Dear Editor,
Guyana and Singapore started at fairly similar points of economic development in the early sixties. Guyana had the advantage of far greater resources and a smaller population base. Today, Singapore is a developed nation and economic powerhouse while Guyana paddles around in the gutter economically. This is one topic Burnham’s defenders, (or Jagan’s for that matter) never raise. Both Lee Kuan Yew and Burnham got power through the support of the West. One was smart enough to milk that Western support by establishing a capitalist system and in doing so obtaining massive Western economic aid and investment. The other went in the opposite direction, pursuing socialism, failing to capitalize on the close Western support he enjoyed and continuing to fail in heeding the lessons from Singapore’s rise in the sixties and seventies. Closer to home, Trinidad and Barbados were prime examples of how to profit from the West during an ideological war.
For all his incredible book knowledge, academic intelligence (Burnham was unbelievably academically gifted), opportunism and cunning, Forbes Burnham was profoundly challenged where economics was concerned. His intelligence, opportunism and cunning were only applied in manoeuvering for power. They were not applied in seizing on opportunities for the economic welfare of the entire nation.
I will maintain that this misstep and missed opportunity by Burnham is one of the worst strategic decisions taken in this nation’s history. Burnham’s refusal to take the Lee Kuan Yew approach led to socialism being applied to an economically and industrially unprepared Guyana with disastrous consequences. Burnham not only missed a great opportunity to alter Guyana’s post-slavery economic degradation and gloom, he lost a grand political opportunity to utilize a capitalist system to politically and electorally win over naturally capitalistic Indians from the PPP on the foundation of the PNC’s economic success. The PNC’s non-African support would have increased with climbing prosperity. That would have transformed the PNC and PPP into genuine multi-ethnic movements. The need to rig elections would have diminished with economic prosperity.
The fundamental problem was that Burnham was incapable of seeing Guyana from this perspective for several reasons. He was egocentric and megalomaniacal to the core. That core selfishness, vanity and power drunkenness prevented him from envisioning Guyana beyond these narrow prisms. His predilection with self above everything else naturally meant he could not see national development beyond his own internal power demons and fixations.
An entire country was robbed of a golden opportunity because of these tragic shortcomings. Burnham preferred socialism because it allowed for easier domination of the society by the government. Socialism made the state into the primary employer and economic facilitator. It centralized power. Capitalism with tens of thousands of local and foreign entrepreneurs meant diluted power. Burnham could not live with diluted power. He was an absolutist. Socialism also provided an avenue to exercise legal domination.
It was a measure to ensure the African constituency was captive, loyal and subservient to Burnham in poor-paying state employment.
Burnham saw economic control of Africans as vital to his power ideals and he achieved it.
When socialism expectedly collapsed, Africans had little capital to invest or successfully compete in Hoyte’s market-driven economy. Add PPP marginalization of Africans and its enrichment some of its own supporters through a better-paying parallel contract worker public service and the economic tragedy of the African people masterminded by Burnham for his own rank personal aggrandizement is unveiled. I keep harping on Guyana under Burnham with far greater resources achieving half of Singapore’s growth with Singapore’s capitalist model because I believe corruption and mismanagement would have remained features of a capitalist PNC Guyana.
The calamity of this country lies in the catastrophic decisions made by horrible leadership. Jagan would have done exactly as Burnham did if he came to power in 1964. Looking back, Peter D’Aguiar was the best option for Guyana economically. He ran a most successful business in a failed economy. With Guyana’s resource base, he had the ability to outshine Lee Kuan Yew.
However, the disease of race would have never given him the light of day. It is the same disease that has kept this country in a profound and ignorant darkness, some would argue, deservedly so. That is the difference between the Americans and Guyanese. In 2008, many white Americans voted for an African-American who they felt would deliver them economically rather than a white American who they feared would derail their economic interests. The magnificence of the American psychic liberation was one of the greatest moments in history. Virtually every single Guyanese witnessed this remarkable illuminating moment. Yet in 2011, Guyanese (predominantly Indians and Africans) returned to the heart of darkness of racial voting.
What happened in America in 2008 is a form of psychological civilization and emancipation Guyana will likely never attain. By the way, Singapore had a racial and ethnic problem too. The people decided their economic interests trumped race. They fixed it. Singapore had 5.4 million people. It had 11 murders in 2013 and there was alarm and outrage.
Yours faithfully,
M Maxwell
