Dear Editor,
Two letters on me appeared in your August 15 editions; one by Mr Rakesh Rampertab, the other by Mr Annan Bodram. I will offer an approach to the latter here. First, Mr Boodram rejects my contention that Burnham practised the art of the sophisticated use of authoritarian power. Mr Boodram cited many examples of crude activities by Burnham. Unfortunately he overlooked the use of context. I will return to that below. I have consistently advocated the use of the revisionist methodology in researching and writing Guyanese history. It is long overdue and it is a goldmine waiting for us.
It has already started with Clem Seecharran (Sweetening Bitter Sugar: Sir Jock Campbell, the Booker Reformer) and Baytoram Ramharack (Against the grain: Balram Singh Rai and the politics of Guyana). This is only to name two authors. There are more. I am convinced that revisionist methodology would shed light on some incorrect interpretations we put on Mr Burnham’s long career and would reveal some abominable things PPP leaders including Janet and Cheddi Jagan did. I will attempt to apply revisionism in my answers to Boodram
Mr Boodram’s examples of Burnham’s crudities are poor. He could have searched harder. He cites Burnham’s boast that “our steel is sharper” to the WPA. I fail to see how that undermines my argument. He talks about opposition meetings being broken up. Again what that has to do with the subtle ways and finesse with which Burnham used power? As I write the Democrats’ town hall meetings in the US in support of health care are being broken up. Did McCain or Palin order the attacks? Can Mr Boodram supply me with the evidence that Burnham told his boys go and attack them? I saw many WPA meeting targeted by wild sugar workers in the late eighties. Did Janet and Cheddi Jagan give the orders?
Mr Boodram then made a mighty acrobatic leap. My essay opined that Burnham had intellectual finesse that helped him in masking the crude use of power (note the emphasis). I argued that he knew when to be bold, cruel, evasive, sophisticated and diplomatic. Mr Boodram’s rebuttal talks about collapse of hydro-power, collapse of the economy, shortage of foodstuff, etc. Those are policy-making areas. I fail, and continue to fail to see what this has to do with my thesis that Burnham was a smart leader whose intellectual qualities made his authoritarian descent a sophisticated journey rather than the nasty, unhidden one we see with Mr Jagdeo.
Let us return to context. I hope Mr Boodram has taken note that my analysis of Burnham was in the comparative context. I was comparing Burnham and Jagdeo and the use of intellectual skills to make undemocratic power appear democratic. Here is a section of my article that Mr Boodram needs to reflect on: “Burnham was brutal and cunning, so is Jagdeo, but Burnham had finessed methodologies at his disposal.” Obviously, there is much that is subsumed under the concept of cruelty. And Mr Burnham did resort to big stick methods. But I can offer Mr Boodram millions of examples where Burnham was skilfully cunning and outfoxed his opponents.
In the seventies, the PPP, Ratoon and other groups invited Black Power advocate Stokely Carmichael (later Kwame Toure) to come to Guyana. The talk was that Toure would brand Burnham as a pro-white post-colonial stooge. Toure came and warmed up to Burnham. The point? Burnham was astute enough to know Toure’s conceptualizations more than those who invited him. Secondly, for all the crudities Mr Boodram sees in Burnham, he was smart enough to know that he must have a sophisticated intellectual as his Foreign Affairs Minister.
Burnham’s keenness and strategic thinking as a leader stood out in how he handled power. Don’t ever think for a moment Mr Burnham would have had one or several of his ministers sexually molest young girls to cause him national embarrassment. It is not that Burnham cared about morality. His simple position is what you did can endanger my government so I don’t want you around. Finally, there is no way Burnham would have gathered a set of PNC advisors and tell them to choose a Vice-Chancellor for UG and on three occasions when they did that, Burnham overruled them and put someone that those advisors thought was hopelessly incompetent. He was a dictator, but he towers over Mr Jagdeo in terms of political manoeuvres.
Yours faithfully,
Frederick Kissoon
