Dear Editor,
I have been restrained to respond to or to comment on letters to the Editor since, in my view, many of those letters are churned out by letter mills and others are written by authors who are dogmatic and unwilling to be academic in their approach to ideas. They have agendas and vendettas to fulfill.
However, on this occasion I will engage in the first round of the debate on ‘Burnham the Dictator’ since my present view is that Messrs King and Mervyn, two recent writers on this matter, can be civil in their approach to the ex-change of ideas.
My main focus will be King’s letter. Little attention needs to be paid to Mervyn since he based the credibility of his opinion on the immutability of King’s thesis.
Having defined what dictatorship is, King failed to develop the concept and to flesh out its elements. He hardly developed the basis for the application of the concept to a particular case. His conceptual shortfall was subsequently demonstrated in his attempt to prove his case by the use of examples.
Examples cannot suffice if the theoretical basis of the case has not been established.
I do agree with the definition that a dictatorship is “strictly a form of rule in which absolute power is vested in one individual”. My preferred definition is: the office or tenure of “a ruler having absolute authority and supreme jurisdiction over the government of a state”. It is the elements of these definitions that have to be used to determine whether or not Burnham was a dictator. Did he have absolute power? Did he have supreme jurisdiction over the government of the State? King’s second postulation – the arbitrary and un-checked exercise of power – could also be added to the questions.
Most of King’s examples are unsubstantiated and judgmental and are no basis for objective conclusions. How-ever, even if they were substantiated they do not establish the elements of the concept of dictatorship nor do they establish Burnham as a dictator.
King’s first example sought to establish Burnham’s supremacy “over all the state institutions”. This could hardly be true in the face of decisions of the Judiciary that overturned decisions of the Executive. The cases of Teemal vs. AG, De Nobrega vs. AG, Richmond vs. Guyana National Newspapers and Hopkinson vs. AG, all of which and many others were decided in the favour of the plaintiff refute any argument that Burnham had supreme authority over the judicial system.
If he had supreme authority he would not have been subjected to the decisions of the courts. Burnham was subjected to the decisions of the court. This is not speculation. The decisions of the courts are there as record.
King’s seventh example was “the flying of the PNC’s flag in front of the Court of Appeal, thus symbolizing that the party was dominant over the judiciary”. While the flying of the flag might not have been desirable, it certainly did not interfere with Justices Messiah, Bishop and Stoby, among others, who made judicial decisions in their own deliberate judgment. Here again King’s argument falls flat.
Another one of King’s references was the military’s role in moving the ballot boxes to the central place of counting. This act he referred to as ‘passive violence’. Having attempted to dismiss Norton’s contention about the nexus between violence and dictatorship, he now stretches the language to prove some kind of violence – ‘passive violence’. What he omitted to mention is that the PPP mobilized its supporters to stop the officials from being able to take the boxes to the designated place.
There is much more that could be said about King’s thirteen examples, suffice to say that many are unrelated to the issue of one person having supreme authority. There is obviously much that King does not understand of the Burnham era and the nature of things in developing countries at that time. He certainly does not understand what it is to be a dictator.
I expect that this letter will fuel another round of the debate. I am not sure that I will be engaged in that round for reasons already mentioned, but I challenge those who may wish to join the debate to objectively discuss the concept of dictatorship and to use that concept as the yardstick for making an objective determination on Burnham.
Mr Mervyn, I understand that my stance shall not win me the votes of those whose minds are poisoned. I however prefer to stand by my conscience and conviction rather than be guided by expediency and opportunism. That is the newness that I bring to the polity. I am assured that the truth, which shall reign supreme, shall assure me of my freedom.
Yours faithfully,
Vincent Alexander
