by Letroy O.M. Cummings
The villages were autonomous in their own rights, whether communal or proprietary. They were the centre of economic activities for the Blacks and the planters had to depend on them for labour. This became a strong political base for the Blacks as they demonstrated the capacity to mobilise against the planter class.
Despite this power, they lost out to the planters who applied the state coercive machinery to prevent the development of the communities to their fullest capacity. To this extent systems were implemented to frustrate the maintenance of infrastructural arrangements. On a continuum, the systems impacted negatively on socio-economic progress.
This resulted from three main factors that forced the burden of village maintenance on the villagers. According to Allan Young (1957), villagers were required to maintain (a) the overall drainage system, (b) access roads, dams and bridges, and (c) the public road wherever it passed through the village. The maintenance of the public road became law as early as 1839 and was a condition for the Court of Policy to grant land to slaves.
It follows therefore that from the very beginning of the village movement the planters adopted measures and pursued policies which were obstructive to community development and empowerment. This, however, did not deter the Blacks who were determined to unite their backs against the plantation system. For this reason Adamson (1972) wrote that “by the 1840s the planters had failed to retain the bulk of the freed slaves.”
The maintenance of village infrastructural arrangements was discouraging for a people who ventured out after over 150 years of bondage without any background in village administration. They lacked the experience in this form of administration as they were never exposed to such. Despite this, the villagers, according to Danns and Mentore (1988), were initially required to be involved in a system of local government administration consistent with the interest of colonial state.
While this had negative connotations, it can be seen as a very significant achievement for the Blacks. It stands as a great effort by the freed Africans to manage their affairs and so ensure that their expression of socio-economic and political independence succeed.
It appears that the villagers ran their affairs on the basis of voluntary self-taxation as was the case of Queenstown. However, their inability to upkeep the public road crippled the system and the villagers had to seek state involvement.
Consequently, a village system was imposed by the Colonial Administration in 1845 after an ordinance was passed. This created a system of compulsory rate payment which became burdensome to villagers. It was believed that the taxation system was designed to exhaust if not deplete the financial reserves of the Blacks. In this way they were driven back to the plantations to labour for wages to subsidise their earnings. It follows that they found less time to develop their villages. Even financial resource was difficult to access. As pointed out by Danns and Mentore (1988), they were incapable of accessing lending facilities; not even their own savings were available to them for borrowing. In cases where loans were made available, it was to the interest of the planters.
In addition to this, there were deliberate efforts to stifle the development process of the independent communities. It was found that the 1856 proposals discriminated against the emancipated class. No provision was made for social services for the villagers who expressed concern for the need for such facilities. These were reserved mainly for the planter class because, as James Rose noted, hospitals were located on the estates. These were inaccessible to the freed people, in whose favour the service was made available, it tended to favour the immigrant labourers who were imported to rescue the plantations from the depletion of labour.
The tendency to be preferential was a deliberate attack against the emancipated class, to frustrate development. Nevertheless, the purchase of villages and the development of village administration are two significant achievements we can applaud the emancipated people for.
Source: Stabroek News, Monday, August 22, 1994
