OW! DOC.

OW! DOC.

When I read this passage in The West on Trial, I had to stop.

“Ow! Doc.”

These are Cheddi Jagan's own words, written in his account of the political struggles of British Guiana. He describes people in the opposition who, in his view, “flirted with the PPP” but were not prepared for the discipline and commitment demanded by a grassroots political movement.

Then comes the line that really catches me:

“Concerned more with positions than policies and programmes…”

Ow, Doc!

That sounds like a political argument that goes far beyond the personalities of 1950s British Guiana. Jagan was drawing a distinction between people seeking positions and people committed to policies and programmes.

And then he names Debidin.

That makes me want to know more.

What exactly had taken place between Cheddi Jagan and Daniel Debidin? What political circumstances caused Jagan to place Debidin among those he considered opportunistic? Was this simply Jagan's political interpretation of his opponents, or was there a deeper struggle over leadership, political organization and the future direction of British Guiana?

These are questions that history should not bury.

I am particularly struck by Jagan's description of the grassroots party—a party demanding “loyalty, hard work and convictions.” Those words tell us something about the political organization Jagan believed he was building.

But they also raise another question:

What happens to a grassroots movement when the struggle for political positions becomes more important than the principles that created the movement in the first place?

That question is not merely about Cheddi Jagan, Debidin, or the politics of British Guiana.

It is a question about political movements everywhere.

So, once again, when I came across this passage on page 109, my reaction was simple:

Ow! Doc.

You said it yourself.

"In the ranks of the opposition were many opportunist elements who, like Debidin, flirted with the PPP. They were not particularly anxious to have a grassroot party such as ours which demanded loyalty, hard work and convictions.Concerned more with positions than policies and programmes, they wanted a grouping like the defunct Labour Party with positions allocated by arrangement at the top."

Ow! Doc.