Dear Editor,
In his SN letter of August 17(Burnham’s strategic thinking as a leader stood out in how he handled power’), Freddie Kissoon hides behind synechdoche – selecting a part (of my argument) to represent the whole (argument). Thus in attempting to show that my references to Burnham’s lack of sophistication in the use of power were incorrect, Mr Kissoon addresses my reference to Burnham’s boast that “our steel is stronger than theirs” and to brazen, daylight attacks on opposition public meetings. Mr Kissoon then asks, “Again what that has to do with the subtle ways and the finesse with which Burnham used power?” He also asks, “Can Mr Boodram supply me with the evidence that Burnham told his boys go and attack them?” In both cases he’s either being rhetorical or deliberately obtuse, since the answer to both questions is obvious to any schoolchild. In fact context makes this even more emphatically so given the way Burnham handled power. And comparison of this Burnham tactic with what’s happening in ongoing town hall meetings over health care in the US is like comparing apples and oranges. Mr Kissoon who talks about context, decides that context in this comparison is irrelevant.
In any case, Editor, there were two other references of mine in that argument. Is a crude and open rigging of elections indication of sophisticated use of power? Are the murders of Walter Rodney, Father Bernard Darke, et al, a display of sophisticated use of power? And since Mr Kissoon concludes that I “overlooked the use of context,” perhaps he can tell us the respective contexts that make crude, open electoral rigging and brazen, daylight murder equate to a display of the sophisticated use of power. The one agreement I have with Mr Kissoon is that there are numerous additional examples of Burnham’s lack of sophistication in the use of power.
The other tactic that Mr Kissoon is fond of using is recrafting his original argumentation to match subsequent debates. His original column stated, “His [Burnham’s] calculations were simple and based on intellectual reasoning, pragmatic instincts, and leadership qualities.” My response to this was, “Pray tell what calculations of intellectual reasoning and leadership qualities were displayed in allowing Rabbi Washington and Jim Jones to set up shop in Guyana? In wasting millions of dollars in the aborted Mazaruni hydro-project among many others? In creating shortages and blackouts, etc? In policies that led to the underground economy and massive outmigration?”
Editor, in his subsequent letter of August 17, Mr Kissoon, states that “Mr Boodram then made a mighty acrobatic leap.” Indeed. Is he saying that reasoning and leadership qualities (sic) are not reflected in these decisions and policies?
In that same letter of Mr Kissoon restates his argument thus, “My essay opined that Burnham had intellectual finesse that helped him in masking the crude use of power. I argued that he knew when to be bold, cruel, evasive, sophisticated and diplomatic.” No reference to “leadership qualities.” No reference to “intellectual reasoning.” Instead now the argument becomes “intellectual finesse that helped him in masking the crude use of power.” And it is supplemented by, “I argued that he knew when to be bold, cruel, evasive, sophisticated and diplomatic.” I leave it to readers to determine who’s making an acrobatic leap.
Yours faithfully,
Annan Boodram
