What is this talk of “Burnhamism” about?

Nov 09, 2018 Letters

Dear Editor,
The former Attorney General wrote a very interesting letter that appeared in the KN on November 6th as a comment on the news, that government has taken possession of the Berbice River Bridge in the interest of public safety.
The author of that missive is of the opinion that the State is thereby acting in breach of Article 142 of the Constitution, which is designed to protect private property against expropriation by the State.
It ought to be recalled that back in the 70’s and 80’s the PPP, as it then was, supported the then PNC policy of nationalization, the commanding heights of the Guyana economy – a clearly consensual ‘unbridled arrogance’ at the time, that viewed the country as the private property of and for Guyanese.
We live in a different world today. Communism and its offshoot socialism are no longer in vogue – and both Russia and China present current economic models that for all practical purposes are versions of capitalism. The only real socialist country today is Cuba, which has in many ways adapted its economics to fit in somewhat with the rest of the trading world.
So what is “Burnhamism” in the context in which the former AG wrote? No sensible answer can be extrapolated from that 6th November letter. The writer could not reasonably be suggesting that the cross-party will to nationalize foreign enterprises coupled the unbridled arrogance in so doing, can now be labelled “Burnhamism”!
There is, however, a continuing arrogance exhibited by those now in power – exemplified by the way the early salary increases to government ministers was handled, the Simona Broomes debacle and the way GECOM has unapologetically left me disenfranchised in the run up to the LGE’s but all of that is part of a continuing arrogance that was unashamedly practised by the former government that was in power for 23 years.
The CHPA ought to be saluted for its current policy of cancelling Transports and Certificates of Titles held by persons who are unable or unwilling to construct buildings on house lots sold to them years ago. This should not be viewed as a party political matter.
Surely, the policy is about enforcing a pivotal condition under which those properties were allocated in the first place. The CHPA is in the business of facilitating the means whereby citizens may acquire a property to build their own homes – not to facilitate greedy speculators who already own a home whether in Guyana or abroad!
Regards
Ronnie Karim

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News