Burnham did not create the PPP’s popularity

May 09, 2014 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
Freddie Kissoon is trying to make a sound point in his article titled “The Rodney Commission and Burnham’s fatal flaw
May 7, 2014″ (KN, May 8, 2014) but he makes a mess of historical truths. The PPP was popular long before Forbes Burnham gained power. It came from basic racial power. From the time of the split in the PPP in 1955 into the Jagan and Burnham racial factions to the time Burnham gained power in 1964, the PPP enjoyed greater support than Burnham’s PNC through simple racial-political demographics.
The simple truth is that with the PPP and PNC firmly entrenched as race parties, Indians were greater in number to Africans and this meant the PPP always enjoyed great national support even if significantly from only one ethnic group. In the eyes of the largest ethnic group of the populace, the PPP was always the saviour of the nation even before Burnham gained power. Even if Forbes Burnham ruled benevolently, Indians would have still overwhelmingly backed the PPP in any free and fair election because of race just as Africans would back the PNC.
Burnham’s tyrannical actions from 1964 to 1985 simply reinforced the PPP’s popularity among its supporters, not create it or generate overnight manifestations of it. In fact, Burnham’s despotism was expected long before he gained power in 1964. The warning signs were always there signalled by his greed for power.
So, most PPP supporters were already schooled in the fifties and early sixties about the power-crazed tendencies of Burnham and how he would rule dictatorially and why the PPP was the salvation to stem the rise of Burnham. On the flip side, PNC supporters were versed in the totalitarian setup of the PPP. When Burnham gained power, it was already common expectation and simply reinforced the PPP’s position among its backers. The PPP did not become overnight saviours of the nation due to Burnham’s tyrannical escapades. They were already viewed by Indians who were more than 45% of the population throughout PNC rule as such.
What Burnham’s tyranny germinated was the PPP’s inclination to tyranny. You see, Burnham borrowed many of his autocratic policies from the PPP because this is the organization that he came from. By ruling in such bizarre dictatorial fashion and by exercising such abusive use of power, Burnham showed the PPP what was possible when it came to power.
It fuelled and strengthened the communistic tendencies of the PPP to tyrannize. It enabled internal dictatorship within the PPP under the excuse that in the face of external PNC dictatorship, the PPP’s internal sovereignty should not be challenged. The PPP rigging and manipulation of congressional elections continued throughout this period and into present day.
The PPP practised dictatorship within its own party and learnt the possibilities of dictatorship from Burnham and the PNC. Did we expect a bunch of PPP communist tyrants running their own political gulag (the PPP party) like slave-masters while watching and learning from the PNC despots to behave any differently when they gained power with all the trappings of undiluted power such as a flawed constitution?
It is why the PPP’s time in power has been as despotic as the PNC with the exception of electoral skullduggery. But trust me, the PPP will consider rigging the elections when it faces political extinction and knows it will fall from power. Nothing in its exercise of power in 22 years tells us it will do differently and bow out gracefully.
The real danger of Burnham’s despotism is not in generating some overnight PPP popularity as this was clearly not the case. It was the creation of a fertile bed for the PPP to see the possibilities of dictatorial abuse of power. Burnham’s constant pushing of the boundaries by usurping, seizing, dominating, acting outside the bounds of reason, repressing and foolishly swimming in his delusions about his own invincibility had its costs.
The cost was he failed to make changes before he died to prevent the use of this extreme power from being used against his own party and supporters. He handpicked a moderate in Hoyte but Hoyte had his delusions and he failed to change the constitution and systems even when he knew the PNC would lose power to prevent the PPP from utilizing these systems and the constitution to batter the nation.
The plight of the PNC and its own supporters today is the most powerful evidence of Burnham’s greatest flaw. How can PNC supporters celebrate this man when his very actions have emboldened the PPP to pursue tyranny, repression, marginalization, economic nepotism and subjugation? Isn’t the PPP’s refusal to launch local government elections the most Burnham-like thing they have done in recent memory?
M. Maxwell

---

---