Khemraj and Ramsaroop should conduct a field survey on opinions of Guyana’s rulers

Dear Editor,

Although a large number of people take issue with some of the points made by Messrs Tarron Khemraj and Gerhard Ramsaroop in their missive ‘Aspects of Burnham’s vision still relevant’ (SN, Jul 11), the writers must be applauded for stating a position and proceeding to defend it with data (examples of Burnham’s achievements), unlike some other writers who make unsubstantiated claims and descend into polemics and personal attacks.

Their latest writing has the trait of academia and it is a joy to read, though I find many holes in it. It is not clear from the writers what the vision of Burnham was, because in whatever way it is defined or stated, it involved a racial perspective and victimization against non-supporters, and destruction and the political murders of opponents who posed an imminent threat to the PNC regime. The writers should clearly have spelt out Burnham’s vision. In my conversations with people who knew Burnham well and engaged him regularly, they feel he failed to attain any meaningful aspect of his vision and they largely see him as a failure given there were serious problems with several of his policies and programmes. However, his supporters admire him out of ethnic loyalty and that was expected given the racially divided nature of our society.

I know both writers, former PPP youth activists, quite well from my decades of political struggle in New York and Guyana, and I have no doubt they mean well for Guyana and are seeking various ways to make a meaningful contribution to society. They are seeking to change our politics, including putting pressure on the ruling PPP to reform its ways. I wish them well in their endeavour and encourage them to continue to pen their views. However, I note that their recent letters need more introspection for objectivity and deeper analysis, as some readers feel their recent writing is heavily anti-government and lacks balance.

In order for Khemraj and Ramsaroop to make a stronger case on aspects of Guyana’s governance, I believe some kind of field study (in addition to hard data) would help to augment their argument. I happen to have had such conversations with several businessmen; the nation would find the views of the business community and the population at large on their past and current leader most interesting. I encourage the two writers and others to pursue such a study so we get to know how people view their leaders.

While pointing out what they consider some positives of both former dictators, Forbes Burnham and Desmond Hoyte, the writers should have balanced their argument by pointing out some of the indisputable negatives (not in contention) of both – like “slo fyah/mo fyah” (of Hoyte); ‘who mined the gold/take back yuh gold’ (of Burnham), etc. Also, in order to present a more balanced perspective on both leaders, they could have interviewed or surveyed people who experienced the rule of all of our rulers for a cross comparison.

In my most recent field interviews, people who engaged both Burnham and Hoyte revealed the frustration and exasperation of both rulers to make their supporters become successful farmers, entrepreneurs, managers, etc. I gather from those I interviewed, both were very harsh on their supporters towards the end of their rule, practically giving up on attempts to change their way of life.

In one particular case, a businessman revealed that Burnham used obscenity (in the businessman’s presence) against his supporters for their lack of work discipline. An elderly pandit said Burnham chastised a worker for coming late to work telling the worker “Pandit… came all the way from the Corentyne to see me and he is on time and you came from nearby and you are half an hour late…” I should note that in my conversations with many Guyanese over the last week, some examples of what the two writers consider as “positives” are viewed “negatively” by victims of the two rulers. For example, it was pointed out that while the Corentyne main road was upgraded (with IDB funds) under Burnham’s tenure, there was massive corruption and Berbicians (who generally support the PPP) had to pay three tolls while the Linden/McKenzie highway (that benefited PNC supporters), about the same stretch of road as the Corentyne, had no toll. An explanation is needed why Corentyne residents (most of whom are productive small scale farmers and hard-working laborers) were so heavily tolled while supporters in PNC strongholds were not tolled.

The writers tell us a penetrating analysis is needed to determine whether the positives and negatives of the two late rulers resulted in a net loss or net gain to society. Such a study should be encouraged. Every ruler (democrat or dictator) has had their positives and negatives. While the writers pointed out some of the positives of both Burnham and Hoyte, there are a compelling number of negatives that damaged the reputation of both late leaders that need serious analysis to present a balanced perspective of their role in development (or lack thereof) of the nation.   For some rulers, like Dr Jagan or Mrs Jagan, it is generally believed their positives far outweigh their negatives providing a net gain to society. For others, like Burnham and Hoyte, people feel their negatives imposed a heavy burden on society. A balanced, objective analysis, supported with data, on the various periods of governance of our rulers would help us to form a conclusion about the net gain or loss of each ruler.

During my presence in Guyana earlier this month, I conducted a survey on various aspects of governance. People (Indian businessmen in particular) gave glowing commentaries on Hoyte. And there were many unpleasant comments about Burnham. Burnham was not seen as a nice, compassionate ruler who cared for the common man. Hoyte is praised by the Indian business community for opening up the economy and divesting state enterprises as well as for restoring aspects of democratic governance, albeit under pressure. Most people have virtually nothing positive to say about Burnham and are not supportive of any of his visions. Dr Jagan and Mrs Jagan’s incorruptible honesty and integrity were praised while Bharrat Jagdeo was applauded for the vast expanse of infrastructural development Guyana experienced after 2000. Of course, they were also critiqued.

May I suggest and encourage the two writers, and others as well, to conduct a field survey among the population to find out the peoples’ perception of the various rulers who governed us from 1957 till now, so we form an objective conclusion on each one.

 

Yours faithfully,
Vishnu Bisram