Dear Editor,
Guyana observed its 37th. anniversary as a republic last week. What does republicanism mean for our country? What has the nation gained or achieved since becoming a republic? Are Guyanese better off under republicanism or would they have been better off under British rule or independent with the Queen (represented by a governor) as head of state? Guyanese need to reflect on these important questions as well as on how republican status was achieved in order to make an objective assessment of who we are and where we are going.
Ever since Guyana became independent, the country descended downhill. In May 1966, Guyana was one of the most progressive liberal states in the world with one of the freest presses in the Caribbean and one of the highest standards of living. But the socialist Burnham transformed Guyana into a dictatorship. Of course, there are defenders of Burnhamism who say Guyana was an ideal democratic utopia where everyone lived in harmony. And one can understand their perspective because they never had to line up for kerosene, toilet paper, matches, milk, sugar, and other basic needs.
Guyana’s racial conflict was manipulated to consolidate a racist dictatorship. Coercion and control (through the militarisation of the state), clientelism and patronage (rewarding party supporters) were the key instruments in the transformative process of the state from a democracy to authoritarianism and autocracy.
Although initially supporters rallied around Burnham, many began to abandon him when he started oppressing them also. Everyone in Guyana suffered under Burnhamism although some suffered more than others depending on which party they were aligned with.
It is well documented that Burnham rigged the 1968 election and revoked the right of Guyanese to appeal to the British Privy Council on judicial matters. Thus, no challenges could be mounted against election rigging and to his illegal rule.
Then in 1970, he ended Guyana’s ties to the Crown by declaring Guyana a republic, a measure that did not receive widespread support among Guyanese. But the PPP unwittingly lent their support to Burnham to break with the British viewing it as an anti-colonial progressive move. That set the state for the institutionalization of state sponsored human rights abuses in Guyana. The PNC proceeded to acquire control of almost every aspect of the economy which it used to control Guyanese lives.
To silence critics of his pro-imperialist stance and to cover his abuses of Guyanese, Burnham pursued the socialist transformation of the state beginning in 1972. He stressed autarchic (inward looking) development, a process of nationalization that saw some 80% of the economy in government hands, and a new orientation in foreign policy involving closer relations with Cuba and the former Eastern bloc, active participation in the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and support for African freedom fighters, and the holding of anti-apartheid conferences in Guyana. These actions angered the U.S and soon Guyana became isolated from the West. Aid dried up. And increasingly, Guyana became unable to meet the basic needs of its population leading to social disturbances in places like Buxton and McKenzie where tear gas was used to control dissent against the dictatorship. Burnham tightened the repression of opponents and human rights abuses became widespread.
With Burnham’s passing in August 1985 he was succeeded by Desmond Hoyte who reversed course and adopted “Hoytestroika” opening the economy and introducing democratic reforms. An international effort, led by a handful of Guyanese exiles including this writer, pressured Guyana’s creditors such as U.S, Canada and England to force democratic introduce reforms. Hoyte consented to free and fair elections in October 1992 that brought an end to the dictatorship and the electoral victory of the PPP which has governed until now.
No one can dispute that the PPP has been governing legitimately since 1992; it has not depended on rigged elections to remain in office. But the country faces enormous problems, the most serious being racial insecurity and inadequate economic development 37 years after republican status. Our judicial system is weak and people are fearful of their physical security because of rampant crime. And there are countless other problems. This begs the question of whether the country would not have been better off remaining under crown rule or independent under the watch of the Queen and the Privy Council to guard against abuses. With the Queen as head of state, Guyana would have obtained more aid and foreign investment.
And the Privy Council would have prevented all of the rights abuses Guyanese experienced under the era of the dictatorship. Press freedom would not have been curtailed and the state would not have withdrawn ads from any newspaper. Election rigging would not have been tolerated and Guyana would have remained a full fledged democracy.
Yours faithfully,
Vishnu Bisram
