Something Dr. Van West Charles told me in 2011 in Linden

Nov 11, 2021 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

---

Kaieteur News – If the voting is free and fair for the new leader of the PNC, then after delegates would have read what Dr. Richard Van West Charles (RVWC) said in a recent interview, he is bound to lose votes. No party aficionado wants a leader who evades and declines to answer pertinent questions.
Asked for his take on his father-in-law, Forbes Burnham, the newspaper printed the following words, “the question could not be answered at an interview divided on many topics, as the time would not permit his extensive explanation.” There are three things wrong with that attitude and it indicates a shifting personality not good for decisive leadership.
First, in an interview, you do not decide the topics. You are being asked the questions. But there is enormous scope for a thinking guest to highlight issues he/she wants to be discussed. Only a mediocre politician would say that an answer would be too lengthy and offer no comments whatsoever.
Secondly, no matter how concise your answer is, you have an obligation to your host who is giving you free publicity to at least touch on the issue. Thirdly, and this must be embarrassing for RVWC when people read the interview, he went on to speak on several other topics but chose to say not one word on Burnham. How does one explain this stance?
In avoiding an opinion on Burnham, RVWC showed the crucial difference between him and Aubrey Norton. In an interview to discuss his candidacy, Norton referred to the pitfalls of the maximum-leader syndrome and stated Burnham was a maximum leader. Norton was not afraid to criticise this aspect of the PNC’s leadership because he knew there would be little fall-out.
Burnham died in 1985. It means that over half of the population wasn’t born when Burnham ruled. The young delegates at the congress would not be familiar with Burnham’s positives and negatives. But Norton was far ahead of RVWC when he brought up the maximum-leadership syndrome. He was alluding to David Granger too.
RVWC is at a disadvantage in that he cannot criticise his wife’s father and he cannot extol him because Burnham’s legacy is not a comforting one. This explains why Granger’s prolific writings on many subjects do not include even a booklet on the long years of Burnham’s reign. Granger knows that any panegyric of Burnham will lead to an ocean of questions about Granger’s intellectual standing.
The simple fact is Burnham was equally visionary and equally totalitarian. Only Vincent Alexander extols Burnham’s legacy and he does it embellishing it with fictionalisations that are easy to prove. In an exchange with me, Alexander wrote in this newspaper of April 10, 2021 that “National Service was voluntary, except for University of Guyana Students.”
My point is, and continues to be, and which Alexander continues to ignore, who gave Burnham the legal and electoral mandate to compel UG students to do National Service, failure of which led to expulsion as what happened to this columnist in 1976? I entered UG as a fee-paying student. I, and several hundreds of students, had no choice but to continue paying.
RVWC is afraid these illegalities of Burnham would face him if he should touch on Burnham’s legacy. A good example is paramountcy of the party. Why did Burnham order that his party, the PNC, must have jurisdiction in terms of legal legitimacy over state institutions at a time when his party was resented by a majority of people in the world? From which legal and political source this doctrine was derived?
At an AFC election campaign meeting in Linden in 2011 one night, RVWC and I were standing next to each other. I asked him if he would be writing about Burnham. He said yes because there were lots of things to be said. He was referring to the positive qualities of Burnham. Ten years have passed and there is no publication. I would be pleased if RVWC can indicate if he is still planning to write, and if so would the publication highlight both the visions and political bestialities of Burnham.
In the midst of a torrid battle to win the leadership of his father-in-law’s party, RVWC does not want to touch even slightly on the man and his era. But Norton has. He has described the PNC under Burnham as embodying the maximum leadership syndrome. Norton knows what he is talking about. Granger is an admirer of Burnham. Burnham was a maximum leader so was Granger. If RVWC wins, he will live in despair. The era of Burnham is gone. The life of the PNC today hangs in the balance.
(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

---

---