Dear Editor,
Ms Dawn A Holder writes ‘Guyanese should be proud that they have broken the bondage of far distant powers’ (SN 21.11.08) meaning their complete break with Britain (including the Queen as constitutional head and an impartial judiciary).

In analyzing Ms Holder’s commentary, I suggest readers focus on the following questions: How did Guyana become a republic?  Was it legitimately obtained?  Did the people give their assent to the move executed by Forbes Burnham? What has life been like since becoming a republic 38 years ago? What progress has the nation made since independence (or attaining republican status)?  What has been the state of the judiciary since independence or since the break from the Privy Council?

Was Burnham’s decision to break with the Privy Council legitimate?  What were the real reasons for breaking with England or the Privy Council – was it to stop appeals challenging electoral fraud?

Was “Burnham really a thinking man” for ending judicial appeals to the independent Privy Council (which could not be manipulated) or was he a smart man as Dr Jagan once described him?  One should not forget that Burnham rigged elections and then used his magic majority to usurp powers to make Guyana a republic and to break constitutional conventions.  A serious probing study will provide the real reasons behind independence, republican status and the break with the Privy Council.

I also urge readers to look at the many decisions handed down by Caribbean courts that were overturned by the Privy Council on appeal over recent years.  In light of this and other facts, we should not rebuke those governments or people who don’t want to switch to the CCJ as their final court of appeal.  Some of the judges whose decisions were overturned by the Privy Council now sit on the CCJ.

Decisions handed down by Caribbean judges are often critiqued by the law lords and judges severely reprimanded.
With regard to how Guyanese feel about their break from Britain, I suggest Ms Holder go back to Guyana and ask them.  In a recent study I did, an overwhelming majority of Guyanese (who lived during colonial rule) said life was much better under the British.

I don’t think they considered the monarchy “an outmoded and regressive institution that has no real relevance to Caribbean people.”

I should note that Britain would like to rid itself of the dependency of her remaining colonies – they are costly to maintain. But Bermuda and Anguilla, among others, don’t want to break away from England because they enjoy the benefits of being tied to England.  They enjoy a high standard of living with a per capita income similar to that of America which is 30 times that of Guyana.  Many Guyanese live in Bermuda and Anguilla and will not trade their colonial status to return to free republican Guyana.
So I am not sure the complete break with Britain was a blessing or a curse.
Yours faithfully,
Vishnu Bisram