Measuring greatness

Aug 16, 2008 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

---

People see what they want to see in an individual. For me singers, poets, actors, writers, doctors, nurses, athletes, scientists, are human beings whose achievements to their county and the world are easily discernible.

The area of controversy is small if not non-existent. If a scientist spends forty years in a laboratory developing a vaccine that benefits humanity, then by what logic can you deny him his glory?

If a writer lives for over seventy years and in that time gives the world phenomenally magnificent literature, then why he/she cannot be given his/her country’s highest honour?

What wrong did Shakespeare do to his country or the world so we can dismiss him as a bad person? The Swedish people love ABBA. They would vote overwhelmingly to honour that musical group.

Have you heard about a policy ABBA made for Sweden that resulted in the deportation of hundreds of immigrants?

What policy did Mother Teresa make for India that caused racial strife in that country? The point is that some people’s greatness is not open for debate.

There is nothing to debate. Their illustrious career is admirable. The story is different when it comes to politics.

For me, greatness in political life, if it is to be judged, has to involve dedication to the good of humanity. Mikhail Gorbachev of Russia, Joshua Nkomo of Zimbabwe, Mohandas Gandhi of India, Pierre Trudeau of Canada, Olaf Palme of Sweden, Ralph Nader of the US, Nelson Mandela of South Africa, Patrice Lumumba of the then Congo, Walter Rodney and Eusi Kwayana of Guyana are all leaders whose balance sheet was clean and admirable. They hurt no one. They embraced no obnoxious ideology that led to people being unfree.

They were concerned more with the freedom of others than selfish politics. They are superb political figures that we should put on a pedestal.

The crucial yardstick in one’s judgement must be the high level of their public morality. I am not referring to morality in general.

A person could be a good leader but cannot maintain a stable marriage. If you use personal morality as your criterion then Bill Clinton has no place in your enumeration.

In fact, Bill Clinton was one of the best Presidents the US ever had and for me the most non-racial President the US ever produced. I think Jimmy Carter comes very close.

The standard by which politicians who once held power must be judged is by the largest measure of freedom that he/she brought to the largest number of human beings.

In this context, I can never (I am fully aware that one must be extremely care when using the word “never”) conceive of Cheddi Jagan and Forbes Burnham being great human beings, great achievers, great leaders. The public selflessness was not there.

On the contrary, both men were deeply flawed characters. If you contextualize the emergence of Burnham and Jagan in the anti-colonial zeitgeist of the fifties, you can demarcate the positives and the negatives.

This is where the evaluation of Burnham and Jagan must lie. One should never generalize about these two leaders.

Broad generalizations about their career will lead to countless factual distortions. In the end, the positives must be highlighted along with the negatives.

For me, this is the best methodological direction in which to go when assessing Burnham and Jagan. Greatness is out of the picture.

What is greatness? How do you measure greatness? What are the factors you look for? Was Mother Teresa great? The answer is yes. She helped the helpless.

She cared for those who didn’t have a world. Is Mandela great? Certainly! He chose not to use power because power corrupts.

He chose to stay away from the lure of power because power when possessed may lead one astray. Mandela did not wait for the unfolding. He walked away.

He is a selfless man who holds no malice. He is a human being who rose above the machinations of politics.

When leaders conspire to win power through devious means, when they conspire to acquire power at the expense of the happiness of their nation, when they use power for narrow ends and end up destroying their country then by what logic are they great achievers?

Sure, during their tenure they must have performed magnificently in building modern things for their country. But what about the total balance sheet? What about those they imprisoned, tortured and killed?

Both Burnham and Jagan had a tremendously negative and destructive side to their politics. I believe that dimension disqualifies them from being given the title of great.

When will Guyanese wake and see that Guyana remains the sick man of the Caribbean because Burnham and Jagan tore it up a long time ago?

---

---