROBLEMS BRITISH GUIANA FACES AT THE MOMENT? HOW, IN YOUR OPINION, CAN THEY BE RESOLVED?
Our main problem is attaining independence in 1962. But the British are using delaying tactics. My husband who is the leader of the People’s Progressive Party and Premier of British Guiana had talks with British Colonial Secretary Maudling in December and asked him to fix a date for independence. Maudling was unable to do so. Jagan then referred the matter to the United Nations but the British claim that relations with British Guiana are their internal business. We are now trying to mobilise public opinion to put more pressure on Britain to grant us our independence.
British policy on independence is inconsistent. They say the country has to prove its ability to govern itself. But we have done that. We ran the government from ‘57 to 61’ – and at the beginning of 61 again won the elections. We have won three consecutive elections (in ‘53 as well – Ed.). We have a mandate from the people, they want us. From ‘57 to 61’ when we ran the government we did so far more efficiently and better than the British. We have shown our ability to govern ourselves.
Britain has had to grant independence to other nations. Yet they are using our lack of experience as the reason for delay. More likely it has to do with the fact that Britain doesn’t like our politics, which is why she is holding back.
The first thing we want to do after independence is to solve our economic problems. The country’s development has been retarded by colonialism. What we need is rapid industrialization and the fullest utilization of our natural resources. Further, we want our resources to be developed by the state and not by private capital. Our party, the PPP, is a socialist party and our programme calls for all industry that will developed in future to be state-owned.
Our country is rich in natural resources; we have bauxite, manganese, timber, gold, diamonds, uranium, and doubtlessly many other undiscovered minerals. We have a huge, as yet unexploited, hydro-electrical power potential. That should be one of our first big development projects.
In agriculture – under our party’s leadership – we have opened up 90,000 acres of land and settled people on it. Agriculturally, we have mostly been a monoculture – sugar cane. The peasants also grow rice, our main staple – and we’ve exported some of that to Cuba and the British West Indies. After independence we intend to diversify our agriculture, increase our cattle rearing, and grow coconuts – we are not yet self sufficient in coconut oil – and urge farmers to grow cocoa.
WHAT HAS BEEN THE EFFECT OR INFLUENCE OF THE CUBAN REVOLUTION ON BRITISH GUIANA?
The PPP, which is the strongest political party in Br. Guiana, has given a great deal of support to the Cuban Revolution. We protested vehemently against the invasion of Cuba, our youth section picketed the America legation. The Cuban Revolution has inspired our young people and fired their imagination showing them what a small country can do to rid itself of oppression.
I visited Cuba for May Day, 1960, and was really impressed with what they have accomplished. They have done remarkably well in solving they land problem and in improving social conditions in the country.
Cuba is different from Br. Guiana we obtained our majority through elections. For the Cubans, the Revolution itself was a form of democratic elections.
WHERE DOES BRITISH GUIANA FIT INTO THE PICTURE OF LATIN AMERICA?
We have been isolated from the continental picture for many years. We feel that we are part of the continent, intend to participate in South American matters and hope to maintain friendly and close relations with all Latin American countries. One of our very few forms of contact at present is through the Economic Commission for Latin America (a UN agency) which we joined. By isolation I mean that there are few possibilities for physical contact with our neighbours – due to lack of communications, roads, etc. Under British rule contacts between us and neighbouring countries were not welcomed and our first official contact was made when premier Jagan led a trade delegation to Venezuela. A road to Brazil is now under construction.
DOES YOUR ORGANISATION WORK FOR THE INTEGRATION OF THE THREE GUIANAS – OR IS IT INTERESTED IN A FEDERATION ALONG THE LINES OF THE WEST INDIAN FEDERATION?
As far as I can judge, there is no keen interest in linking up the Guianas – except as friendly neighbours. There is some trade and interchange of people. After all we have somewhat the same racial structure – indigenous Indians, Negroes, East Indians, Chinese and in Surinam there are also Indonesians.
The British have urged Federation on us for some time. Our Party, the People’s Progressive Party, has always maintained that Br. Guiana would not consider entering any federation or alliance until it obtained Dominion status and until all the units in such a proposed Federation were independent.
WHAT IS THE PRESENT STATE OF EDUCATION AND IN PARTICULAR HIGHER EDUCATION IN GUYANA AND WHAT TASKS HAS YOUR ORGANISATION SET ITSELF IN THIS SHHERE ON ATTAINING INDEPENDENCE?
We have an archaic system of education built on the old British pattern which offers largely academic schooling but doesn’t prepare the child to face modern life.
Primary education is compulsory - we have only a minute illiteracy problem – but the system itself is outmoded and we are now in the process of changing it, i.e. The methods, curriculum, textbooks. Take the textbooks for example – the latter are entirely Anglicised. They don’t teach a child the history of this country but rather that of British royalty and the innumerable wars the British have fought. Theses textbooks talk about snow (and there is no snow in our country), about “mother going to market to buy certain fruits and vegetables” which are completely unknown in our country. The whole educational system is not orientated to making a person think about Guiana, its needs, of being a patriotic Guianese, etc.
The reason for anarchy in our education system is that it is divided between government- run schools (state schools) and private institutions, most of them led by different denominations of the Church. This means no uniformity in teaching. In the Church schools, although by law they are state supported (and the salaries of teachers of all primary schools are paid for out of the government budget) the Church decides who will teach in its schools, who will be promoted, who will be laid off, etc. In other words there is dual control and this is harmful. Our Party, which is leading the government, wants to end this dual control but has had to go about it more slowly than it wished.
It is not that we object to Church – run schools but we do object to having the government pay for their upkeep and maintenance. If they want to run private schools that’s their business. The government should support only government - run schools.
There are few government- run secondary schools – in fact three in all. The others that do exist are privately run. We have tried to introduce some form of vocational education or polytechnical education in secondary schools. There is one technical school which turns out mechanics and technical middle cadres. Incidentally, secondary education is neither obligatory nor free. The government has given some aid to secondary schools so that they can pay the teachers better and thereby hire trained teachers, and is also trying to induce these schools to introduce science and technology courses, etc. Our aim, on attaining independence will be to make secondary education compulsory for all.
There is no institution of high, education in British Guiana. For some time we have contributed to the University College of the West Indies but are thinking of setting up a higher school of our own. Discussions have already begun but as far as I know no plans have as yet been worked out.
We don’t want to establish an institution along stilted, academic lines. This higher educational school should prepare young people for life, for field work – turned out engineers, architects, veterinarians, agronomists, etc. At present our University students are mostly in England, the US, Canada and Jamaica (UC of the West Indies). We should like to have a university that combines work and study.
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)
© Nadira Jagan-Brancier 2009
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)
© Nadira Jagan-Brancier 2009
