Burnham and Jagdeo: a comparison

Aug 08, 2008 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

I decided a long time ago that, on the day of Cheddi Jagan’s death anniversary or birthday, I will look at his politics.

The same for Burnham. The just-concluded congress of the PPP had too many important implications (after all, the PPP forms the Government) so I had to leave Burnham’s death anniversary for another day.

I had an interesting encounter last week. This female attorney came up to me and whispered that she was glad that I finally wrote that Burnham had done something good for Guyana.

I didn’t request that she name the particular occasion. I was eager to dispel her misjudgement.

I have written countless columns in which I not only cited the many achievements of the PNC’s founder/leader, but acknowledged his acute social vision.

Burnham remains the most astute and ingenious Head of Government the West Indies has produced. Not even Eric Williams came close to him.

Burnham’s ability to entice people was responsible for Guyana being the choice to locate the CARICOM Secretariat.

Burnham would have earned his place among the great leaders of the 20th century by historians if he had not been prone to power obsession and become its victim.

He had brilliant ideas. He was ahead of his time. Burnham’s essential weakness was that he thought of himself in grandiose terms and, being in obsession of power, he used his authority to achieve what he considered was his congenital greatness. If a person believes that he/she is great, he/she is not going to use power in any democratic framework.

At the psychological level, to acknowledge and observe the limits to power conflicts with the acceptance that the person is a unique and exceptional human being.

Why would a leader who has a Messianic vision of him/herself recognise that the Chief Justice can curtail the authority of the President?

Forbes Burnham died a failure because he believed in and practised the art of princely politics. At a deep, psychic level, Burnham was contemptuous of the theory and practice of the limits to power.

For me, it is foolish to argue that Guyana has a dictatorship today and Burnham’s rule is used as the plank on which to launch your criticism of the Jagdeo presidency.

The story of the PPP Government/Jagdeo presidency has strong Burnhamite overtones. The use of power today mirrors the approach of Forbes Burnham.

What conceptual framework can one use to differentiate the Burnham regime from the present Government of Guyana?

There are areas of viciousness in the Burnham era that we are yet to see. In some compartments, the crudities we see today Burnham would not have embarked on.

My own feeling is that we have reached some frightening pathways that were not present when LFSB governed Guyana.

However, these venalities should not obfuscate the totalitarian nature of Mr. Burnham’s control. Time moves on, and we see aspects of human nature that we thought never existed.

Confessedly, I believe Burnham had a deeper commitment to the nationalist dream than our present rulers.

Space does not allow for an expansion on this theme; suffice it to say it was bound up with the nature of the philosophy of the African middle class.

There can be no denying, though, that the style of leadership in the seventies and eighties was the same as operates today.

It is theoretically untenable to argue that what we have in 2008 is far worse than when Burnham ruled. This type of comparative yardstick has some serious weaknesses.

A more productive direction is to do an issue-area examination. One should break down Burnham’s tenure into sections.

The same methodology should be done for the PPP Government. Here is where the comparison will yield greater results. Briefly, here are some differences.

I believe there was less corruption under Burnham, and that Burnham would not have tolerated this runaway corruption we are seeing in Guyana, that is perhaps totally out of control.

Secondly, today, there is less emphasis on coercion than there was under Burnham. Burnham, because of his infatuation with his perceived greatness, showed less patience with those he didn’t like.

Thirdly, Burnham was more inclined to be vindictive.

Fourthly, the PPP Government’s incestuousness is on a scale that is unimaginable.

Fifthly, Burnham had a more refined and suave way of relating to sections of the Guyanese society that he felt were hindrances.

Sixthly, without a doubt, Burnham’s competence in the use of power masked a lot of his nastiness. This nastiness exists in the present regime, but the finesse is just not there to hide it.

Burnham was really great in this department. Burnham would never appoint someone three times to the same job if he wasn’t performing.

More on the comparison in a forthcoming column.