OPINION: On Cheddi Jagan’s ideology and politics

Last Updated on Thursday, 7 March 2024, 14:31 by Denis Chabrol

By Dr. Randy Persaud, Professor Emeritus

Dr. Randolph Persaud

Much has been aired recently on Cheddi Jagan’s ideology and politics. A key part of the ongoing debate is the extent to which Jagan was a communist, or not. Relatedly, there is also intense disagreement on whether Jagan’s ideology pushed the West to remove and keep him from office. 

My take is that Jagan was a Marxist but not a communist, and that his international politics were far more radical than his domestic policies and practices. On the domestic front, Jagan never pursued policies that can even remotely be deemed communist. He presided over elections that were competitive. He pursued economic policies that were based on a mix of free markets and state planning. And at no time, did Jagan, as premier, deny civil liberties, such as existed in most communist countries including the USSR and Cuba. 

On the international front, however, it is my considered view that Jagan espoused unambiguous solidarity with the global left of his time. This includes solidarity with communist movements, parties, and personalities. Christopher Andrew, author of the official history of MI 5 and former Chair of the Department of History at Cambridge University, has confirmed that the Jagans’ were in regular touch with the Communist Party of Great Britain (Andrew2009). There is, however, an important qualification. This is that the motivation behind this solidarity was based on non-interference in the affairs of Third World countries and nationalist movements seeking independence from colonial rule. Given the structure of the bi-polar world order and the attendant distribution of political commitments and allegiances, Jagan felt the USSR was part of the anti-imperialist front. Evidence for my claim can be found in the following:

At the 18th Congress of the PPP held at Good Hope, East Coast Demerara, December 1974, the party declared the following: – “From this congress we declare our active and unreserved solidarity;” with the communist and all other anti-imperialist and democratic forces in Latin America”; “Let us pledge to work to bring down the fascist Smith and Vorster regimes” and We proudly hail the land of Lenin. Marxism-Leninism is invincible.”

At the 20th Congress (Annandale, 1979) the PPP reported that “Special attention was paid to promote unity of the progressive and revolutionary forces of the Caribbean. As such, the People’s Progressive Party hosted a “Special Consultative Meeting of Marxist-Leninist Workers and Revolutionary-Democratic Parties and Groups of the Caribbean” in 1977. It took part in the first congress of the Workers Party of Jamaica, the 6th congress of the Communist Party of Guadeloupe, the 6th congress of the Communist Party of Martinique… Several other opportunities were taken for bilateral discussions throughout the region. Solidarity activities were initiated by the Party in support of the peoples of Vietnam, Kampuchea [Cambodia], Grenada, Nicaragua, Southern Africa, Palestine, Chile, and Puerto Rico, and for the release of political prisoners in Latin America.”

At its 22nd Congress (Annandale 1985), the PPP reported an international activism very much in line with the global left. The report stated “[u]nder the umbrella of the Council for International Friendship and Solidarity, there are now three full-fledged Friendship Societies, for the USSR, GDR, and Cuba, along with solidarity committees for the peoples of Southern Africa…and the peoples on Nicaragua and El Salvador. There are also special friendship committees with the peoples of Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Bulgaria.”

Jagan was also remorseless in global anti-racism, anti-imperialism, and anti-war causes. He regularly declared support for and met with important leaders from Southern Africa, Palestine, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Chile, Bolivia, and especially African Americans activists.

It is incontrovertible that some Western leaders saw Cheddi Jagan as a bridgehead of communism in the Caribbean. One must, however, keep in mind who these persons were and the context in which they were operating. Winston Churchill, who orchestrated the first overthrow of Jagan in 1953, was not only an arch cold warrior. He was also a sentimental imperialist and who had tolerated the famine that killed three million Indians. When Churchill was told of the famine, he quipped – why isn’t Gandhi dead yet?

Much has been made of John F Kennedy’s meeting with Jagan, and Kennedy’s subsequent approval (August 1962) of covert operations in Guyana. What is missing from the standard narrative was that the Kennedy administration’s Bay of Pigs operation had failed catastrophically just six months before. Kennedy was under enormous pressure to ‘man-up’ his foreign policy, and Guyana became his exemplum. 

On the other hand, leaders such as Harold Macmillan did not buy the communist characterization and were definitively intolerant of US pressure. A good illustration was in February 1962 when Dean Rusk, then US Secretary of State, wrote to Lord Home in the UK, and insisted that Guyana not get independence under Jagan. Macmillan rubbished Rusk’s memo noting the “cynicism” in it. Lord Home was so disgusted with Rusk that he warned he might not deal with him any further. Yet, the US pressure was so strong that the U.K caved in. 

Every report on the period under consideration (1953-1992) on Guyana is of the view that Cheddi Jagan was a far more credible and competent leader than LFS Burnham. Christopher Andrew, for instance, notes that “Burnham’s corrupt and incompetent rule was to wreck the Guyanese economy as well as to reinforce enmity between the Afro Caribbean and Indian communities” (2009, 480). As for Jagan, Andrew concludes, “[h]ow far Cheddi Jagan would have aligned himself with the Soviet Union had he, rather than Burnham, led Guyana to independence is a matter of conjecture” (Ibid). 

Jagan was more of a Bandung man, albeit with a good dose of Marxist political theory and political economy. The pro-Western Balram Singh Rai who is usually fronted as the historical alternative never had the kind of support Cheddi Jagan had. Both his pro-Indian and pro-Western credentials failed. He left for London. By contrast, Cheddi Jagan stayed here and built the PPP into a massive force for democracy and development.

Dr. Randy Persaud is Advisor, Office of the President.