Dr Jagan, you’ve been referred to in the U.S. press as an
unabashed Stalinist and a Moscow-inspired purist, and
on the other hand you’ve been referred to as a former
Marxist who has seen the light and is now a converted
practitioner of free-market economics. How would you
describe your political and economic evolution over the
past 30 years?
Well, I have always associated myself with the
ideology of the working class, and I have led
a very strong working-class party for the past
47 years. Different people see and call working-class
ideology by different names. But what was important
were the concrete historical conditions in Guyana and
the creation of a programmatic platform that caters to
the needs of the working class. In many ways we were
different from the mold in which many people placed
us, especially the far right during the period of intense
political and ideological struggles. For me, Marxism
neither was nor is dogma, but a scientific guide to
action. It gave me strong ethical beliefs in social justice,
particularly in helping the poor, the underprivileged and
the exploited.
I grew up on a sugar plantation. Sugar was king. As a
matter of fact, it was the gunning down of sugar workers
in 1948 which propelled me into the anti-fascist strug-
gle for national and social liberation, and in particular
the anti-colonial struggle for an end to foreign domina-
tion. We struggled in British Guiana for the right to
vote, and later to raise living standards and to try to
transform the colonial economy, in which we were just
producers of raw materials, sending things abroad and
getting very little in return. Today I would say that it’s
fashionable to talk about the collapse of Marxism and
socialism, yet it is not Marxism that has collapsed, but
some of its practitioners. There is a great distinction
between theory and principles on one hand, and prac-
tice on the other. Our practice developed differently in
a concrete and different historical context than say in
Russia, Cuba or China.
As we know, many mistakes were made due to the
wholesale adoption in developing countries of the pro-
grammatic position taken in Britain by the British
Labor Party. Many developing countries saw their
advance to socialism in the rulebook of the British
Labor Party, “the public ownership of the means of pro-
duction, distribution and exchange.” That was the goal
for a developed economy. But because many colonial
peoples, especially in the British Empire, looked at the
British experience and had links to the social democra-
NACIA REPORT ON THE AMERICASVOICES ON THE LEFT
tic Labor Party in England, our prac-
tice was more or less taken from
theirs. In this regard, I think we made
mistakes. We were not creative It’s fasl
enough in adopting programs which
were in keeping with our own con- to tall
crete condition.
Our concept of
the co
Guyana Socialism was premised on
plural, peaceful, multi-party states Marxism ai with mixed forms of ownership. This
was misunderstood at the height of the yet it is n
Cold War hysteria. that has c
Given the state of inequality in the som world today, where there is a greater
percentage of poor people than ever practition before, do you still see some form of
socialism on the agenda in Guyana? a great
Well, I would say that socialism has between
suffered a setback with the collapse of pra the world’s socialist systems. How-
ever, there are experiments going on in
different parts of the world-in Cuba
and China, for example-and now in
Russia a struggle is being waged
between those who still want some form of socialism
and those who want to pursue a capitalist course. So
that struggle is going to continue. I would say that the
contradictions are now sharpening between Marxism
and the neoliberal model which is currently being dic-
tated by the West. This is not the most important strug-
gle that we have going on now. The most important
struggle is to seek a new international balance of inter-
ests in this period of globalization and liberalization.
Developing countries will continue to be marginalized
if we do not collectively seek a new global order. Let
me just say that socialism is not on the agenda in
Guyana. We can speak of a period of national democ-
racy.
What impact has the clash between the neoliberal model
and socialism had on Guyana?
We have inherited IMF and World Bank programs
that were implemented by the previous government. In
this regard we are trying to move very carefully because
we need balance-of-payment support of $40-45 million
a year from the World Bank, IMF and the developed
countries. So we see that there are many contradictions
in the austerity model that is advocated by the World
Bank and the IMF, contradictions that do not solve our
problems.
At our Congress two years ago, we said that we had
to walk carefully, skillfully and scientifically between
VOL XXXI, No 1 JULY/AUG 1997
hionable
k about
Ilapse of
nd socialism,
ot Marxism
ollapsed but
e of its
ers. There is
distinction
theory and
ctice.
conformity and transformation.
Absolute compliance with the IMF
and World Bank will lead to the
death of many countries, as we have
already seen. As a matter of fact,
politicians who follow that model
lose. When it comes time for the
people to vote, they are thrown out.
In this careful walk between this
“Washington Consensus” and a
genuine Latin American agenda, with
which you identify how do you acco-
modate privatization and low wages
to attract foreign investors? How do
you feel about these things in
Guyana?
Under recent governments, we expe-
rienced privatization along with the
devaluation of our currency. A lot of
those deals have proven to be a fail-
ure. We are examining everything
very carefully and not accepting the
IMF prescription as the one and only
model. We are now talking about pri-
vatization of the electric company. And we have said
that we don’t want a model where foreign companies
will hold a majority of the shares, and therefore control
of the management and the board.
How would you characterize ethnic relations in Guyana
and how do they relate to the political parties and the
political process in general?
This issue has a long history in Guyana. Before we
entered politics in the 1940s-long before Mr. Mandela
came up with the formula of bringing the opposition
in-we had made several attempts to bring about unity
in our country. In 1957, we failed to create a political
coalition between East Indians and Afro-Guyanese. In
1964, we won and I tried again. I went to the UN in sup-
port of Afro-Asian states to work out the formula, but
then the foreign governments were working with [coup-
leader] Mr. Burnham to put him in power. As the oppo-
sition for 28 years, we again tried to bring about some
unity but failed. In 1977, we came out with a slogan and
a policy proposal called “winner will not take all,” even
if we win the election. We alone will not form the gov-
ernment. So, the policy is still to bring about unity
along ethnic and religious lines in Guyana.
We have signed the optional protocol to the UN on
several nonpolitical rights, which the previous govern-
ment refused to sign. We signed it, and now anyone is
entitled to go to the UN with any discrimination case he
33VOICES ON THE LEFT
or she may have. We also have a task force for racial
equality, headed by a very distinguished bishop of the
Anglican church. He is a respected individual and his
task force has produced a White Paper which will be
presented to Parliament very shortly. And, might I say,
the opposition party has refused to serve on the task
force because they hate Bishop
George because he has fought for
fair and free elections in this coun-
try. When that White Paper is The past i!
debated in the Parliament, we hope
to pass a law on racial equality. I have no re Then we will have a commission on
racial equality. We hope that cases against ti
can then be brought to the Sta Commission, not to the UN or some
other international body like the and Brit OAS.
People have always said the racial thoug factor is the only political factor
here. That is not true. If that were destabil
true, we would not have won a governme majority of the votes in Guyana–
over 50%. Indians are just over 50% occa of the population, and not all of
them vote for us. In the 1992 elec-
tions, there were many irregulari-
ties. In spite of that, we won 54% of the votes. Given
the peace in the country, I am sure we will break that
gap again, as we did in 1993. In fact, when I was sworn
in in 1992, I said that we would make a new beginning,
start where we had left off and bring about what we call
“the spirit of 1953,” which is about national unity, working class unity, and racial unity.
You have referred to Cold War hysteria in the United
States and the developments that led to your ouster
How do you view the relationship between the United
States and Guyana today?
Our relations are very good with the United States.
We are working to achieve a partnership with the North
and the South of the world, particularly with the United
States, Latin America and the Caribbean. I have praised
the United States; the past is the past. The Cold War
was a historical process that was going on at that time, and we became the victims. I have no recriminations
against the U.S. and Britain even though they helped to
destabilize my government on two occasions.
Many have stated that the new method of U.S. inter-
vention in Latin America and the Caribbean is the war on
drugs, and many countries have approved the hot pur-
suit of narcotics traffickers on their territory. It has also
been stated that if Guyana had been in opposition to
s
CI
a
h
li
si
SI
that, there would be less of a threat to sovereignty.
What’s your reaction to that and the role that the United
States is playing in the so-called “war on drugs?”
We haven’t signed on completely, like some countries
that have allowed American agencies to come onto their
territory. We have only allowed them
airline passage over our territory, but
we must be kept constantly informed
the past. when these operations are happening.
We have taken this position all along
riminations in the Caribbean Community (Caricom), and throughout the hemi- e United sphere, that we have to act together.
es When I came to the emergency meet-
ing held by Caricom about the nar-
in even cotics question, and the U.S. govern-
ment’s way of dealing with it, we
they took the line that we must not only
deal with the symptoms-narcotics zed my production and trafficking -but also
it on two with development, In two important regions in Guyana,
ons. the northwest near Venezuela and the
south near Brazil, people once pro-
duced quality peanuts. But they could
not compete against imported
peanuts coming into the country. Right now the banana
producers in the Caribbean, especially in the Windward
and Leeward Islands, cannot compete on the open mar-
ket. They are getting a special price in Europe that is
being contested by certain free-trade interests. A state-
ment by the former Prime Minister of Dominica makes
it clear that if the banana goes-and their income
depends nearly 70% upon bananas-then the people
will be forced to grow marijuana. In a letter to the
World Bank president, I reiterated that statement. Not
only will the people be forced to grow marijuana, but
they will become refugees to the North. If they cannot
get visas to go, they will go illegally. Therefore, we
have to treat not only the symptom, but the root cause
as well.
When I was in the government in the 1950s, there
was no marijuana grown here. But under the last gov-
ernment 60% of the land which was under rice cultiva-
tion was abandoned, and the people started growing
marijuana. And if we cannot sell our peanuts from these
two regions then what are the people to do? Especially
when there is a demand in the North for either mari-
juana, cocaine or heroin. That is why the people of
Latin America are growing coca leaves and producing
coca plants, which the big drug lords transform into
cocaine and then send to the North. In order to over-
come poverty, we have to get to the root problem of
development. That’s my message.
Menu
