Dear Editor,
I am replying to Annan Boodram’s second letter (‘Who is making the acrobatic leap?’ SN, August 18) questioning my judgement that in comparison to Mr Jagdeo, Forbes Burnham had intellectual acumen and deep political skills that served him well when he ruled Guyana for 18 years. All Mr Boodram has done in the second missive is to repeat the contents of his first mail.
Here is what he did in his first correspondence and he has done it again: Mr Burnham broke up opposition meetings, the economy got wrecked under him, critics got murdered during his reign, many projects failed while he was President, he caused widespread migration.
Interestingly, I offered a number of examples where Burnham excelled in leadership endeavours, and one instance where his tactical thinking outmanoeuvred the opposition in 1970. I could go on to cite hundreds of examples where Burnham had a long reach where political finesse is concerned, but I doubt whether it will satisfy Mr Boodram.
I think it is important in looking back at our history to insist that we make use of the revisionist methodology. It will give us newer insights into our past that may shock us. In as much as a Guyanese citizen may reject Burnham’s style, there may be hidden facts about him that may add newer dimensions to our historical understanding of Guyana.
I believe Burnham acted many times out of disgust at some of the things his subordinates did. I know of the case of Claude Merriman, a very, very close friend of Burnham, but Burnham had to let him go because he was an embarrassment. This is a point I keep emphasizing to Mr Boodram. If you are a smart leader you will not face self-destruction by embracing in front of the nation, all your nasty, incompetent subordinates.
There are other examples of Burnham’s political finesse and intellectual acumen. Why was he able to convince the rest of the Caribbean to locate Caricom’s head office here? It took enormous powers of persuasion to get the rest to agree, especially when Barbados and Jamaica were always seen as the epicentre of the Caribbean waters. Wasn’t it this tyrannical leader who got Jagan to declare “Critical Support” in 1976? Surely, such a crude man as Mr Boodram has painted didn’t have the deep skills to get Jagan to do that. Then there is the 1985 agreement to unite the two parties for the upcoming elections in which Jagan would have been the prime ministerial candidate and Burnham the presidential one. Didn’t that call for enlightened manoeuvering?
Finally, does Mr Boodram know that Dr Jagan with all his immense popularity couldn’t get any top-class name in and out of Guyana to take the portfolio of Trade Minister after he won the 1992 elections? It eventually went to one of the most incompetent party cadres in the PPP, Shree Chand. Juxtapose that against Burnham’s smooth ability to attract high class talent even at the height of his oligarchic display.
The answer is that he had this ability to persuade people. He was a fast thinker and he had extraordinary ability to detect the strengths and weaknesses of people. This is a leadership quality the textbooks refer to as “conceptual complexity.”
When I graduated with the President’s medal and other awards from UG, Burnham sent to call me. I didn’t go but I believe despite all my radicalism and public criticism of him, Burnham would have offered me a prestigious job and left me alone. I believe he wanted to win me over. Burnham wanted to win over all those Guyanese who had some talent and skills. Hate him as you may, while there was no question he was crude and vindictive, he had political skills that remain unmatched in the Caricom area.
Yours faithfully,
Frederick Kissoon
Editor’s note
This correspondence
is now closed.
