Dear Editor,
Within the past few years and especially since the May 2015 national elections, historical revisionism aimed at distorting post-independence Guyanese history has become prevalent. Now, with the arrival of the February 23rd anniversary date of the Republic, two editorials have appeared in the press, both singing the praises of the first Prime Minister and first executive President of Guyana, Mr Linden Forbes Sampson Burnham, without any acknowledgement of the divisiveness, authoritarianism, and impoverishment he inflicted on the country.
The first editorial, appearing in the Guyana Chronicle of February 20th under the caption ‘Linden Forbes Sampson Burnham’, professes to “examine this national figure through lens of objectivity and integrity”. The second in the Kaieteur News of February 22nd under the caption ‘The Father of the Republic’ concludes “It is important that the youths of today, who are the leaders of tomorrow, receive such exposure to acquire an understanding and appreciation of the ideological foundation on which Guyana was built. Forbes Burnham was in our time, but he was also above all time. He was truly a man for all seasons”. In my view, Mr Burnham had both positive and negative impacts on Guyana and both should be addressed if we are to be honest to history, especially in this divided society. Healing has to start with the truth.
For the benefit of the younger generation of Guyanese and the leaders of tomorrow, I encourage them not to be misled by public relations gestures but go to more reliable sources for their information on that period of Guyanese history. Interestingly, these future leaders are currently getting a lesson on the period from news reports on the findings of the CoI into the death of Dr Walter Rodney. These present a different view than the one conveyed in the editorials. Also, published works by highly qualified academics, including Professor Clive Y Thomas, who now holds a senior position in President Granger’s office, Dr Euclid A Rose, who was a staunch supporter of APNU as the last election neared, Dr George K Danns, and Dr Percy C Hintzen, who are far more independent, authoritative sources, give comprehensive accounts of the Burnham years that are opposite to those offered in these editorials.
In an essay titled ‘State Capitalism in Guyana: An Assessment of Burnham’s Co-operative Socialist Republic’ in the 1983 book, Crisis in the Caribbean, edited by Fitzroy Ambursley and Robin Cohen, Professor Thomas wrote “State employees are routinely forced to attend PNC party events at the risk of being fired… it should be noted that the process of militarization (creation of various paramilitary bodies ‒ People’s Militia, National Guard Service, the Pioneers, etc.) has been accompanied with the politicization of the security services …The deprofessionalization of the security services … leads one stage further into the constitution of a definite PNC ‘political element’ within the security services. This is somewhat akin to the development of the ‘political police’ within developed fascist states … All anti-PNC activities or anti-Burnham activity is therefore projected as being anti-state or anti-national and hence subversive.” This excerpt from Professor Thomas is certainly consistent with the reported findings of the Rodney’s CoI.
Another excerpt, this taken from the 2002 book Dependence and Socialism in the Modern Caribbean: Superpower Intervention in Guyana, Jamaica and Grenada, 1970-1985, by Dr Euclid A Rose, states: “The PNC preoccupation with political control of the state and people contributed to a serious deterioration of the country’s economy to the point where it was incapable of meeting food, health, education, and the welfare needs of the population. In 1980 real per capita income was less than it had been in 1970. Production in the three dominant sectors of sugar, bauxite, and rice declined steadily… This resulted from the inefficient and administrative mismanagement of the state-owned industries which have been run for the private benefit of the ruling clique. The collapse of the economy in the mid 1970s led to the defection of the strategic black and coloured middle-class supporters to the Working People’s Alliance”. This excerpt aptly describes conditions of the Burnham years. Also, it shows the duplicity of some academics who say one thing in academia and another thing when campaigning for a political party. This certainly is not what Dr Rose was saying in his letters to the press, prior to May 15, 2015 when he was promoting Mr Granger, and writing about the PNC’s achievements in government.
The Guyana Chronicle editorial states, “The commencement of building a cohesive society saw one of his [Mr Burnham’s] first activities being that of inviting the International Commission of Jurists to conduct an inquiry (1965) into the Disciplinary Force with a view and acceptance of putting systems in place to attract and give equal opportunity to all races. Requirements to join the Force under the British included height and chest size. Such qualifying conditions militated against East Indians’ chances of being recruited”. The above quote obfuscates the observations and recommendations of the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ). In the first place the ICJ report notes that “In 1961, a more positive effort was made on the direction of the then Minister of Home Affairs to improve the percentage of racial groups other than African, and it was decided that all recruitment into the Force, would be on the basis of 50% Africans and 50% other racial groups. This policy has been maintained to date, and since November 1, 1961, out of a total of 294 recruits entering the Force 142 have been of racial origin other than African”. This result was achieved under the existing rules without any change to the admission requirements of height and chest size. It came about following a decision agreed upon at the 1960 Constitutional Conference.
The ‘Report of the British Guiana Constitutional Conference Held in London in March 1960’ reveals that, “The British Guiana Delegation asked that control of the Police should not later than August, 1961, and if possible, sooner than that, become the sole responsibility of a British Guiana Minister.” As a result, Britain’s Secretary of State for his part proposed that the transfer of responsibility for this subject should proceed gradually for certain obvious socio-political reasons. The conference was held between the 7th March and the 31st March, 1960. That was 5 years before Mr Burnham’s invitation to the ICJ in 1965. The Governor, immediately upon his return to British Guiana after the conference, appointed a Police Council in April 1961 to advise him on administration of the Police Force. The council would be presided over by the Governor and consist of the leader of the majority party, two other ministers and the Chief Secretary. The Commissioner of Police would be in attendance and, as the professional head of the Force, would be responsible for the use and operational control of the Force subject to the ultimate authority of the Governor. The arrangement would continue until it was decided, in accordance with certain conditions, that this ultimate authority should pass to a minister. Mr Balram Singh Rai, who was the incumbent Minister of Community Development and Education at the time, was one of the ministers appointed to the council. His responsibilities were then expanded to include the Police Force and this continued after the 1961 elections when he was appointed Minister of the newly created Ministry of Home Affairs, a position he held until June 1962.
Thus, the bottom line is that from 1961 to the time of the review in 1965, the remarkable initiative of PPP Minister, Mr Balram Singh Rai, which resulted in a 48% (142 of 294) recruitment of non-Africans, was recognized by the ICJ.
The ICJ made a number of recommendations and indeed the height and chest size requirements were subsequently modified. However, the results achieved by the 1961 direction of Minister Rai show that even under the old height and chest size requirements, it was possible to achieve nearly 50% of non-African recruits. What is significant is that the key recommendation of the ICJ remains outstanding to this day. In its report the ICJ stated “we recognize that the present position, which is the result of a combination of factors, is not satisfactory and is one that calls for special treatment. For this reason, we recommend that in each year for a period of 5 years, whenever the number of qualified applicants at Constable or Cadet Officer levels permits, 75% of the applicants accepted should be Indian, and 25% from other races”.
Further, the Guyana Chronicle editorial claims that the University of Guyana (UG) was established by Mr Burnham. We of the first batch of students who joined the UG in 1963, know differently. Not only was the PNC not in government when UG was established, but the PNC opposed the setting up of the university and considered closing it after coming into government in 1964. The earlier mentioned essay by Professor Thomas, which seriously indicts the Burnham years in government, is part of a book dedicated “To Walter Rodney”. It is ironic that Professor Thomas, a close associate of Dr Rodney when he was alive, now holds a top position in the Office of President Granger as revelations of the findings of the Rodney CoI are being reported in the press with embarrassing implications for the PNC, President Granger’s party. Both Professor Thomas and President Granger should now work to eliminate the authoritarian and near absolute powers of the presidency, as vested in the constitution. The inconvenient truth of Guyana’s politics is that most of the perceived abuse of power ascribed to the Jagdeo and Ramotar presidencies had their origin in, or were facilitated by, developments during the Burnham years. It is now time for meaningful change which has been promised consistently but never realized.
Yours faithfully,
Harry Hergash
