Dear Editor,
In his letter captioned “Burnham did not satisfy the criteria of a dictator,” (07.03.08), Mr. Vincent Alexander made a valiant but purely academic attempt to defend the late Forbes Burnham as a former dictator.
And even though he did not feel the need to directly address me because I based the credibility of my opinion on the immutability of Mr. King’s thesis, I think aspects of Mr. Alexander’s defensive arguments actually helped bolster the countervailing contention that Mr. Burnham’s style of governance fitted the description of a dictator.
First, Mr. Alexander wrote: “I do not agree with the definition that a dictatorship is ‘strictly a form of rule in which absolute power is vested in one individual’. My preferred definition is: the office or tenure of ‘a ruler having absolute authority and supreme jurisdiction over the government of a state’. It is the elements of these definitions that have to be used to determine whether or not Burnham was a dictator. Did he have absolute power? Did he have supreme jurisdiction over the government of the State? King’s second postulation – the arbitrary and un-checked exercise of power – could also be added to the questions.”
Now, if we are going down this road of picking and choosing preferred definitions of what constitutes a dictatorship, there is no truth or lie and right or wrong in the matter; everything is relative. But using Mr. Alexander’s own preferred definition, though, he asked, “Did he (Burnham) have absolute power?” My answer to that is a resounding yes! “Did he have supreme jurisdiction over the government of the State?” My answer to that is a resounding yes! “Did he (indulge in the) arbitrary and unchecked exercise of power?” And again, the answer is a resounding yes!
Before venturing further, let it be known that Burnham was not a dictator all his life in office, but gradually started behaving like one some time after the People’s New Constitution of 1980. Prior to this, he basically laid the groundwork by rigging elections to obtain/retain political power.
As the Executive President of Guyana, who was answerable to no one, he headed both the Government and the State. That 1980 Constitution stated he could only be removed from office by a two-thirds vote of Parliament or by a decision from the medical advisory board established to monitor his health. As Leader of the PNC, he ensured his party stacked Parliament with handpicked members, so it was impossible for this built-in two-thirds majority to vote him out. And he had the final say on who sat on the medical advisory board to the President, so not only was it unlikely for his doctors to make a ruling against his health, but the fact he was President right up until the day he died in office, proved his love of absolute power.
Add to the foregoing 1) the fact that the responsibilities for the Service Commissions – Police, Judicial, Public and Teaching – that were previously held by the Governor General, who did not answer to the Prime Minister and could have hired and fired at will, were added to the Executive Presidency, and 2) the fact that the State eventually controlled the commanding heights of the economy, and we have a picture of a President with broad and, even arguably, absolute powers.
But it was when the PNC decided to make it known to the nation in the 1974 Declaration of Sophia that it was paramount to everything and everyone, that the true nature of the party and its iconic leader became known. Burnham was the embodiment of the PNC, and from him flowed policies and all other major decisions affecting the entire nation. Ask anyone – party comrades, government officials, state corporation executives and opponents – who stood against or challenged him what was his response.
As for the party’s flag flying in front of the Court of Appeal, Camp Ayanganna, Eve Leary, and other places, these acts truly symbolized the party’s paramountcy over all institutions. Even the Ministry of National Mobilization had a party flag! And any organization that the Burnham PNC did not control, it sought to exercise influence over.
Second, Mr. Alexander then ventured some examples of judicial cases that went against Burnham to prove the man was not a dictator, but he never stated the specific years. Could those be years prior to Burnham’s decision to behave like a dictator? What about post 1980 judicial cases?
Third, I am not even going to waste my time with the military’s role in the ballot box fiasco, because that was only the tip of the iceberg in the PNC regime’s misuse of its security apparatus. In 1976, as a striking bauxite worker, I witnessed, with tears streaming down my face and fear in my heart, 42 fellow bauxite workers, rounded up by the ‘riot squad’, herded into a small holding cell in the McKenzie Police Station, and tear gassed. What was our/their crime against the State? Peaceful industrial action for a decent pay raise! Many other tales abound, Mr. Editor.
Fourth, I will agree with Mr. Alexander that his letter will fuel another round of debate, but it is good and healthy if the PNC is going to seek healing and reconciliation with those it adversely impacted over the years. In fact, it is more expedient now in light of the PPP’s propensity to want to repeat the PNC’s mistakes. We cannot afford this!
In conclusion, because Mr. Alexander ignored Mr. King’s definition and opted for his own preferred definition of what is a dictatorship, he opened the door for myriad definitions to emerge to satisfy all sorts of interpretations and applications. At this rate it will come down to the principle in the axiom of ‘One man’s terrorist, another man’s freedom fighter’ being applied to read in this specific matter, ‘One man’s dictator, another man’s leader’.
To Mr. Alexander, with whom I have had the privilege of sharing the same roof in my Central High School days, I have taken to heart the closing remarks directed to me in your letter. You are an intelligent man. I truly admire your ‘stick-to-itiveness’ as a PNC member from your youth on. But if you plan on being around the PNC in the foreseeable future, or even leading the party, you have to understand that there are thousands of Guyanese, at home and abroad, who have been hurt by or are still angry with the PNC, though not you personally.
They may be willing to forgive and even reconcile – even if not as members, but supporters in some way – with the party if it can show penance and a new vision. The biblical saying that where there is no vision, the people perish, is so applicable to any leader of any organization or nation. And since the passing of its Founder Leader the PNC has become a mere shadow of its former self. It needs to reinvent itself to meet the 21st century challenges facing a changing Guyana, and to start this process requires some public acknowledgements of past mistakes. That’s only the beginning, but it’s important.
So, please stop these denials, via academic reasoning, which hurt or affect no one but the PNC at this stage!
Yours faithfully,
Emile Mervin
