Dr Jagan was not a communist

Dr Jagan was not a communist.

Dr. Jagan was not a communist, and any attempt to place him in a communist camp is a misunderstanding of the ideology. Dr. Jagan was a Marxist.

Marxism is the foundation for Communist states, therefore all Communists are Marxist but not all Marxist are Communists. Marxism deals more with liberation and addressing the plights of the poor and Communism deals with the misguided concept loosely associated with government and equality.

Many of Dr. Jagan Marxist ideas were incorporated into his New Global Human Order which was passed by the United Nations General Assembly on the 22^nd of November 2002. Dr. Jagan called for a New Global Human Order in his speech at the World Summit for Social Development in 1995.

Even politicians get this mixed up, intentionally or unintentionally … you decide.

Clive Thomas said “In particular he (Dr. Jagan) also applied the "official" thesis of Soviet communism about the nature and policies for Third World societies to Guyana. Thus, he was a strong upholder of the ""non-capitalist path of development." (Monthly Review Press, 1988)

In reality Dr. Jagan did not adopt the "official" thesis of Soviet communism, but rather the Soviet communism adopts the Marxist thesis.

The New York Times reported Dr Jagan said, “I was a Gorbachev even before Gorbachev, in the sense of what we were doing and not adopting the traditional dogmas of Marxist parties," of course referring to Mikhail Gorbachev who granted personal freedoms to the people of Russia and orchestrated the collapse of the Soviet Union which was held together by Communism.

US President John F. Kennedy denied accusations that the US was meddling in the affairs of Guyana. He stated: “The United States supports the idea that every people should have the right to make a free choice of the kind of government they want. Mr. Jagan, who is recently elected Prime Minister in British Guiana, is a Marxist but the United States does not object because that choice was made by honest election, which he won.” (CJ Research Center 1999).

“Jagan is not a Communist but rather a naïve London School of Economics Marxist filled with charm, personal honesty and juvenile nationalism” according to Schlesinger (JFK Special Assistant) in his book: A Thousand Days: John F. Kennedy in the White House.

It is also fair to note that U.S officials did call Dr. Jagan a Communist, many in secret (that later became declassified). It is also very important to note that the U.S was in a red scare and suffered from McCarthyism only a few years earlier where innocent people were persecuted after being accused of being a Communist. The term McCarthyism got its name from Senator Joseph McCarthy who led the witch hunt against those so called Communists.

Undoubtedly many within the old PPP were Communists, including Mrs. Jagan (who later gave up these ideas as was proven by her term as Executive Leader), but Dr. Jagan is a Marxist.

The greatest proof that Dr. Jagan was not a communist come from one of his quotes at Jagan.org where he said, "The word “Communism” means different things to different people. This explains why I have consistently refused to answer “yes” or “no” to the question. The term Marxist is a more apt description of my position."

Thank you,

Asif Mohamed

CPG needs to be reexamined

I urge Minister Rohee to reexamine the CPG (Community Policing Group) programs and congratulate him in acknowledging there is some disconnect between CPGs and the community they serve.

Under careful analysis one would find CPG to be a flawed concept that would lead to disconnect among the communities they serve (which is happening right now) and predict they would also be disconnected from the Govt they serve.

CPGs can only work if they are governed by a strong law enforcement body, and if there is a strong law enforcement body we would not need the CPG as it exists today. We would only need bridges between the community and the Police, therefore making every law abiding citizen part of the CPG.

CPG can only work if they are given a lot of support financially and structurally, also lots of training. Again those are valuable resources that the legitimate law enforcers; the police are competing for and deserve.

I am not aware of anywhere else in the world where CPG is being used in the same manner we are today in Guyana; sure some might point to CPG implemented in the US and the Caribbean, but that is in collaboration with a strong law enforcement structure. The GPF desperately needs restructuring before we can address CPGs. I would not go far enough to suggest this is a premise for civil war because the needs of Guyanese have risen beyond the physiological level; however CPG is an avenue that will lead to the abuse of legitimate power.

I am sure CPG have worked in some areas and provide a valuable service to those residents, however it is a poor substitution for legitimate and responsible law enforcement. I would also like to thank those who are members of CPGs and continue to fight the good fight. I encourage you all to demand reforms within the Guyana Police Force, for we are all members of our own CPG.

Asif Mohamed

The myths about a shared government

Lately we have been hearing a lot about shared governments, without any explanation what is shared Govt. What the writers mean when they mention the term shared government?

Most democratic countries have shared government, with the exception of the communist states. Cuba is one of those states where there is democracy (technically) but no shared government.

The U.S.A form of shared government is Federalism, which was a flaw in design by the founding fathers and a last resort to keep the states from breaking apart and collapse the United States of America before its creation. The only Politician I am aware of in Guyana who is pushing for Federalism is Ravi Dev and I have a strong feeling, that’s not the version of shared government recent and past letter writers are talking about.

The Guyanese system is very simple, all the parties put forward their party political platform and the people go out and choose which platform they like best. Eric Phillips quoted Dr. Jagan as saying “if the PPP were to put a broom up as its presidential candidate, the PPP would still win”, without quite understanding the fundamentals of Guyanese politics. In Guyana the Presidential Candidate is not as important as the Party Platform. If the party put forward a strong platform, that party will win regardless of the presidential candidate and Dr. Jagan did had a lot of confidence in the PPP.

After the people approve the party platform by popular vote, the winning party gets to choose members of their government to carry out the party promises and indirectly carrying out the will of the majority. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Any attempt to use “share government” within the executive branch would disrupt democracy and go against the platform choose by a majority of the Guyanese people.

At the start of my letter I said that Guyana does have a shared government and that occurs in parliament where parties’ representation is proportional to votes gained. The members of parliament would be the equivalent to the American senators and congressmen, while the Guyanese ministers would be the equivalent to the Americans secretary (Secretary of Defense, State etc).

Anyone who understand the way the systems work would have a very hard time calling for “shared government”, because it is not only impractical but its also undemocratic in this case. Enemies of democracy you have ruined this land once and your scams shall never work again.

Thank you,

Asif Mohamed