Political independence in Guyana

One Step Forward Three Years Backwards: Guyana’s Delayed Independence
by
Estherine Adams
On 26 May 2016 Guyana celebrated its golden jubilee of political independence from Britain.  While this was an achievement worth the pomp and ceremony that marked this milestone, it also causes one to reflect on the fact that it should have occurred at least three years earlier.  Internal and external forces at the conception of the idea of independence for this country, militated against its birthing by 1963.  This article thus, aims at providing some insight as to, why the grant of political independence, which was expected earlier, was not realised in British Guiana until May 1966.
INTRODUCTION
At the end of the Second World War Britain, weakened by the war effort, was forced to begin to dismantle her formal colonial empire.  The cost of maintaining it was simply too great.  This was amplified by the profound changes taking place in international relations because of the evolution of new ideas, concepts and attitudes, with the resultant rise of political consciousness and a general demand for political independence throughout the empire.  The establishment of the United Nations in 1945 and the efforts of Gandhi and the Indian Independence Movement, among other factors, had also helped to expose the moral decadence of empire.  The objective of Britain therefore became the surrender of the mantle of colonial administration to reliable replacements.   This mantle was duly transferred, when on May 26, 1966 Guyana was formally granted political independence with a coalition government between the People’s National Congress (PNC) and the United Force (UF) at the helm.  L.F.S. Burnham was appointed Prime Minister.
This grant of independence status occurred later than had been expected.  At a Constitutional Conference in London in March 1960, the British Government had committed itself to the principle of political independence for British Guiana “at any time not later than two years after the 1961 general election.”  It was decided that the next Conference in 1962 would be used to set a date for independence, which was expected ‘to be fairly early 1963’.   Eventually, however, the British Government reneged on this promise and the date of independence was deferred until May 1966.  This delay of at least three years was due to several factors.
Prominent among these factors, but not limited to, are: the effects of the suspension of the 1953 Constitution; disunity among the leaders; civil disturbances in the country in 1962, 1963 and 1964; the inability of the three main political parties to agree on a date for independence and an independence constitution; and, the influence exerted by the government of the United States of America.

At the heart of the British Guiana independence struggle was Cheddi Jagan.  In 1946 Jagan, a Marxist who had returned from university training in the USA in 1943 formed the Political Affairs Committee (PAC).   The PAC was the forerunner of the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) and Jagan’s ideology became interwoven with that of the party.  In its 1951 Constitution the party spelled out as its aims ‘a desire to stimulate political consciousness along socialist lines’.  The party’s socialist ideology, expressed in Marxist terms, regarded political independence as involving, not merely a termination of the metropolitan-colony relationship, which had allowed the ‘exploitation of the human and natural resources for the benefit of the few’, but a transference of the power whereby ‘each should receive according to his contribution of the country’s income and eventually according to his needs’.   This ideology, expressed at any other time, may not have appeared alarming, but when taken in the context of the Cold War being waged at the time, it proved to have a detrimental effect on the movement.
This Cold War was born at the end of World War II.  It was a new war; one that this time though was not being directly fought with guns and bombs.
 “It was a battle for ideas, a battle to justify one or the other ideology; a struggle for the control of smaller nations and their resources, a battle to maintain control of strategic geographic areas.”  This battle was waged mainly between the USSR and her allies who were ‘Communist’  and the United States of America and her allies, which included Great Britain, who were ‘Capitalists’.
 The cold war was more than ever before, the association with great power rivalry and rival social philosophies, and it was during this period, when the Cold War was being pursued with great vigour and venom, and there was an intense fear of Communism in the USA, that the PPP came to power.    Essentially, the factors mentioned above, which contributed to the delay of independence for British Guiana can be traced back to the perceived danger of the Marxist-Socialist ideology in a Cold War World.  It was owing to the perceived notion that the PPP was trying to turn British Guiana into a Communist country, that the British justified their suspension of the 1953 Constitution.  This suspension factored considerably into to the split that occurred in the PPP in 1955.  Though debatable, ideological differences did play a role in the split between the leaders of the PPP, with one group being considered extreme and the other moderate.  Jagan and the PPP’s ideological stance ostensibly led to growing interest and involvement of the government of the USA, which, through fear that British Guiana would follow Communist Cuba, persuaded the British government not to grant independence when they had promised to.  It was also used to justify the involvement of the CIA in the internal conflicts in British Guiana, whether as instigators or as supporters.  This must be taken in the context that the British wanted to achieve the transition of power from itself to the political organizations and leadership that they regarded as ‘acceptable’; given Jagan’s socialist leanings, he was not seen as ‘acceptable’.  Overall, it was a combination of these factors, at the heart of which lay the ideological stance of the PPP that offers some insight into why British Guiana was not granted political independence before May 1966.

SUSPENSION OF THE 1953 CONSTITUTION, NO INDEPENDENCE
On 27 April 1953 a general election was held in British Guiana in accordance with the provisions recommended by the Waddington Constitution Commission.  The PPP swept the polls in the election, winning 18 out of 24 available seats in the House of Assembly.  The leader of the party, Cheddi Jagan became Premier of British Guiana and Forbes Burnham, the party’s chairman, Minister of Education. 
The new government swore allegiance to the British Crown in April 1953, but on 9 October 1953, six months after or 133 days later, the Conservative government of Winston Churchill suspended the colony’s new constitution, expelled the government from office and sent troops to the colony to deal with any protest that might occur.   It entrusted the administration of the colony to an interim government of approved individuals until a new constitution was devised and another general election held. 
In its official public declaration explaining reason for its drastic action, the Colonial Office stated that, “Her Majesty’s Government have decided that the constitution of British Guiana must be suspended to prevent Communist subversion of the government and a dangerous crisis, both in public order and in economic affairs ... The faction in power has shown by their acts and their speeches that they are prepared to go to any lengths, including violence, to turn British Guiana into a Communist state.”
Once the PPP were in office they embarked on a programme of immediate reforms, which led to conflict with the Colonial Officers, the anti-PPP politicians and the entrenched sugar interest.  Action that the new government took in the Legislative Assembly included lifting the ban on the entry into British Guiana of West Indians judged politically subversive and attempted to annul the Undesirable Publications Act.  Even though half the Guianese population was non-Christian, 95 per cent of the schools were run by Christian denominations.  The PPP was determined to institute governmental supervision and direct administrations in schools.  The excise, sugar and acreage taxes were to be restored.   Even though these and other reforms attempted by the early PPP were quite modest, they were met with great hostility. 
Another source of conflict was their inability to work with the Governor and many other top colonial civil servants who exhibited great reluctance in cooperating with the new ministers, knowing that it meant a lessening of their own power.  Then in October 1953, the PPP introduced a Labour Regulations Bill.  Aimed at minimising inter-union rivalry, the Bill was an attempt by the PPP to get rid of the Man Power Citizens’ Association, the union which officially represented the sugar workers, but whose actions often times favoured the sugar interests.  By the passage of the Bill employers were to be required by law to negotiate with the trade unions enjoying majority support. 
This move upset the sugar interest since they would be compelled to grant recognition to the Guiana Industrial Workers’ Union (GIWU) at the expense of the MPCA. To them, this Labour Relations Bill was a "communist measure" and they were part of the forces that demanded that the British Government remove the PPP from power. On the day that the Bill was introduced, the GIWU, called a twenty-five days strike paralyzing the sugar industry.    This strike provided ‘proof’ of the ministers transgressions to the British government and although the sugar strike ended on 24 September 1953, the decision to suspend the constitution was not reversed.
The 1953 Constitution, although limited in many areas, was the first step towards self-government, one step away from independence.  However, with the suspension of this constitution, as stated by Winston McGowan, it was essentially a case of “turning back the clock”, since Guiana was reverted to a full Crown Colony Government, that is, they were no elected members in the Legislative Council.  Total power was once again in the hands of the Governor who appointed an Interim Government consisting of small group of conservative politicians, businessmen, and civil servants many of whom were unsuccessful candidates from the 1953 elections that lasted until 1957. As such, British Guiana, instead of advancing towards independence, took a significant step backwards. 
NO UNITY, NO INDEPENDENCE
The failure of major political leaders to cooperate impeded the independence movement in British Guiana and was significant as it related to the delay of independence.  The joint biracial leadership of the independence movement by Jagan and Burnham had been making strides despite the suspension of the 1953 constitution.  Disunity however manifested itself as soon as power was in the hands of the leaders.  The party was divided into pro-Burnham and pro-Jagan camps.  Burnham’s followers wanted him as leader, while Jagan’s followers wanted him.  This disunity developed to the point where it led to the split of the PPP on 13 February 1955 into Burnham and Jagan factions.   Apart from ideological differences between the two leaders, there was factionalism with respect to tactics, race, personal ambitions and jealousies.
The issue of factionalism is of great significance because of the very negative effect it has been found to have on the success of social movements. It begins when
 “the new faction competes with the parent for resources.  External supporters will at best be divided between factions; at worse they will be too frustrated to support either faction or they will be divided in loyalty and easily alienated.  To compete for resources, leaders of each faction will highlight and enhance the differences between them.  Each faction, seeing the other as the greatest obstacle to its own success, will spend even more effort on attacking former allies.” 

This became the Guiana experience.   The split in the ranks of the PPP in 1955 was eventually accompanied by racial politics.  While clearly multi-racial in leadership, the PPP depended heavily on the appeal of each of its leaders of his particular ethnic group for support.  Hence, the strength of the party lay in Jagan’s support from the East Indian population and on Burnham’s black support.   While Jagan and Burnham were together the races cooperated, then the split occurred.  By the start of the campaign in connection with the 1957 election there were charges and counter charges of parties appealing to certain racial groups to vote for them on a basis of race.  It was therefore evident that the attempt to forge a concerted group, and action against colonialism had ended in disaster.  British Guiana was much more divided than it ever was before the emergence of the PPP,  because although the leaders were still fighting for independence, they were doing so at opposite ends of the spectrum.
CIVIL DISTURBANCES, NO INDEPENDENCE
The spate of social upheavals during the period of 1962 to 1964 had made British Guiana ungovernable and militated against the grant of independence for the country prior to 1966.  The first in a series of crises occurred in 1962, the occasion being the presentation of the government’s budget, which became known as the Kaldor budget, after its formulator.  It attempted to raise funds for economic development mainly through tapping domestic sources of capital. 
The budget encountered very strong opposition from the PNC and UF, some of the business interests, newspapers and the trade union movement, which called a strike.  The disturbances culminated in widespread violence and arson in Georgetown on February 16, 1962.   When he disturbances, which came to be known as “Black Friday”, came to an end there were serious consequences for the country.  The biggest damage was, however, done to the PPP regime, which was unable to maintain order in Georgetown, and had to call on British arms to assist in maintaining control.  The February disturbances postponed the new Constitutional Conference, which was scheduled for May 1962, to discuss and fix the date of Guyana’s independence, until October 1962.
The following year, 1963, witnessed further disturbances.  The 80-days strike, as it was dubbed, stemmed from the introduction of the Labour Relations Bill.  One of the key political objectives of the Bill was to replace the company union, the MPCA, with GAWU, which was controlled by the PPP.   The Trade Union Congress (TUC) called a general strike.  This strike was supported by the MPCA, the PNC, the UF, the Georgetown Chambers of Commerce, the police force and mainly by the American-controlled, International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), of which the TUC was an affiliate.  During the strike, the ICFTU organised a general blockade of air and sea traffic to Guyana and supplied money and food to the strikers, which aided in prolonging the strike. 
Violence became a daily occurrence throughout the strike and racial relations deteriorated.  The strike finally ended on July 8 with nine people dead, and many more injured.  The colony-wide civil strife brought the British Colonial Secretary, Mr. Sandys to Guyana, and from his visit he was persuaded to hold another independence conference in October 1963.
The third crisis was somewhat different in nature. It was also the most serious in nature.  In late January, 1964, the PPP launched what Dr. Jagan called
 “a hurricane of protest” in order “to afford our supporter the opportunity to demonstrate their confidence in the leaders of the party in the face of the British Government’s betrayal at the London Conference.” 
The PPP sought to create widespread disruption in the colony to dissuade Britain from implementing the Sandy’s decision, which had decided all issues against the PPP at the London Independence Conference.  Incidence of violence broke out in January and by the end of July, over 170 persons, mainly people of African and East Indian ancestry, died.  There was widespread destruction of property and thousands of persons fled their home districts.  Conditions had deteriorated so badly that a State of Emergency was declared.   Eventually the volatile civil disturbances, which featured prominently during the 1962-1964 period, became a major obstacle in Britain granting political independence before 1966.
NO CONSENSUS, NO INDEPENDENCE
Inability of the three main political parties to agree on an independence constitution and a date for independence also militated against the granting of independence before 1966.  The constitutional movement after the PPP electoral victory of 1957 was towards self-government and political independence.  The British Guiana Constitutional Conference was held in London in March 1960.  The Secretary of State convened the conference for the colonies at the request of the British Guiana Legislature, ‘to consider what measures of constitutional advance should take place in British Guiana’.   Considerable controversy arose as to whether the Legislature should be bi-cameral or unicameral, and whether the electoral system should be first-past-the-post or proportional representation.   The PNC reiterated its support for internal self-government, as a step in the process towards political independence. The PPP delegation demanded political independence by August 1961.  At the end of this first conference it was decided that only internal self-government was to be conferred.
The October 1962 Constitutional Conference was held against the background of violent disturbances, which occurred in February of that year.  It was therefore of little surprise when the leaders of the three parties failed to reach agreement on whether (a) elections should be based on first-past-the-post or proportional representation system; (b) the age of voting should be reduced to 18 or remain at 21; and (c) elections should be held before independence.   Unable to reach agreement, the conference collapsed two weeks later.
A third conference was held in October 1963.  When talks opened it became clear that the three leaders had failed to reach agreement on the outstanding issues.  Consequently, the three leaders signed a letter agreeing to allow the British government “to settle on their authority all outstanding constitutional issues”.  On October 31, Sandys announced his decision, incorporating a change in the electoral system from first-past-the-post voting to proportional representation and ordering a general election in 1964.  The voting age remained at twenty-one, and, after new elections, another independence conference would be scheduled.
The failure of the three leaders to agree on the most pressing issues at the Constitutional Conferences led to the failure of the first two and it was only after the intervention of Mr. Sandys that a solution was arrived at.  The failure of these conferences caused British Guiana to suffer a setback and ultimately delayed independence.
THE UNITED STATES SPEAKS, NO INDEPENDENCE
The United States government only began to show obvious interest in the politics of British Guiana after the formation in 1950 of the PPP, a Marxist-oriented Party in the era of the Cold War, marked by intense fear in the US of Communism.  The US government was completely opposed to the idea of British Guiana proceeding to independence under a PPP government.  American concerns about British Guiana grew significantly after Castro’s successful revolution in Cuba in 1959 and Cuba’s subsequent emergence as a Marxist state. 
The US made it clear that they were not prepared to tolerate another Cuba on the mainland of South America.  Dean Rusk, the US Secretary of State, stated that, “the United States does not object in principle to British Guiana independence.  However, we are gravely concerned over the prospect of communism gaining a toe-hold on the South American mainland...Accordingly we hope that the sub-committee will not pressure United Kingdom to grant British Guiana independence ...”
The United States government resorted to a variety of tactics in their effort to get the British government to modify its plans for independence of British Guiana.  Particularly after the re-election of the PPP in 1961, the US government actively supported efforts to overthrow the government.  Destabilizing efforts by local opposition political parties and trade unions, heavily backed by funding from US sources, found ready support from the Kennedy administration.  The US government welcomed the 1962 disturbances, which were supported by the CIA, because they felt that the British government would delay independence of British Guiana, as they desired.
A clear picture of the role played by the US in the delay of independence for British Guiana was summed up in an article written by Drew Pearson, a US Columnist, published under the caption “Castro and Jagan”, on March 22, 1964. “The US permitted Cuba to go Communist purely through default and diplomatic bungling.  The problem now is to look ahead and make sure we don’t make the mistake again...But in British Guiana, President Kennedy, having been badly burnt in the Bay of Pigs operation, did look ahead.  Though it was not published at the time, this was the secret reason why Kennedy took his trip to England in the summer of 1963...but London was ahead of his itinerary only because of Kennedy’s haunting worry that British Guiana would get independence from England in July 1963 and set up another communist government under the guidance of Castro.  If this happens just before the US Presidential elections of 1964 and if at that time the Communist Guiana began seizing the Reynolds Metals Aluminium operation and other American properties, Kennedy knew the political effects would be disastrous...the main thing that they agreed on was that the British would refuse to grant independence to Guiana because of the general strike against pro-Communist PM Cheddi Jagan.”  The Americans concluded that Jagan’s ties with Communist Cuba were posing problems to them and to Kennedy’s re-election bid, and thus were willing to use non-democratic and ‘covert activity’ to remedy the situation.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, after the Second World War Britain was forced to embark on a massive decolonisation campaign.  British Guiana, as a colony of Britain was entitled to independence and it was expected that she would have received independence as early as 1963, but this was delayed.  The Marxist ideological stance taken by the PPP, which had hoped to win independence for Guyana, greatly impeded the movement.  This was exacerbated by the suspension of the 1953 Constitution, 133 days after it was enacted, which, in actuality took the movement a step backward as full Crown Colony Government was introduced.  The British Government as justification for this decision used the Communist ideology of the party.
The bid for early independence was not helped by the splits that occurred in the PPP party; a split that firstly occurred primarily because of ideological incompatibility and personality conflicts, and a second more damaging split which was essentially race based.  The inability of the principal leaders to unite impacted the movement and delayed, since instead of joining forces to combat a common enemy, they expended their time and resources fighting each other.  The old colonial tactic of divide and conquer was once effectively applied as the Colonial powers stoked the fires of discord. These leaders seemingly forgot the old adage, ‘in unity there is strength’.  One can be tempted to accuse the leaders of being selfish and not putting the interest of the country before their own.
Further, it took three Constitutional conferences for an independence constitution to be formulated and for a date for independence to be decided.  The inability of the principal leaders of the three main political parties, PPP, PNC and UF, to arrive at a consensus on critical issues, resulted in the rescheduling of the first two conferences, which contributed to the delay of independence for Guyana.
The disturbances, which shook the country in the early years of the 1960s, presented the British government with another opportunity to intervene directly in the affairs of the Colony and to assume greater control of public affairs through the Governor and to once again delay the granting of independence.  The disturbances ostensibly showed Jagan’s inability to manage the internal affairs of the colony and provided the excuse that the British government needed to delay the granting of independence.
Finally, and more importantly, the subtle and sometimes direct role played by the government of United States of America, also had an impact on when Guyana would be granted political independence.  Here again, this development was attributed to Jagan and the PPP’s Marxist philosophy.  The USA under no circumstance was prepared to allow British Guiana to gain independence under a PPP Communist regime.  Such a move had devastating political implications, not only for British Guiana, but also for the United States as it could have direct bearing on the re-election bid on arguably one of the most powerful man in the world.  Accordingly, they exerted themselves, to the point of threatening Anglo-American alliances, and supporting internal conflicts against the PPP, to ensure that this did not happen.  America’s views, more than likely, must have been taken into consideration by Duncan Sands when he made his decision at the 1963 Constitutional Conference.  This was the decision that sounded the death knell for the PPP government at the 1964 General Election, and subsequently independence under the PNC/UF coalition.  It was the combination of these factors that proved catastrophic and furnishes the explanation as to why the grant of political independence, which was expected earlier, was not realized in British Guiana until 26 May 1966.
End notes
  Theo Morris, “Guyana Independence Struggle Part VII,” Stabroek News, 4 June 1996.
2Maurice St. Pierre, Anatomy of Resistance: Anti-Colonialism in Guyana 1823-1966 (London: Macmillan Education Ltd., 1999), p. 165.
3Ralph Premdas, Ethnic Conflict and Development: The Case of Guyana (Vermont: Ashgate Publishing Co., 1996), p. 169.
4St. Pierre, p. 88.
5Hamilton Green, From Pain to Peace: Guyana 1953-1964 (Georgetown: Tropical Airways Inc., 1987), p. 39.
6Ibid.
7Forbes Burnham, A Destiny to Mould  (London: William Clowes and Sons, Limited, 1970), p. xvii.
8Winston McGowan, “Turning Back the Clock: The Suspension of the British Guiana Constitution in 1953 Part II”, Stabroek News, 7 Nov 2002.
9Thomas J Spinner, A Political and Social History of Guyana, 1945-1983 (Colorado: Westview Press, 1984), p. 39.
10Reynold Burrowes, The Wild Coast: An Account of Politics in Guyana (Massachusetts: Schenkman Publishing Company, 1984), p. 53.
11Jai Narine Singh, Guyana: Democracy Betrayed.  A Political History 1948-1993 (Kingston: Kingston Publishers Ltd., 1996), p. 53.
12St. Pierre, p. 97-98.
13R. Scott Frey, et. al., “Characteristics of Successful American Protest Groups: Another Look at Gamson’s ‘Strategy of Social Protest’”, American Journal of Sociology, No. 2, (September 1992), p. 384.
14Percy Hintzen, “The Colonial Foundation of Race Relations and Ethno-Politics in Guyana”, History Gazette, No. 65, (February 1994), p. 23.
15Harold Lutchman, From Colonialism to Cooperative Republic. Aspects of Political Development in Guyana (Rio Piedras: Institute of Caribbean Studies, 1974), p. 223-224.
16Premdass, p. 99.
17Lutchman, p. 229.
18Spinner, p. 99.
19Lutchman, p. 229.
20Premdass, pp. 105-106.
21Spinner, p. 102.
22Cheddi Jagan, The West on Trial My Fight For Guyana’s Freedom (St John: Hansib Caribbean, 1997, p. 350.
23Lutchman, p. 229.
24Edwin Ali, The Rise of the Phoenix in Guyana’s Turbulent Politics (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 1997), p. 17.
25Jagan, p. 202.
26St. Pierre, p. 160.
27Lutchman, p. 228.
28Spinner, p. 103
29McGowan, “Part 1”
30L S Daniels (ed.), Declassified Documents on British Guiana: Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961-1963, Volume XII (Washington: US State Department, 1996), p. 228.
31Andrew Morrison, Justice: The Struggle for Democracy in Guyana (Georgetown: Red Thread Press, 1996), p. 30.
32Sallahuddin, Guyana: The Struggle for Liberation 1945-1992 (Georgetown: Guyana National Printers Ltd., 1994), pp. 262-263.

Gender, African-Guyanese Women and General elections in the contemporary Guyanese society: 1953-2011

Gender, African-Guyanese Women and General elections in the contemporary Guyanese society: 1953-2011

By 

Hazel Woolford

                This paper examines gender equity and African- Guyanese women in the General elections in the contemporary society, from 1953 to 2011. In his work, Centenary History and Handbook of British Guiana   ( Georgetown:  The Argosy Company, 1931, reprinted by the Guyana Heritage Society in 2008), A.R.F. Webber had observed that in the first half of the twentieth century African- Guyanese females  had campaigned vigorously for the election of their male counterparts.  During the second half of the twentieth century Portuguese women had become very visible in the political campaigns.  However, it was the African –Guyanese females who predominated in the General elections since 1953 as political activists, candidates, as members of the audiences at the political meetings and, finally as voters.  The rough and tumble of politics eliminated many potential female candidates.   Researchers of women in politics have found that certain conditions had to be met, irrespective of her ethnicity, in order for any female candidate to successfully compete and survive the rigours of politics.  These conditions, will now be examined:

1.       Age range-  Women who were within the age range of 40 to 60 were selected as candidates for parliament, because they were more appealing to the electorate.  While their skin begins to lose the luster of youth, they have entered the most creative phase of their lives.

2.       Clothes – The female candidate’s choice of clothing, determined her selection as a parliamentarian by the leader of the political party.  The clothing said a lot about one’s socio-economic status and was an expression of her as a person.

   

Their status and role is examined in the elections of the

24 April, 1953,

12 August, 1957,

21 August, 1961,

7 December, 1964,

16 December, 1968,

16 July, 1973,

15 December, 1980,

9 December, 1985,

5 October, 1992,

15 December, 1997,

19 March, 2001,

28 August, 2006  and in the selection process for the Presidential and Prime Ministerial candidates for the Presidential and Prime Ministerial candidates for the 2011 General elections.

                Secondly, the paper has been divided into the following periods

1.       The PPP led by Dr. Cheddi  Jagan  first term in office from April to October,1953 and from 1957 to 1964.

2.       The PNC administration led by Forbes Burnham, governed Guyana from 1964 to 1985.

3.       The  PNC administration under Desmond Hoyte era, which lasted from 1985 to 1992.

4.       Dr.  Cheddi  Jagan’s  term as PPP/C President  from 1992 to 1997.

5.       Dr. Samuel Hinds served as PPP/ C  President  from March 1997 to 19 December, 1997.

6.       PPP/C President Mrs.  Janet  Jagan’s term lasted from 1997 to 1999.

7.       The PPP/ C Presidency of Dr. Bharrat  Jagdeo since 1999

8.       Mr. Robert Corbin’s leadership of the PNC and the Parliamentary Opposition since 2 May, 2003.   

9.       The Alliance For Change Party since 2005.

10.   The Joint Opposition Political Parties (JOPP),

·         of the Leader of the  People’s National Congress Reform – 1 Guyana (PNCR – 1G),   Mr. Robert Corbin

·         the  Co- Leaders of the Working People’s Alliance (WPA), Professor Clive Thomas and, Dr. Rupert  Roopnaraine

·         the Guyana Action Party (GAP)MP, Mr. Everall Franklin and, 

·         the  Leader of the National Front Alliance (NFA), Mr. Keith Scott  formed a  coalition, which had the nomenclature, A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) which was established on Friday 24 June, 2011. This association of political parties, Guyanese organizations and citizens came together to contest the 2011 General and Regional Elections.

Outstanding African- Guyanese personalities who fought for the reelection of their political parties include, Jessica Huntley( PPP), Philomena  Sahoye- Shury (PPP/C) Shirley Edwards ( PPP/C), Jennifer Westford (PPP/C) , Jennifer Webster (PPP/C); Jessica Burnham (PNC), Jane Phillips- Gay (PNC), Winifred Gaskin (PNC), Raj Latchmansingh (PNC), Neta Fredericks (PNC), Lucille Cox- David (PNC), Gertie Allsopp (PNC), Mary Bissember (PNC), Huldah Walcott (PNC), Shirley Field- Ridley (PNC), Joyce Gill (PNC),  Lurlena Peters (PNC/R), Deborah Barker (PNC/R), Clarissa Riehl( PNC/R), Genevieve Allen (  PNC/R),   Faith Harding (PNC/R), Esther Perreira  (PNC/R),  Cheryl Sampson (PNC/R), Jenny Wade (PNC/R),  Africo Selman ( PNC/R), Vanessa Kissoon (PNC/R), Volda Lawrence (PNC/R) , Joan Baveghens (PNC/R); Caroline John (UF);  Andaiye (WPA), Karen DeSouza (WPA), Bonita Harris (WPA)  and, Sheila Holder (AFC).  

Thirdly, in the context of gender, sex and politics, the paper will identify the important role of the African- Guyanese wives of political leaders.  Researchers have found that that, the main visible feature of a leader of a country, is his ability to include his wife, in the administration of his political party, or the governance of the country.  This inclusion in the political administration and campaigns is evidenced by the role she assumes. This can take different roles, namely,

1.        Travelling companion or,

2.       Advisor on women and gender issues or as

3.       A   member of the team.

                In fact, in a comparative study of women in politics in Africa, the Caribbean and, Guyana, it will be observed that the role of the wife of a political leader in Africa is taken more seriously than in Guyana and the Caribbean.  In many countries in Anglophone Africa, the wife is sent to England to special institutions where she is trained to perform the functions of the wife of a politician.   Within Guyana, there have been a few stellar examples such as Sheila Burnham, Patricia Benn, Viola Burnham, Yvonne Hinds and, Carol Corbin.

Dr. Sheila Burnham, the first wife of the P.N.C. Founder / Leader, Forbes Burnham, had very active in his political life, when he had run for  the office of Mayor of Georgetown.  She had accompanied the trade unionists / politicians, Evilina Davis and Jane Phillips- Gay, on the campaign trips.

  Mrs. Patricia Benn, the wife of the Deputy Premier of the Dr. Cheddi Jagan P.P.P. administration, was very active in the organization of women.  She had been a President of the Women’s People Organization (WPO), the women’s auxiliary of the P.P.P.   She had accompanied her husband on several of his State visits.

Mrs. Viola Burnham, the second wife of Prime Minister Forbes Burnham, had very active in politics as a young university student in Britain.  Her marriage to Burnham helped her to appreciate her early exposure to active politics.  She had also accompanied her husband on several State visits.  She was a founder-member and, first Vice- President of the Caribbean Women’s Association (CARIWA), an organization of wives of Caribbean Heads of Governments and female politicians.  The 1970s was a period of global advocacy for women’s liberation and Viola Burnham was at the hub of the women’s movement in Guyana.  She led Guyana’s delegations to congresses in St. Kitts-Nevis (1972); Grenada (1974) and, Trinidad and Tobago (1976), presenting papers on ‘The role of women in politics’ and, ‘Women on the move’.  She had also led Guyana’s  delegations to the World conferences of the United Nations decade for women in Mexico (1975), Copenhagen (1980) and, Nairobi (1985).

                In 1997, Mrs. Janet Jagan had complimented Mrs. Viola Burnham for fashioning the women’s arm of the P.N.C. into the most formidable political women’s organization and, electoral machine in the Caribbean.  Burnham had been elected the first Vice-Chairperson of the Women’s Revolutionary Socialist Movement, in 1967, the year of her marriage.  She was elected to the Chairmanship of the organization, nine years later.  In July 1991, Burnham boasted that she had never participated in an election campaign that her party had not won.  She stated that she had been on the campaign trail in 1968, 1973 and 1985 and the P.N.C. had won every time.

                The strength of Mrs. Yvonne Hinds, the wife of former P.P.P./ C President Samuel Hinds and Prime Minister since 1999 lay in community activism.  Her husband had been the Presidential candidate of the GUARD movement.  Her genesis in political activism was in the women’s social organizations in Linden.  She had been actively involved in the early childhood programmes and in custodial care of children.  When her husband was appointed Prime Minister  in the P.P.P./ C administration, Yvonne Hinds chose to continue her political activism by assuming the chair of the Guyana Relief Council (GRC).  This organization received a national award in May 2011- the Medal Service award.

                Mrs. Carol Corbin, the wife of Mr. Robert Corbin, the Leader of the P.N.C.R.-1G and the Parliamentary Opposition was effective at mobilization.  She promoted the image of the political party as one with a social conscience.  It was from this perspective that she insisted that the P.N.C.R. -1G  had a social responsibility to prepare and educate the electorate from childhood.  She organized successful literacy programmes.                  

Bibliography of Race and Race Relations in Guyana. By Nigel Westmaas

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF RACE AND RACE RELATIONS IN GUYANA By Nigel Westmaas Abraham, EAV “The East Indian Coolie in British Guiana” West Indian Quarterly, 2, 1896 Abraham, Sara “The Shifting sources of racial definition in Trinidad and Tobago, and Guyana: A research agenda.” Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol 24(6), Nov, 2001 Abraham, Sara “Nationalist Multiracial unity, its breakup and the rise of the “Party System”” (Chap 3) in Sara Abraham, Labour and the Multiracial Project in the Caribbean Lanham; Lexington books, 2007 Allsopp, Richard Language and National Unity. Georgetown: Department of Culture, Ministry of Education, 1997 Andaiye, “Race: a Persistent problem” Guyana Review May 1997 Andaiye, “Notes on the Plight of the African-Guyanese” n.d Andaiye, “Notes on Women and Ethnic conflict, Part 1” www.caribbeanpolitics.com Sept 26, 2004 Bartels, D. A, “Class conflict and Racist ideology in the formation of Modern Guyanese society” (unpublished PhD Thesis), University of Alberta, 1978 Bhagwan, Moses “Indian- African Crisis: the big issue in Guyana” Sunday Graphic January 23, 1972 Bhagwan, Moses : “Strategy for Co-existence: the way to unity and peace” Sunday Graphic, September 24, 1972 Bhagwan, Moses “Being Indian in Guyana: The challenges” unpublished paper 2006 Birbalsingh, Frank “Race, Colour and Class in Black Midas” Race & Class Jan-Mar2002, Vol. 43 Issue 3 Bisnauth, D East Indians in Guyana; 1891-1930. Leeds: Peepal Tree press, 2000 Bissessar, Ann Marie & Gaffar La Guerre, John, Trinidad and Tobago and Guyana: Race and Politics in Two Plural Societies. Lexington Books, 2013 Bolland, Nigel O “Pluralism and the politicization of Ethnicity in Belize and Guyana” in Struggles for Freedom: Essays on Slavery. Colonialism and Culture in the Caribbean and Central America, edited by Nigel Bolland. Kingston: Ian Randle press, 1997. Bronkhurst, Rev HVP Among the Hindus and Creoles of British Guiana London: T. Woolmer, 1888. Brown, Richard “On being white in America and Guyana” (Introduction by Martin Carter) in New World, no 32. Jan 21, 1966 Brown, Deryck, “Ethnic politics and public sector management in Trinidad and Guyana” Public Administration and Development Volume 19, Issue 4, October 1999 Cameron, Norman. The Evolution of the Negro. Reprint. 1929-1934. Wesport: Negro University press, 1970 Carter, Martin “This Race business” Thunder, September 10, 1955 Carter, Martin “The Race Crisis in British Guiana” speech at the Inter-American University of Puerto Rico, circa, 1964 Carter, Martin “Power, Race and Trouble” Unpublished, circa, 1965 Chan, VO “The Riots of 1856 in British Guiana” Caribbean Quarterly 16. 1970 Collins, B “Racial Imbalance in Public Service and Security forces” Race vii 1966 Colwick, Leon C M Bridgette M Johnson, “Race and health in Guyana: an empirical assessment from survey data” Caribbean Studies. Jan-Jun 2010, Vol. 38 Issue 1 Crawford, Marlene Kwok Scenes from the History of the Chinese in Guyana Georgetown: Demerara Publishers, 1989 Crookall, Lawrence “British Guiana: or Work or Wanderings among the Creoles and Coolies, the Africans and Indians of the Wild Country” London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1898 Cross, M “East Indian-Creole relations in Trinidad and Guiana in the late Nineteenth Century” in Dabydeen & Samaroo Across the Dark Waters Macmillan 1996 Cruikshank, J.G “Black Talk: Being notes on Negro Dialect in British Guiana with (Inevitably) a Chapter on the Vernacular of Barbados” Demerara: The Argosy Company, 1916 Davis, Harold “Race” Guyana Graphic, 1961 Depres, Leo Cultural Pluralism and Nationalist politics in British Guiana. Chicago: Rand McNally 1967 Depres, Leo “Ethnicity and Resource competition in Guyanese society”, in Arlene Torres and Norman E. Whitten Blackness in Latin America and the Caribbean: Social Dynamics and Cultural Transformations (Blacks in the Diaspora) Indiana University Press, 1998 Dev, R “The Indian Dilemma” Indo Caribbean World Vol 16 (3) 1998 Dev, R “Aetiology of an Ethnic Riot” Symposium on Civil Disorder Georgetown. GIFT 1998 Dev, R “State and societal Violence against Indians in Guyana: the Ethnic Security Dilemmas” Georgetown: GIHA Crime Report, 2002 Dev, R “Indians will have to stand up” ROAR July 15, 2002 Devonish, Hubert “Nature of African-East Indian contact in 19th century Guyana: The linguistic evidence” Seminar paper, Department of History UWI Mona 1991 do Harris, Brenda The Coloured Girl in the Ring: A Guyanese Woman Remembers. Maryland: Tantaria press, 1997 Drummond, Lee “The Outskirts of the earth: A study of Amerindian Ethnicity on the Pomeroon river, Guyana” PhD diss. University of Chicago 1974 Ellis, C “Notes on Power sharing” Guyana Commentary Vol 1 no 4 2001 Ellis, C & Phillips E “Power sharing for Racial Harmony” guanacaribbeanpolics.com 2001 Ellis, Clarence “Who are We?: An African Guyanese Agenda” Emancipation Vol 2 No 11, 2003- 2004 Ferkiss, Barbara & Victor “Race and politics in Trinidad and Guyana” World Affairs Volume 134 Summer 1971 Figueira, Daurius, The East Indian Problem in Trinidad and Tobago 1953-1962 Terror and Race War in Guyana 1961-1964 iUniverse, 2009 Fried, Morton ”Some Observations on the Chinese in British Guiana” Social and Economic Studies 5, 1956 Fraser, P “The Immigration issue in British Guiana, 1903-1913: The Economic and Constitutional origins of racist Politics in Guyana” Journal of Caribbean History 14. 1981 Garner, Steve Ethnicity, Class & Gender: Guyana 1838-1985 Kingston: Ian Randle publishers, 2008 Greene, J.E Race vs Politics in Guyana: Political Cleavages and Political Mobilisation in the 1968 General Election. Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of the West Indies, 1974 Gibson Kean, The Cycle of Racial oppression in Guyana. Lanham: University Press of America, 2003 Gibson, Kean Sacred Duty: Hinduism and violence in Guyana. Georgetown: Group five Inc, 2005 Gibson, Keane, “Racism and degeneration of Guyana” Caribbean Impact 2008 Gibson, Janice, “Hurudaia: River of Blood” Emancipation Vol 1 No 9, 2001-2002 Girdhari, Gary “Race: Does It Exist? Implications for Guyana's Future” Guyana Journal, February 2007 Glasgow, R. A Guyana: Race and Politics among Africans and East Indians. Springer: 1970 Gomes, Ralph C “Race, Class, and Politics in Guyana: The Role of the Power Elites” Blackness In Latin America And The Caribbean, Jan 1, 1998 Gopaul, Madan Politics, Race, and Youth in Guyana Edwin Mellen pr, 1992 Green, Hamilton From Pain to Peace Guyana 1953-1964 Georgetown: Tropical Airways, 1986 Greenidge, Carl Chapter 3: “The Ethnic Approach, 1865-1905” in Empowering a Peasantry in a Caribbean context – Case of Land Settlement Schemes in Guyana, 1865-1985. Kingston: The University of the West Indies Press, 2001. Halperin, Ernst “Racism and communism in British Guiana” Journal of inter-American Studies and World Affairs, Vol 7 No 1 Jan 1965 Hinds, David “The African Society for Cultural Relations with Independent Africa(ASCRIA): A Short History” Emancipation Magazine 1996-97 Hinds, David “Race and Political discourse in Guyana; A conversation with African Guyanese in the presence and hearing of Indian Guyanese.” Georgetown: Guyana Caribbean politics Publications 2004. Hinds, David, “Race and Democratic Transition in Guyana; the consequences of the 1992 Election” in Karran, Kampta Editor, Racial conflict resolution and power sharing in Guyana Offerings 19, February 2004 Hinds, David Ethno-Politics and Power Sharing in Guyana; history and Discourse. Washington: New Academia Publishing, 2010 Hinds, David “One must distinguish between Critique and Ridicule especially in Ethnic Environments” Stabroek News Jan 2 2010 Hintzen, Percy & Premdas, Ralph “Race, Ideology and power in Guyana,” Journal of Commonwealth & Comparative Politics Vol XXI July 1983. Hintzen, Percy “Colonial foundations of race relations and ethno politics in Guyana” History Gazette, No 65. February 1994 Hope, K & Maurice st Pierre “Ethnic political participation and cooperative socialism in Guyana; A critical assessment” Ethnic and Racial Studies 6 (4) 1983 Horowitz, Donald “Guyana and Trinidad: Nationalist beginning, ethnic endings” pp 311-349 in Ethnic Groups in Conflict. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985 Hoyte, D “Ethnic and Political victimization in Guyana by the PPP” PNC leader writes the press” Georgetown: PNC, 1996 Hubbard, HJM Race and Guyana: The Anatomy of a Colonial Enterprise Georgetown, November 1969 Ifill, Melissa “The roots of ethnic differentiation” Emancipation. Vol 2. No 15. 2007-2008 Jagan, Cheddi, ”Race, Class, Colour and Religion” Chap XIV in West on Trial Berlin: Seven seas publishes, 1966 Jagan, Cheddi & Ramkarran, Race and Politics in Guyana People's Progressive Party, 1974 Jagan, Cheddi “National and Racial unity: The Toronto speech of President Cheddi Jagan” Georgetown: Guyana information services, 1996 Jayawardena, C Conflict and solidarity on a Guyanese plantation. London: University of London, 1963 Jenkins, Edward The Coolie: his Rights and Wrongs. London: Strahn & Co 1871 Karran, Kampta “Bridging the racial divide in Guyana problems and proposals”, Offerings, Issue 14. West Bank, 1995 Karran, Kampta, Race and Ethnicity in Guyana : Introductory readings. Offerings, 2000 Karran, Kampta Editor, Racial conflict resolution and power sharing in Guyana Offerings 19, February 2004 Karran, Kampta “Racial conflicts in Guyana 1831-1905’ in Karran, Kampta Editor, Racial conflict resolution and power sharing in Guyana Offerings 19, February 2004 Key, I. “East Indians and the Afro-Guyanese: Village settlement patterns and intergroup relationships, 1871-1921” (Paper presented at the 4th conference of Caribbean Historians, Mona Jamaica, 1972) King, KFS “Some Economic and Constitutional Solutions to the Problems of African Guyanese” in Karran, K Offerings. Race and Ethnic Studies in Guyana Vol 4 Belle Vue, Guyana. 1998 King, Sydney Next Witness – An Appeal to World Opinion Georgetown: Reprint, 1999 Kissoon, Frederick “Ethnic Power and Ideological Racism-Comparing Presidents in Guyana” Paper, Annual conference, Guyana Historical and Research Institute , June 2010. Kwayana, Eusi “Racial insecurity and the political system”(unpublished), 1978 ________ “Race in the Guyana Revolution” (long essay, 1987) ________ “Guyana’s race problems and my part in them” Guyana-Caribbean Daylight, August 16, 1992 ________ “More than Survival: A View of the Indo-Guyanese Contribution to Social Change (Genesis of a Nation Conference: Pegasus Hotel May 1988) ________ “More than Survival: The Afro-Guyanese and the Nation” Genesis of a Nation Conference: Pegasus Hotel University Of Guyana & Guyana Commemoration commission(July 29-31, 1988) ________ “WPA has consistently fought for Ethnic Security for all” (Letter) Stabroek News, July 9 1998 ________ “I ask Mr. Dev to be careful in labeling people” Stabroek News, January 20, 1999 ________"The Search for Politics Across Party Lines 1953-1990 Sunday Stabroek, March 14, 1999 ________ “The Gift Report; Its Rights and wrongs”: (with new angles on inter-ethnic history) April 3, 1999 ________ “Common-sense about power sharing” Kwayana, Eusi Guyana: No Guilty Race. Georgetown: 1999 ________ “Why I Wrote “No Guilty Race” n.d ________ “Cycling to a Better Place – Eusi Kwayana on Dr. Gibson’s book” Caribbean Daylight, Nov 21, 2003 _________ “Diasporas in a strange land; Meeting, parting and Meeting again – Seeking hope in history” in Karran, Kampta Editor, Racial conflict resolution and power sharing in Guyana Offerings 19, February 2004 ________ The Morning After. Georgetown: June 2005 ________ “I strongly object to the appointment of Shri Gossai as an advisor on ethnic relations and culture.” Letter to Stabroek News, Jan 17, 2007 ________ “The first announcement had said that Shri Gossai would be an aide with responsibility for ethnic relations and culture. Stabroek News, March 24, 2007 ________ “Partition or Death’ does not ring a bell” Stabroek News, Feb 6, 2010 ________“There is no Guilty Race” Stabroek News Feb 24, 2010 ________”Still no publication produced to prove ‘partition or death’ allegation” Stabroek News, March 3, 2010 ________ “The International Year for People of African Descent signals a support of self- determination which must be genuine and must appear to be so” Stabroek News, January 22, 2011 ________”We can use the sharing of governmental authority to create a society in which people of any race, gender, age group or location do not feel left out” Stabroek News March 3, 2011 ________“Sultan Mohamed misdirected racist attacks” Kaieteur News, Sept 26, 2012 ________ “The PPP had the chance of a lifetime to heal the nation by using Article 103 to establish a government representing all the people” Stabroek News, November 26, 2012 ________”A Truth and Reconciliation Commission is not fit for one-party preparation or planning” Stabroek News, Feb 5, 2013 ________”Two cases of struggles in Guyana without racial conflict” Guyanese online blog Feb 27, 2013 Lall, GHK Sitting on a Racial Volcano (Guyana Uncensored) GHK Lall, 2013 Laurence, KO “The Establishment of a Portuguese Community in British Guiana” Jamaica Historical Review 5 1965 Lee-Loy, Anne-Marie “Kissing the Cross: Nineteenth Century Representations of Chinese and Indian Immigrants in British Guiana and Trinidad” in The Chinese in the Caribbean. Princeton: Markus Wiener, 2004 Lutchman, Harold A “Race and Bureaucracy in Guyana” Administration & Society, Vol. 4, No. 2 Aug 1972 Lutchman, Harold “Historical Perspectives of Race and the Public service in Guyana” History Gazette No. 54. March 1993 Majeed, Halim Forbes Burnham, National Reconciliation and National unity 1984-85 New York; Global Communications Publishing, 2005 Mangru, Basdeo”Hook-swinging in Mi-nineteenth Century Guyana” Guyana Historical journal Vols iv & v 1992-93 Mangru, Basdeo “James Crosby: Hero, protector, friend of Indians in Guyana” Indo-Caribbean Review 1 no 1 1994 Mangru, Basdeo “Race relations in the Indenture period” (Chap 6) in Basdeo Mangru The Elusive El Dorado: Essays on the Indian Experience in Guyana Lanham: University press of America, 2005 Mars, Perry “The Significance of the disturbances, 1962-1964” History Gazette No 70. July 1994 McKenzie, Herman I. “Race and class in Guyana (SE/33, Study encounter)” World Council of Churches, 1972 Menezes, Mary Noel “The Dutch and British policy of Indian Subsidy: A system of Annual and Triennal Presents” Caribbean Studies 13 1973 Menezes, Mary Noel British Policy towards the Amerindians in British Guiana 1803-1873 Oxford; Clarendon press, 1973 Menezes, Mary Noel ‘The winged impulse: The Madeiran Portuguese in Guyana - An economic, socio-cultural perspective” Guyana Historical journal Vol 1, 1989 Menezes, Mary Noel The Portuguese of Guyana: A Case Study in Culture and conflict. Gujarat: Anand press, 1992 Misir, Prem The Political Mass Media Racial Complex: A collection of Papers. New York; Diaspora University Press, 2002. Misir, Prem The Political-Mass Media-Racial Complex in Guyana University Press Of America, 2007 Misir, Prem Racial Ethnic Imbalance in Guyana Public Bureaucracies: The Tension Between Exclusion and Representation Edwin Mellen Pr, 2010 Moore, Robert James “East Indians and Negroes in British Guiana 1838-1880” PhD Thesis. University of Sussex. n.d Moore, Brian “The Social Impact of Portuguese immigration into British Guiana after Emancipation” Boletin de Estudios Latinamericnos y del Caribe No 19 1975 Moore, Brian Race, Power and Social segmentation in Colonial society: Guyana after Emancipation, 1838-1891 New York; Gordon & Breach, 1987 Moore, Brian Cultural Power, Resistance and Pluralism: Colonial Guyana 1838-1900 Kingston: Press University of the West Indies, 1995 Moore, JR A Handbook of the Causes of the of Non-Success and Degradation of the Negro Race in British Guiana Demerara; AC Taylor, 1874 Moore, R J “Colonial Images of Blacks and Indians in Nineteenth Century Guyana” in Brereton B & Yelvington K eds Colonial Caribbean in Transition. UWI, The press 1999 Nettles, Kimberly Denise “Home work; The Sexual division of labor in the households of African and East Indian Guyanese women” Journal of Comparative Family Studies XXVI (3) 1995 Nettles, Kimberly Denise “Race, Gender and Development: The Politics of Organizing "Grassroots" Women in Guyana, South America” American Sociological Association, Jan 1, 1997 Newman, Peter “Racial tension in British Guiana” Race Vl 3, No 2, may 1962 Newman, Peter British Guiana: Problems of Cohesion in an Immigrant Society. London; Oxford University press, 1964 Parris, Haslyn Electoral Conjectures And Governance In Guyana Trafford Publishing, 2011 Payne, Tommy “Race as a function of Class in Guyana: an Historical Perspective“ (unpublished paper) April 27, 1978 Pearson, J.G “Guiana’s Alien peasantry” Argosy January 16, 1886 Philips Eric “Moving Towards Democracy in Guyana: Shared Governance” Georgetown 2002 Potter, Lesley “Indian and African-Guyanese Village settlement Patterns and Inter-Group relationships, 1871-1921” History Gazette, No. 48, September 1992 Premdas, Ralph “Elections and Political Campaigns in a Racially Bifurcated State: The case of Guyana” Journal of interamerican Studies and World Affairs August 1972 Premdas, Ralph “Ethnic Conflict and Development: The case of Guyana” UNRISD discussion paper January 1992. Premdas, Ralph “Party politics and racial division in Guyana (Studies in race and nations)” University of Denver, 1973 Ramharack B “Consociational Democracy: A Democratic Option for Guyana” Caribbean Studies Vol 25 91-2) 1992 Ramharack B “The Failure of Indian leadership” The Jaguar committee for Democracy v 4 no 2 October 1992 Ramjattan, Khemraj “Relevance of Third Parties in race based politics: Case of Guyana” COP Convention on Jan. 14, 2012 Hillview College, Tunapuna Ramkarran, “Towards an understanding of the race problem” Education and Research Committee of the People's Progressive Party, 1963 Ramkertab, Rakesh, “The Wismar Report” Guyana under siege Ramnarine, T “The Growth of the East Indian Community in British Guiana, 1880-1920” D.Phil thesis. University of Sussex, 1977 Ramnarine, Tyran “East Indian political representation in British Guiana during the latter part of indenture, 1890-1917” Guyana Historical journal Vol II 1990 Rodney Walter “Race and Class in Guyanese Politics” (Fall 1978) Rodney, Walter “Immigrants and Racial Attitudes in Guyanese History” Postgraduate Seminar, Institute of Commonwealth Studies University of London. n.d Rodney, Walter “Subject Races and Class Contradictions in Guyanese History” Postgraduate Seminar, Institute of Commonwealth Studies University of London. n.d Rodney, Walter Chap 7 “Race as a Contradiction among the Working People” in A History of the Guyanese working People 1881-1905. Baltimore: John Hopkins press, 1981 Rodney, Walter “In Defence of Arnold Rampersaud” Georgetown; WPA, June 1982 Rodney, Walter “Race and Class in Guyanese Society’ in Caribbean Perspectives Vol 1, no 5, 1982. Rodney, Walter “The politicization of Race in Guyana” Third World Socialist. Nov 1984 Rodney, Walter “Racial Bias reflected in current textbooks for children” typescript. Walter Rodney Papers, Robert Woodruffe library, Atlanta university Center. n.d Rose, James, “The Repatriation controversy and the Beginning of an East Indian village system” Guyana Historical journal Vol 1 1989 Ruhoman, Peter Centenary History of the East Indians in British Guiana 1838-1938 Georgetown; East Indians 150th anniversary committee, 1988 Ruhoman, Joseph “The Creole East Indian” Timehri vol VII (third series) 1921 Ruhoman, Joseph “ A Negro-Indian Combine” The Conventionist Vol 1 no 9, January 1938 Cheddi Jagan, “British Guiana’s future; peaceful or violent?” 1963 Ryan, Selwyn Guyana at the Crossroads: Beyond Ethnic Paramountcy (more info) Scoles, Ignatius Sketches of African and Indian Life in British Guiana Demerara; Argosy 1885 Seecomar, Judaman Contributions towards the Resolution of conflict in Guyana Leeds: Peepal Tree Press, 2002 Seecomar, Judaman, “Local government and the growth of Inter-ethnic cooperation in Guyana” in Karran, Kampta Editor, Racial conflict resolution and power sharing in Guyana Offerings 19, February 2004 Seecomar, Judaman Democratic Advance and Conflict Resolution in post colonial Guyana. Leeds: Peepal Tree press, 2009 Seecharan, Clem Bechu: ‘Bound Coolie’ Radical in British Guiana 1894-1901. Kingston: University of the West Indies Press, 1999 Seecharan, Clem Mother India’s Shadow Over El Dorado: Indo-Guyanese Politics and Identity 1890s –1930s. Kingston: Ian Randle Publishers, 2011 Simms, Peter Trouble in Guyana: an account of people, personalities and politics as they were in British Guiana. Published 1966 Singh, Kelvin” Ethnic Hegemony and Problems of Inclusion in Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago: Retrospect And Prospect” Itinerario. 2001, Vol. 25 Issue 2 Singh, Tara & Dhanpaul Narine, “Power sharing in a Plural society: The case of Guyana” in Karran, Kampta Editor, Racial conflict resolution and power sharing in Guyana Offerings 19, February 2004 Smith, RT “Race and Political Conflict in Guyana “ Race Vol xii (4) 1971 Smith, RT “’ Living in the gun mouth: Race, Class and Political violence in Guyana” New West Indian Guide/Nieuwe West-Indische Gids 69,1995. St. Pierre, Maurice “Race, the Political Factor and the Nationalization of the Demerara Bauxite Company, Guyana” Social and Economic Studies, December 1975, v. 24, iss. 4 St. Pierre, Maurice “The 1962-1964 Disturbances in Guyana” in Susan Craig Edit, Contemporary Caribbean: A Sociological Reader St Augustine, 1981. Sukhdeo, I “Racial Integration, with special reference to Guyana” DPhil Thesis, university of Sussex, 1969 Sukhdeo, I “The Emergence of a Multiracial Society: the sociology of multiracialism with reference to Guyana” 1982 Swan, Michael British Guiana: Land of Six peoples London: Her Majestys Stationery Office, 1957 Tennassee, Paul Nehru, “Guyana The Race Problem 1965-1992” Guyana Journal. n.d Thakur, Rishi “Crime, Ethnicity and the Political impasse in Guyana” Transition No 30 2008 Thomas, Clive “The situation of African Guyanese in the Economy” Georgetown: ACDA 1997 Thomas, Clive “Problems of the African Guyanese: The economic situation.” Emancipation No 5. 1997-1998 Thomas, Clive “Revisiting Theories of Race and Class” in Kampta Karran ed Race and Ethnicity in Guyana. Georgetown; Offerings publications, 2000 Trotz, Alissa & Peake, Linda Gender, Ethnicity and Place; Women and Identity in Guyana. London: Routledge, 1999 Trotz, Alissa “Gender, Ethnicity and familial ideology in Georgetown Guyana: Household structure and female labour force participation reconsidered” in Patricia Mohamed Editor, Gendered Realities; Essays in Caribbean Feminist Thought. Kingston: University of the West Indies Press, 2002 Trotz, Alissa “Race-baiting only benefits two main parties” Stabroek News July 13, 2006 Wagner, Michael J “Rum, policy, and the Portuguese: Or, the Maintenance of elite Supremacy in post-Emancipation British Guiana. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 14(4) 1977 Wallace, E “British Guiana; The Causes of the Present Discontents” International Journal xixno 4 1964 Watson, D. and Craig, C Guyana at the Crossroads. London: Transaction Book, 1991. Westmaas, Nigel “Viewpoint: Faces of Racism” Guyana Review, May 1993. Westmaas Nigel “A Profile of African and East Indian Ethnic Associations in British Guiana” Stabroek News, May 13. 1999 Williams, Brackette “Stains on my Name, War in my Veins: Guyana and the Politics of a Cultural Struggle”. Durham & London: Duke University Press, 1991 Wilson, Stacey-Ann Chap 4; ‘Guyana the Uncooperative Republic” in (Wilson) Politics of Identity in Small Plural Societies: Guyana, the Fiji Islands, and Trinidad and Tobago Palgrave Macmillan; 1st Ed. Edition, 2010 MISC Arguments for Unity (WPA pamphlet) Janet Jagan speaks on Eusi Kwayana’s Statement on Racial Equality Guiana Graphic n.d Peoples Progressive Party, “The racialists of Guyana”, 1964 New World Associates, “Working Notes toward the Unification of Guyana. New World Quarterly, March 1963 Guyanese Indian Foundation Trust: Symposium on Civil disorder. Georgetown, Guyana 1998 Report of the British Guiana Commission of Enquiry: Racial problems in the Public Service (ICJ, 1965) in Readings in Government and Politics of the West Indies. Kingston: n.d National and Racial Unity: A New Beginning (speeches of Dr Cheddi Jagan) Georgetown: Guyana Information Service, 1996. Plan for Racial Equality approved. (At mass meeting, Bourda Green) Daily Chronicle, September 4, 1961 Ravi Dev’s 1989 federal solution “Civil War Diary (1964)” Emancipation Vol 2 no 12, 2004-2005 WPA: Affirmation on race (Dayclean) Dayclean Vol 16, No 17, Sept 19-Oct 3, 1992 “Corruption : party politics, challenging ethnic communities” Dayclean Vol 18, No 1, April 17, 1996 WPA: “Government of National Unity and Reconstruction 1979 “Homage to Hurudaia: 40th anniversary of the massacre is commemorated” (Son Chapman Tragedy Commemoration Committee) Emancipation Vol 2, no 12, 2004-2005 Conference on the Plight of the African-Guyanese. African Cultural Development Association. Georgetown: Guyana, 1997 Racial Attitudes of Africans and Indians in Guyana “British Guiana: Race War” Time Friday, June 05, 1964 “Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Disturbances in British Guiana in February 1962” London; Her Majestys Stationery office, 1962 “Indian economic power or an excuse for African Political Dominance” Jaguar committee for Democracy, Vol 4 no 1 Aug/Sept 1992 “King hits Jagan for Race Prejudice” Daily Chronicle, Jan 21, 1957 “King Drops Bombshell” Statement on Racial Equality Guyana Chronicle July 27, 1961 Kwayana Explains the Audrey Chase incident Weekend Post & Sunday Argosy Feb 14, 1971 ASCRIA chides Dr. Lewis on black Power Issue – Eusi Kwayana Sunday Graphic, Dec 19, 1971 Eusi Kwayana on Halim Majeed’s National Reconciliation, Caribbean Daylight, May 5, 2006 “Chinese at Hopetown Settlement Complain of Black People trespassing on their lands” (Archdeacon Gwyther to Government Secretary, 11 February 1897 in govt Secretary’s Office File No. 1080 Feb 1897) “People Question Race” Open Word January 30 No.349 1989 “PNC Playing Race” Open Word May 1 No.360 1989 “Race & Rape : Act of Brutality” Dayclean Vol 16, No 6, April 11-25, 1992.

Fort Nassau By Lauren Grant

Part 2: Notes Fort Nassau By Lauren Grant Fort Nassau, a 17th Century ruin, is one of nine gazetted National Monuments in Guyana. This edifice is located on the Right Bank of the Berbice River, 56 miles from its mouth. Like other countries which built Forts as modes of protection, British Guiana now Guyana, was no exception. The standard construction material for fort construction throughout the world during and before the 19th Century was usually of brick or stone. Some forts were originally constructed of timber then rebuilt with a stronger material. This was done with Fort Zeelandia located on Fort Island, 16 km from the mouth of the Essequibo River. Early records of Fort Nassau revealed that it was erected in 1627 shortly after the establishment of Berbice as a trading post by a private merchant, Abraham Van Pere. It was enlarged and improved in 1684. The Fort was captured in 1712 by Jacques Cassard. When commandeer Steven De Waterman arrived in the colony in 1712 he pronounced that the fort was “in bad repair and wanting renewal” as a result of the grave pillaging of the area by the French pirates. It was enlarged again and built of brick around 1734 and destroyed in 1763. This ruin which once held the seat of Government is now also known as the base from which the famous 1763 rebellion had its origins. Fort Nassau was finally abandoned in the late 18th century. One of the most important aspects of Fort Nassau, apart from the slave uprising, is the fact that it is the cradle of Christianity in Guyana. Historical records show that during the days of the Dutch occupation of Guyana, they brought the first Christian missionary to the country and the first Christian church was established there. This was the Dutch Reformed Church. The Dutch had left a considerable sum of money for the church but because of a brief lapse in activities the then British Guiana Government established what was known as the Lutheran Fund by an act in Parliament. Today, the foundation of the interior structure remains; these include the soldiers’ barracks, the main building which housed the higher ranked authorities, and a redoubt. There are also grave plots. . Some suggest that there is also the “Talking tree” of Fort Nassau, which was purported to have been used to send messages during the 1763 rebellion. The original fort was burnt by the French in 1712 but rebuilt by the Dutch; it was destroyed by order of the Governor, Van Hoogenheim in 1763 to prevent its capture by the rebelling slaves. The environs of Fort Nassau were recently enhanced with the erection of eight large signs. One depicts a Map and seven others are placed along the nature trail to guide persons to the individual sites. Each sign shows a brief description of the particular site with supporting images. These are, The Western and Eastern Graveyards, the “Court of Assembly Site”, The Warehouse, The Inn Steps, The Lutheran Church and finally, the Bridge. The Individual Sites: • The Lutheran Church The first Lutheran Church in Berbice was reportedly established on this site. Today, the iron sign still stands to symbolise the presence of what once was the location of the Church. • The Western and Eastern Grave sites The western grave site has five gravestones which are oriented almost parallel to the Berbice River. Only senior officials and their close relatives were buried there, between 1771 and 1789. Among those buried there, are two former Governor Generals of the Colony of Berbice. Some of the gravestones exhibit a crest. The graves situated at the eastern grave site have fewer decorations, drawing the conclusion that persons of lesser importance were buried there. One grave was that of a four year old child. • The Court of Assembly Site The remaining evidence of this building is the semi circular brick steps which may have led to the same facade of the building. • The Warehouse The remains of the Warehouse also known as the Barracks is the actual foundation measuring 23.2 metres by 72.7 metres long. • The Inn Steps The remains of this building are the two levels of brick steps which faces the Berbice River. • The Bridge This site has the remains of a brick bridge which had collapsed; in addition the bricks were looted to build ovens. The base of the bridge is easily recognisable. As recently as twenty years ago, this brick bridge was in fair condition, but since then, it has been a victim to severe erosion as a result of digging by bottle hunters and looting of bricks for building ovens. Throughout the years Fort Nassau was exposed to several attempts at preserving the original nature of the ruins. In addition numerous steps have been taken to promote the Fort as a source of cultural heritage, tourism and exquisite wildlife. The trails leading to the various sites at Fort Nassau are available to each visitor to explore and enjoy. This year we celebrate 250th anniversary of the 1763 Berbice slave rebellion for which Fort Nassau played a significant role. References Benjamin, Anna – 1998, Anthropology and Archaeology: Fort Nassau and the Van Wallenburg Thesis: A Re- Evaluation of the Evidence, pg. 8-22. Walter Roth Museum 1998. Hernandez, Lennox – 2011 June 12, Sunday Times: Fort Nassau, pg 23. Newman, Mark – 1991, Fort Nassau Archaeological Project 1991: A first Interim Report. Persaud, Nirvana – 2010, Monuments and Sites in Guyana: Fort Nassau, pg 8. National Trust of Guyana 2010. Singh, Herman – 1977, June 19. The Guyana Chronicle: Govt. restores historical Fort Nassau, pg 14. Wallenburg, Martin van – 1995, Journal of Archaeology and Anthropology: Sites of Fortifications and Administrative Headquarters of Early Dutch Colonists on the Berbice River, pg. 48-57.

Governance in an ethnically divided society: The Guyana case.

Chapter 1: Governance in an ethnically divided society By Aubrey Norton This paper gives conceptual clarity to the notions of governance and good governance. It then discusses the major problems facing Guyana as an ethnically divided society. It considers good governance as important to the democratic process. However, it is argued that the nature of the problems confronting Guyana demands a change in the political system to one based on power sharing if Guyana is to surmount its problems. It also discusses the People’s Progressive Party/Civic(PPP/C) and the People’s National Congress Reform positions on the power sharing issue before arriving at conclusions as to the way forward. Governance The concept of governance has been very much in focus recently because of ‘its capacity -unlike that of the narrower term “government”- to cover the whole range of institutions and relationships involved in the process of governing’ (Pierre and Peters 2000, 1). ‘Governance’ is however a broader term than ‘government’. It refers in its widest sense to the various ways through which social life is coordinated. Government can therefore be seen as one of the organizations involved in governance: it is possible in other words to have ‘governance without government’ (Heywood 2000, 19). Governance deals with all the actors involved in the governing and steering of society, it ‘means thinking about how to steer the economy and society, and how to reach the collective goals’ (Pierre and Peters, 2000, 1). The emphasis is on how the society is governed, the style and approach that are utilized in governing. The UNDP contends that: Governance can be seen as the exercise of economic, political and administrative authority to manage a country’s affairs at all levels. It comprises the mechanisms, processes and institutions through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, exercise their rights, meet their obligations and mediate their differences. (http://ww.undp.orgmagnet/policy chapter 1) Governance therefore focuses on the manner in which power is exercised in the management of the affairs of a country. It denotes how people are ruled, how the affairs of state are administered and regulated, a nation’s system of politics and how this functions in relation to public administration and law. Governance is seen as having a political dimension (Landell-Mills and Serageldin 1991, 304). If one accepts that governance deals with how society is governed, then to the extent that the problems to be addressed are systemic, improving or changing the way we govern will not be able to resolve problems that are rooted in the system. The resolution of such conflicts will demand both a change in the approach to governance, as well as a change in the system itself. It is for this reason that the ethnic problems in Guyana will have to be addressed both at the level of the system and at the level of governance. Although some theorists argue that the state’s role and consequently that of the government is decreasing in the governance continues in the main, to be responsible for governance. However, government’s role has not been static, ‘the role that government plays in governance is a variable and not constant … there are models of governance that are state-centred and some that are more society-centred”. (Pierre and Peters 2000, 29) Historically, governance in Guyana has been state-centred. Side by side with state centred governance has been the clamour for the establishment of a democratic society. The society therefore has been characterized by two tendencies. The first seeks to place emphasis on a key role for and even dominance of the state and tends to be advocated by the political party in government and its supporters. The second tendency seeks to shift Guyana from its state-centred nature to one that involves other key actors, especially civil society, in the governance process. This is generally advocated by the opposition forces and their supporters. However, there are situations, especially when the society is in a political crisis and the government needs a way out, where it compromises and is more disposed to the involvement of the wider society in the governance process. It is in this period that agreements are made and there is the manifestation of some amount of tolerance. However, in the Guyanese context agreement cannot be necessarily seen as progress since, ‘[r] ather than resolve conflicts, some accords merely serve to create new disputes’. (Rupesingh, 1996, 27) The importance of understanding these trends is that there exists both a movement towards state-centred and society-centred governance depending on where the political forces in the society find themselves vis-à-vis state power and the political state of affairs at the time: the tendency for those in opposition to emphasise society-centred governance. In the circumstance, there is no guarantee that if left to the political parties the society-centred approach to governance will prevail. In addition, since the position of the political forces changes or is not as stringent depending on where they find themselves vis-à-vis the state, there is need for change at the of the system to ensure that the resolution of Guyana’s ethnic problems is not left to the whims and fancies of the government and opposition, but that the system itself is conducive and suitable to the resolution of ethnic conflict. That all the political forces see the wisdom of society-centred governance while in opposition or when in crisis, since it serves either as a check against the abuse of power, or as a release valve for tension in crisis times, suggests that there is recognition that there is need for what in recent times has been called ‘good governance’ as a solution to Guyana’s problems. Good Governance Good governance is seen as promoting democracy. It is aimed at shifting power from the government as the only actor to other actors in society, thus making power more diffused, less prone to abuse, and in service of as many interests as possible. Like democracy, governance must be seen as being on a ‘continuum of shifting power closer and closer to the people’. (Norton 2002, 2) Good governance constitutes a paradigm shift in that it takes a political economy approach to the development of developing countries having for years dealt with politics as separate from economics. ‘The new perspective ... is basically a political-economy one that, in two spheres of activity in the peculiar circumstances of a large group of developing countries’. (Ferguson 1995, 161) Good ‘against the backdrop of the supremely confident triumphalism of the Western industrialised countries at the end of the 1980s. This triumphalism is linked to the apparent supremacy of market economy and liberal models of political democracy’ (Ferguson 1995, 159) and the proliferation of ‘democratisation movements that had been spreading in many developing countries’. (Ferguson 1995, 160). The foregoing suggests that good governance is contextual- it is the product of a particular national and international situation. To the extent that it is contextual it is not interwoven into the fabric of the political and economic system and thus can change with the prevailing national and international situation. In this circumstance it cannot be left to politicians’ commitment to good governance since those who govern tend to govern within the state-centred governance paradigm rather than based on democratic governance. That apart, good governance opens new vistas for addressing the problems of ethnicity in the Guyanese society in that it involves practices that are good rather than institutions run by unaccountable officials and the concomitant corrupt practices. Good governance is ‘participatory, transparent and accountable. It is also effective and equitable. And it promotes the rule of law’. (UNDP, 2). While good governance can contribute to the attenuation of ethnic problems in Guyana; it is questionable as a solution since we lack a democratic culture and many of the problems are rooted in the majoritarian nature of the inherited Westminister/Whitehall system (see Ghanny, 1994, for a comprehensive discussion). The Problem of the Majoritarian Political System The source of the problem is that these ethnically divided societies have inherited majoritarian political systems that originated i, and were created for, class divided societies and therefore are not appropriate to plural societies (see Lewis, 1965 for a thorough analysis of the limitations of the majoritarian system). The consequences of the majoritarian nature of the existing political system is that it is exclusionary. After general elections, there is a ‘majority’ government. The government then governs on its majority without being required to be responsive to the concerns of the other interests in society. This problem is compounded by the government operating on the assumption that winning an election is the most important aspect of democracy and thus governs in a manner that is based on the traditional ‘top down’ approach to governance. The policies and programmes adumbrated by government are diktat. There is no proclivity towards seeking consensus. This system excludes large sections of the society and raises the issue of the legitimacy of such a system in a plural society such as Guyana. The consequence of the ‘top down’ traditional approach to governance is that the actions of the PPP/C government which draws its support predominantly from the Indo-Guyanese community are seen as excluding a large section of the society. The excluded section is the African Guyanese community from which the PNCR predominantly draws its support. As a corollary, the political system itself produces a political division. This political division in a homogenous polity would remain political. However, in the Guyanese context where the society is plural and in which support for political parties is premised on ethnicity, the problem takes on an ethnic dimension and thus eventuates in both political and ethnic division and conflict. These political and ethnic division conflicts tend to reinforce each other and become inseparable. In the light of the foregoing, it is reasonable to conclude that Plurality is the principal political problem of most of the new states created in the twentieth century. Most of them include people who differ from each other in language or tribe or religion or race: some of these groups live side by side in a long tradition of mutual hostility: restrained in the past only by a neutral imperial power. (Lewis 1965, 66) However, in the postcolonial era there is no common enemy in the form of the imperial power. The departure of the imperial power has resulted in local political actors being responsible for the state in the postcolonial era. Problem of State Allocation of Resources The issue of state allocation of resources is one of the sources of conflict in ethnically divided societies. Guyana is a postcolonial ethnically divided society in which ‘the State overshadows the market as the controller and distributor of economic opportunity and resources’ (Rupesingh 1988, 205). With the state as the major institution responsible for the allocation of resources, ‘how the State allocates these resources will determine to a large extent, in a plural society, whether there will be cohesion and cooperation or conflict and protest’. (Norton 2002, 18)

September is 'Education month' in Guyana.

Guyana Institute of Historical Research Journal Volume 2: Education policy changes and economic crisis in Guyana in the 1970s.

Education  policy changes and economic crisis in Guyana in the 1970s

By
 Dwayne Benjamin

This article seeks to examine the debt crisis of the 1980s on the education systems in Guyana specifically as it relates to nursery, primary and secondary sectors.   In so doing, this article will be divided into parts; firstly, an examination of the education policy changes of the 1970s and secondly, an examination of the impact of the debt crisis on the education sectors from the late 1970s to the mid 1980s.
  The early 1970s can be considered as a period of changes and prosperity in the context of the post colonial development in Guyana.  In the aftermath of independence, the PNC led administration embarked on concerted efforts aimed at the decolonization and restructuring of the Guyanese economy and society along socialist lines.   Thus, the education sectors was seen as a crucial part in the process of decolonization.  The synergistic relation between education and national development within a post colonial framework was established as early as 1968, in a policy Memorandum on Education and it stated devising a national system of Education and in drawing up educational programmes for Guyana, the government is fully cognizant of the fact  that education plays a vital  role in the economic and social advancement of the country.  An educated citizenry is our best investment in progress and development.  "Some commentators argued that it was philosophical position that served as the catalyst for the priority given to educational policy changes during the early 1970s.  While this might be debatable in some circles, what was more certain was the fact that in the post independence era there was a growing discomfort in the upper echelons of the government as to the "pace and direction  of educational changes in Guyana".  This discomfort largely centered around the development agenda, the elite system that in general characterized the educational sectors.   In fact one of the main criticisms of the inherited education system was that it represented a mismatch between the expectation of education and development.   According to then education Minister Shirley Field-Ridley, "the need for the change in education from this vantage point is derived from the fact that the output of that type of education system did meet the vital requirement of the education for development.   The colonial political economy and the associated education system were simply not concerned with development.   Foremost among these changes was to introduce a policy for university by way of the constitutional Amendment Bill of 1976, this policy was later enshrined in the 1980 constitution as a fundamental right of citizens.   By virtue of the passing of this bill in 1976, all formal education institutions came under state control.  The policy of universal free education even though controversial, was symbolic of the important of the value attributed to education by the state.   Since, it resulted in close to 696 schools coming under the control of the state.   Most of these schools were privately financed or owned by church organization.  Secondly,  it also meant that fee paying was now heavily subsidized by the state.  Thirdly, this policy represented a bold step in the face of adversity at a time when from all indicators, it would seem that Guyana was about to experience an economic decline by the end of the decade.  Even more significant was the fact that this policy created the demand for increased education expenditures in the form of infrastructural investment, the cost of which had to be borne solely by the state.   Consequently, between 1970 and 1979 there were increases in the number of educational institutions in Guyana from 432 to 1,214 (primary school and primary tops were 758).  This increase was equally matched by increases in enrollment numbers and participation rates from a total of 162,076 to 182, 682.
  In addition to the policy of universal free education, a policy of state subsidization of education was also pursued.    This policy of subsidization of education resulted in increased expenditure by the state on the education sectors.  Tyrone Ferguson states, "the 1970s were marked by substantially high levels of public spending on education.   "This was reflected by increases in educational expenditures as a percentage of Gross Domestic Products between 1970 and 1980 averaging in excess of 5.3% as compared to 4.6% between 1966 and 1969.   Similarly educational expenditures as percentages of total government expenditures also increased during the same period from 13.7% in 1970 to 18.1% in 1978 and by 1980, it was almost 16%.    The policy of state subsidization in tandem with the universal free education meant that most of the financing for the education sectors was a matter for the state.   State subsidization of education was unique to Guyana during this period, since embarked on policies aimed at cost recovery programmes in the education sectors.
  A third significant change during this era had to do with the expansion of the curriculum at the secondary level.   One of the criticisms of the pre 1970s education system was restricted to a privileged class," mainly the academically inclined or person with interests in religious education.  The object of curriculum changes during this period as espoused by Minister Field-Ridley was to facilitate "the provision of the extensive range of skills that were needed for national development purposes".   In this regard, the modification of the curriculum beyond traditional "grammar school type education", to include a more "skill based type" by the provision of technical and vocational educational was seen as a necessary imperative.   As such, technical and vocational education was include as part of the curriculum in the secondary level.
  To support this new curriculum, three tertiary institutions of technical and vocational education, as well as five multilateral schools were established namely;- Department of Technical studies was established in Anna Regina secondary in 1970, the New Amsterdam Technical Institute in 1971 and, the Guyana Industrial Training in 1972, along with the establishment of multilateral schools at Linden, New Amsterdam, Bladen Hall, Anna Regina and, Ruimveldt.   This new policy approach to secondary education , not only provided an ideal solution to a crucial problem in the hitherto education system in persons would have been excluded or marginalized by virtue of not being academically inclined, but was critical in providing the necessary skills that were needed to support the development agenda of the feed, clothe and, house plan of 1972-1976.    Finally, effort was made to improve the quality and delivery of education at the end a total of $26 million dollars, financed mainly World Bank infrastructure loans was used to build two teachers training at the primary and, secondary levels.
  In the final analysis, it is important to note that while these policy changes might have impacted positively on the development agenda of Guyana during the early 1970s mainly by the expansion of opportunities to education, infrastural development, curriculum reforms, state subsidies and, state provision of opportunities, to education these developments cannot be sen as isolated, from the economic prosperity of the period.
  According to some economists, the period between 1970 and 1975 can be considered as a period of "phenomenal economic boom" in the Guyana economy.   Driven largely by favourable global commodity prices and increased production in the country major export commodities such as rice, sugar and bauxite.   Guyana experienced consistently rapid economic growth rates averaging 3.9 between 1970 and 1975.  Consequently, it is argued that much of the changes in the education sectors during this period.  However, the debt crisis of the late 1970s and early 1980s, had profound implications, for the education sectors in Guyana.