Individual and collective moral and political wisdom is not plentiful in the People’s Progressive Party (PPP), or, for that matter, in contemporary Guyana. Here we have a party that in its darkest hour could have depended on Cuba; that for decades has been unjustifiably obstructing the proper development of democracy in Guyana and in conflict with international law supporting the imposition of democracy in Cuba by the unilateral use of force!
What a shame! But one must also accept that the pressure on the PPP must have been enormous, for it could not have forgotten that since the 1950s, in the face of myriad challenges, Cuba has been its most steadfast friend. For example, in his ‘The West on Trial’, Cheddi Jagan had the following to say about the 1963 80 days strike and associated protests that were encouraged by the US and their local allies against his government:
‘Without their {Cuba’s} help of nearly $100,000 per week for strike relief, the strike would have collapsed in a couple of weeks. And without the help of the Cuban government, which supplied us with kerosene and gasoline, we would have been forced out of office. – When the Cuban tanker arrived, there was only one day’s supply left in the storage tanks of the Electricity Corporation, and the emergency supplies of the police were running low.’
No one in their right mind would argue that the PPP should not be very mindful of the internal and external political positions taken by the United States government. This has historically been the position in Guyana, and given extant unpredictable nature of US politics is even more necessary today.
Forbes Burnham came to government with US support in 1964, won independence in 1966, and it was only after much regional and international manoeuvring preparing the ground, that in association with Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago and Barbados, in 1972 in the face of US hostility Guyana was able to open diplomatic relations with Cuba.
In his ‘To Survive Sensibly or to Court Heroic Death: Management of Guyana’s Political economy 1965-1985’, Tyrone Ferguson claimed that it did no tmatter what the PNC said or did ,it always took into consideration the possible positions of US governments.
There is much truth in 19th century British Prime Minister Lord Palmerston’s contention – which now appears to be in vogue – that in international relations, ‘We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.’ Sadly, the PPP’s democratic-centralist dictatorial hierarchy is now scampering to hold events supportive of Cuba, suggesting that its is not in tune with its government!
Of course, this increases ones’ obligation to ask how the PPP found itself in a position where even the collective protective cloak of the Caribbean Community was insufficient to prevent it from endangering the existence of the international rule-based system that is essential to the peaceful and autonomous development of small states, and the long-standing position of the Caribbean as a democratic zone of peace?
The simple answer is that Guyana is unlike other Caricom countries. International politics is usually the reflection of internal relations and the PPPs has become extremely vulnerable in the international arena because its backwards internal autocratic behaviour has left it trapped in a racial ethnic context that it has historically sought to exploit rather than resolve. This has led to its mindlessly burning important strategic bridges and thus destroyeing available options.
Having been closely associated with the situation in Northern Ireland and the development of the 1998 Good-Friday Agreement, the Joe Biden Administration knew that the ethnic situation in Guyana could be democratically resolved if there was the political will. Biden’s foreign policy was rooted in the notion that the existence of a rule-based international democratic order was essential and that as such there is a major struggle globally between democracy and autocracy. The Biden government consistently prodded the PPP to become more open and political/ethnically inclusive by paying public servants better, reducing corruption, etc.
Determined upon ethnic dominance, the PPP did not take kindly to such prodding and so encouraged its internal and external cadres to support the Republican party during the 2025 elections. As a result, immediately upon the Republican victory, a huge billboard – which after a few days was hurriedly dismantled after its implications became visible – was hoisted in Georgetown, congratulating President Donald Trump on his victory.
‘American power runs through democratic institutions that outsiders can sometimes influence. Allies can lobby Congress, mobilize firms, shape media debates, and logroll with other U.S. partners. They may not win, but they can play’ (Foreign Affairs: ‘The Middle Power Delusion’ 25 May,2026). By hubristically becoming directly involved in US partisan politics, the PPP has quite unnecessarily entrenched itself on one side and thus has seriously undermined its and Guyana’s capacity to ‘play’!
The leadership of the current regime might feel more comfortable with the Republicans in government, but do they appreciate what their action meant for Cuba. From a positive standpoint, competitive democratic contexts tend to put pressure on regimes to not become involved in wars and certainly not in ‘forever-ever’ wars. On the other hand, in some situations wars, even involving the deliberatel bombing of people, can be interpreted by the home population as a show of leadership/strength and thus contribute to improving support for the regime. It was suggested that this was partly what motivated President Bill Clinton to bomb Kosovo in 1998.
Indeed, after the recent successful kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela, for a fleeting moment President Donald Trump had a boost in popularity that might have encouraged his Iranian over-reach. Florida is electorally important to the Republicans, and a sizable proportion of its population would love to see the back of the current regime in Cuba. The mid-term elections in the USA are upon us, and the Republicans are not doing too well: thus Cuba might well present a must-do opportunity.
I argued recently that developments in Cuba have resulted as much from initial faulty historical ideological conceptualisation as from the surrounding political and economic pressure under which for decades Cuba has had to survive and which did not leave sufficient space for it to experiment with implementing the kind of reforms that are necessary to truly fulfil its socialist agenda. In our times, capitalism is not inevitable, and maybe not desirable in its current form. (Mattei, Clara -2026 – ‘Escape from Capitalism: An Intervention,’ Simon & Schuster).
That said, there is no doubt that something needs to be done to address the longstanding issue of autocracy/democracy in Cuba, but it should be done within the international rule-based system and not by the use or threat of force and war.
The existence of huge financial resources does not help one to optimally manage a country with the level of socio/political alienation that exists in Guyana. Neither Cheddi and nor Janet Jagan denied this, but their solutions were miles apart. Janet said it all the time: ‘we are doing the best we can in the circumstances.’ Failing to grasp like the current regime, that given her positioning, her attitude was a fundamental aspect of the negatives contained in her circumstances.
During the public service strike just after the PPP took government in 1992, confronted by not being able to convince the public service trade unions that the existing International Monetary Fund agreements made higher public service increases impossible, Cheddi Jagan also rested his case by concluding that he had done the best he could.
But in terms of public administration in Guyana, he surprised everyone when he said, ‘give them the books;’ i.e. let the unions investigate the government records.’They were given the books and did find some additional resources, but the point to note here is the fundamentally different approaches to governance: one is autocratic and dismissive: the other was ultra democratic.
Globalisation and resultant deindustrialisation, immigration, etc., within competitive Western democracies have resulted in localised clashes of civilisations and the development of structural political elements not unlike those existing in Guyana. I quoted Gordon Brown a former British Prime Minister before: ‘To build prosperity and tackle poverty across the whole UK we need to change not just who governs but how we are governed.’ (December 2022 tweet).
