Dear Editor,
I had the opportunity to view the PNCR’s programme, Nation Watch on HBTV Channel 9 on Sunday March 4, 2007, which highlighted its recent sponsored symposium to commemorate the 85th birth anniversary of the late Founder Leader of the PNC and Guyana’s first Executive President, Mr. Forbes Burnham. The symposium which was held under the theme – “The Politics of Burnham and Shared Governance” -. was one of the many activities that were organized by the party for the commemoration exercise. The forum was used to revisit the ideas of Burnham and their relevance to the nation. In the process, the PNC leadership is using the opportunity to rehabilitate the image of its Founder Leader. It is in this context that the symposium has to be judged.
The main presentation at the symposium was well thought out and effectively delivered by Mr. Aubrey Norton. Norton made a convincing case in support of his contention that Burnham was committed to national reconciliation and by 1975, to power-sharing between the PNC and PPP. After Norton’s presentation, participants were invited by the Chairperson to ask questions and/or make comments.
An elderly Indian Guyanese gentleman whose name I cannot recall and who is either a long-standing member or supporter of the PNCR was the first to speak from the floor. He criticized the party leadership for promoting power-sharing as the solution to Guyana’s political and national crisis. He posited that the PPPC will never agree to power sharing and went on to say that the PNC was wasting its time fighting for it. In disagreeing with Norton’s view that Burnham was committed to power-sharing, he insisted that Burnham’s approach was to promote polices that were in the interest of all the races. He passionately urged the party leadership to abandon the struggle for power sharing and instead work towards mobilising its members and supporters for other forms of struggle.
The next significant contribution came from the head table from another party stalwart, a Mr. Jeffery, who supported the first speaker’s arguments against Norton’s contention that Burnham was committed to power sharing. In support of his view that Burnham was not a supporter of power sharing, he recalled many instances of how Burnham had dealt with national problems and challenges from the PPP . He reminded his audience that the founder leader was a very charismatic politician and a very influential leader who could even win over members of the opposition. He also pointed out that an important aspect of Burnham’s politics was to bring into his party and government people with the best minds from all races.
Mr. Lorri Alexander also disagreed with the concept of Burnham as an advocate for power sharing, and warned that to attribute power sharing to Burnham was to distort his great legacy.
It became very clear that the symposium was reflective of the old and new thinking in the PNCR: with Mr. Norton representing the new thinking and his critics, the old thinking. Because of his excellent preparation and effective presentation of evidence from Burnham and other sources Norton appeared to have carried the day. He used as reference points, books written by Tyrone Ferguson and Halim Majeed and a document entitled “dialogue two” which carried an interview with Burnham on the failed 1975 unity talks with the PPP.
In refuting his critics’ arguments, Norton revealed an interesting piece of evidence when he told his audience that he and other then YSM leaders had a meeting with Burnham and were told by him that the time had come for the PNC to reach an agreement with the PPP in the interest of the nation. Norton quoted Burnham as saying that “he wanted a power sharing agreement”. He also invited his audience to check the accuracy of his claim by speaking to other YSM leaders of that period. If Norton’s narration of events is true it seems that the view that Burnham wanted a power sharing arrangement with the PPP, is irrefutable.
In making their respective cases both sides involved in the debate made the fundamental mistake of not being critical of any decision or judgment made by Burnham in relation to the topic they were discussing. They all portrayed Burnham as the good and well- intentioned gentleman and Jagan and the PPP leadership as being devious and unpatrio-tic. This became very clear when Norton contended that in the unity talks of 1975, Burnham had proposed to Jagan and the PPP that the agreement on the formation of the government must be on the basis of the existing composition of the parliament.
Norton further stated that the PPP rejected this offer and counter proposed that it should be on the basis of a 50/50 division of the government and that the top spot in the government, the Prime Ministerial position, would be negotiated only after agreement was reached on distribution of ministerial and other positions. This proposal was rejected by Burnham and was followed by a walk out staged by Mrs. Janet Jagan, which effectively ended the talks.
Norton used this “example” to demonstrate Burnham’s good intentions and the Jagans’ and the PPP’s questionable commitment to a power-sharing solution. However, his argument lost its objectivity when (1) he deliberately failed to point out that parliament’s composition at that time resulted from the rigged 1973 general elections, which was considered to be the worst rigged elections in Guyana up to that period, and (2) that the PPP had rejected the results, boycotted parliament and staged a campaign of civil disobedience to demonstrate their non-acceptance of the results of those elections. Guyanese who are old enough to know will recall that the PPP’s campaign to expose the 1973 rigged elections was not limited to Guyana but was taken to the wider world.
When the above mentioned is taken into consideration the question that must be asked is – was Dr. Jagan and the PPP leadership’s decision to reject Burnham’s proposal that the composition of a power-sharing government be reflective of parliament as was then constituted, politically unreasonable? And should the PPP’s counter proposal of a 50/50 division of the government not have been seen as a patriotic compromise worthy of acceptance by Burnham and the PNC ?
Assuming that Burnham was seriously committed to a power-sharing solution for Guyana as was argued by Norton, I humbly submit that he was wrong to reject the PPP’s proposal. It must be remembered that it was Burnham who held the reins of power in his hands and was hardly likely in that situation, to concede the top spot, the Prime Ministerial position, to Jagan.
I further submit that if Burnham had really felt at the time that the PPP was just playing political games, he was well placed to call their bluff by agreeing to that party’s 50/50 proposal thereby forcing Dr. Jagan and his party to demonstrate their commitment to power sharing as the solution to the political crisis in Guyana. By failing to respond positively to the PPP’s proposal Burnham let them off the hook and opened himself to the accusation that it was he who was in fact playing political games. As a result the PNC is now hard pressed to prove their case to the world.
The PNC in its attempts to reintroduce Burnham to the nation and rehabilitate his image, has to be sensitive to his negative side and must be prepared to be critical, of mistakes which he made. The leadership of that party cannot sit back and be content to limply say, as was done by Norton at the symposium, that all leaders or politicians have weaknesses. They must recognise that this period represents one of the most important in its life. Challenges from inside and outside of the party are increasing and its survival as an institution depends to a large extent on its ability to deal with them. It cannot deal with them if, like the proverbial ostrich, it continues to hide its head in the sand and ignore what is taking place around it. While the party has not arrived at the crossroads as yet, it is not far from it.
The PNC must
therefore be prepared to demonstrate to the people of Guyana that it has matured and is ready and willing to discuss the period of Burnham’s leadership with frankness and objectivity.
Yours faithfully,
Tacuma Ogunseye
