Lawyers and military men in politics throughout Guyanese history

SEPTEMBER 1, 2015 | BY CHRIS | FILED UNDER FEATURES / COLUMNISTS, FREDDIE KISSOON

In an editorial of July 26, 2015, the Stabroek News (SN) used the following words; “The political congnoscenti (sic) – not to mention the opposition, of course – have been watching very closely to see if the incumbents with military backgrounds are really adapting to the sometimes messy democratic culture of civilian life.” SN obviously meant the number of former soldiers who are in governmental authority. It is a bewildering observation because one is at a loss to understand why former military men who reverted to civilian life and are now in politics have to be watched closely to see if they can adjust to the complexities and difficulties of democratic governance. This article will conclude without any reference to the American political system because it is public knowledge throughout the world that the American presidency and Senate have been filled by many former military officers. What is so curious about former soldiers that we must monitor them when they retire and become politicians? Why must we have reservations because they once wore military fatigues? Why solders? Why not other professions? The American presidency and Senate have been filled with businessmen or moneyed people. Do people with money have to be closely looked at when they become governmental leaders? What about lawyers? Very few, if any, historians or scholars in political behaviour that currently studies Guyanese politics, would refuse to admit that Guyana has been a tragic post-colonial failure. Early last year, the Prime Minister of St. Vincent wrote a learned opinion titled “The Idea of Barbados.” In it he asserted that in the British West Indies, Barbados stands out as the region’s most positive landmark. In assessing the independent territories of the British West Indies, in that article, Guyana had less positive ratings than the other Big Two – Jamaica and Trinidad. When you look at the role lawyers have played in pre-and post-colonial Guyana and our failure to sustain national development then based on the facts should we not carefully monitor lawyers who are in control of the Guyanese state? Anti- colonial politics in Guyana at the start of the second half of the 20th century had a strong presence of lawyers – Daniel Debidin, Ashton Chase, Forbes Burnham, Llewellyn John, Jai Narine Singh. After the PPP split in the first half of the fifties, lawyers became even more influential; John Carter teamed up with Forbes Burnham, and Balram Singh Rai joined Cheddi Jagan. Interesting to note that the first serious challenge to Jagan’s leadership came from a lawyer Balram Singh Rai and for Burnham, it was another lawyer, Llewellyn John. After President Burnham died, he was succeeded by another lawyer, Desmond Hoyte. When President Hoyte died, the new leader of the PNC was yet another lawyer, Robert Corbin. The main challenge to Corbin for the presidential candidacy for the 2005 election came from yet another lawyer, Winston Murray. Two lawyers formed the Alliance For Change – Khemraj Ramjattan and Raphael Trotman. The four top names in the Alliance For Change are all lawyers – Nigel Hughes, Khemraj Ramjattan, Moses Nagamootoo and Raphael Trotman. The two most influential persons in the AFC based on de jure authority after the President are two lawyers – Joseph Harmon and Moses Nagamootoo. One of the four founding fathers of the Working People’s Alliance was a lawyer, Moses Bhagwan. How has Guyana done with this profusion of attorneys after fifty years of Independence? I think the record is hardly impressive. So why must we select former soldiers for close supervision when they get elected to office? Surely, they would have been out of fatigues a long, long time. Mark Archer retired from the GDF many moons ago and worked as a civilian in the US. Joseph Harmon became a lawyer years ago. But it is David Granger who needs special mention. If he is 70, it means that he left the army a long time ago. After leaving army life, Granger got a history degree then went on to a higher degree in International Relations. He started up a monthly social/political interest magazine titled “Guyana Review.” He authored and edited several scholarly books. Mr. Granger was a fixture on the symposium circuit of the Guyana Historical and Research Society. Each year he turned up at the annual conference of that organization. If I had to classify Granger before he became President, I would put him down as a practicing academic The perspective that sees the many former soldiers in the present government as military men who haven’t lost their earlier regimentation is very questionable. That is an unfair assessment. What is wrong with lawyers and former soldiers in government?