Dear Editor,
It is sad to see the supporters of the legacy of Dr Walter Rodney doing their outmost to deprive Mr Forbes Burnham of his belated day in the sun. I can see no sound reason why the family of Mr Burnham should not unashamedly accept such an honour bestowed on their father, by South Africa. On this point SN did a phenomenal editorial, ‘Burnham Award’ (April 28).
My contention is that both persons were outstanding sons of Guyana in their own right. Given the role they played on the world stage I am pleased to announce that we share the same country of birth. They were both intellectuals with a depth of passion for their beliefs, which in most cases were similar, but one was a politician and the other an activist.
Yet, I would not discount the seriousness of the Rodney supporters’ opposition to Mr Burnham as I would the Vishnu Bisram tirade, which can be primarily attributed to hate. But the Rodney supporters by now should have been able to wean themselves off the heartfelt sentiments of shattered hopes and look at Mr Burnham and Dr Rodney in the new light of the twenty-first century.
First it must be established that Mr Burnham was well aware of the plight of Africans and the poor, and did what was possible, with great consideration for his own self-interest, to help. That consciousness is what contributed to his steadfastness to his commitment to the dismantling of the apartheid regime in South Africa. He supported that belief with our money and rigidly enforced bans on persons who went to SA.
While a lot of African Guyanese may look at the memory of Mr Burnham with contempt, Mr Burnham is well liked by Africans from the continent. Almost every African national I meet in America loves Mr Burnham for his financial contribution to Africa. But it must be understandable why there is not so much love for him in Guyana and by Guyanese. Mr Burnham was an astute politician first and foremost, and he did what astute politicians do – those who are not with me are against me.
As a politician Mr Burnham destroyed a lot of African Guyanese and others, who were against him, while at the same time putting in place systems and an ideology that he thought would benefit his supporters. In the introduction of, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, the following was mentioned, “Forbes Burnham, had made it clear on many occasions that, in this struggle for the minds and hearts of the people, he knew no limits in the determination to ‘exterminate the forces of opposition.’”
Therefore, it is surprising that to this day intellectuals are surprised at Mr Burnham’s response to Dr Rodney. I am not saying that I condone the manner in which Dr Rodney came to his end. Also, in the absence of a full investigation, it is not clear that Mr Burnham had a hand in his demise, considering Dr Rodney’s impact in the US also. But, have we forgotten that Dr Rodney was banned for life from Jamaica, for carrying out the same activities he did in Guyana?
Today, when I put Dr Rodney and Mr Burnham side by side and look critically at their beliefs and ideology, I think that neither person had the right formula for the development of Africans in Guyana and the world as a whole, which were their main criteria. Both men had no fondness for the capitalist system – Rodney because it underdeveloped Africa, and Burnham, maybe because Leninism/Marxism was the fad at the time. When last have we heard about a new world order?
Dr Rodney wrote in the Preface of his popular book, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, “Hopefully, the facts and interpretation that follow will make a small contribution towards reinforcing the conclusion that African development is possible only on the basis of a radical break with the international capitalist system, which has been the principle agency of underdevelopment of Africa over the last five centuries.” Although the capitalist system was indeed used to underdevelop Africa, India and elsewhere, I think it is a mistake not to attempt to use that same system today, for re-development.
Mr Burnham also unashamedly bashed capitalism, thus the break with his coalition partner who helped him lead a government in 1964. In the Declaration of Sophia Mr Burnham stressed, “After Independence the coalition began to fall apart more obviously. This was inevitable, since our partner (the UF) was essentially a capitalist group and we were socialist… The PNC, on the other hand, placed emphasis on people – on the proletariat and poor peasants, from which it drew and draws its strength. It encouraged self-reliance at community and national levels. It counted human effort and labour as capital and saw development as primarily the task of the Guyanese people. It identified the co-operative as the instrument for making the ‘Little man a real man.’”
Thus, both men were after a new world order, where development is streamlined and controlled by a caring government. But what happens in the absence of a caring government as we have today, a government that preaches socialism but practises capitalism? Dr Rodney was of the opinion that, given the trend up to the early sixties, in time capitalism would collapse. Today, the US is determined at beating it back wherever it exists.
Personally, I would be more inclined to cloak the endeavours of the two men with a form of capitalism. Dr Rodney is right in this specific observation. In his works, he was against “the destructive individualism of the mainstream American way of life [capitalism],” which stemmed from the contention, “in Africa, both the formal school system and the informal value system of colonialism destroyed social solidarity and promoted the worst form of alienated individualism without social responsibility.”
Mr Burnham following that conviction promoted co-operatives as a way to garner the collected effort of a group of people. What is needed today is the integration of these two concepts with the principles of capitalism to enhance the well-being of the people. What I am suggesting is a shift from the dependency on a government to the consolidated support of the community. It means that regardless of the ideology of the government in charge at any one time, the togetherness of the people would always be consistent. Garnering that cooperative spirit with a combination of capitalist norms can lead to the ideals to which both men projected and aspired.
In conclusion, there are different ways to look at the contribution of the two men. I would not stand in the way, regardless of my beliefs, to thwart the accolades for these gentlemen. Both men had their strong points and flaws. Trying to suppress one’s contribution is not healthy, especially since we all had time to separate ourselves from the past and look back critically. As I look back critically, I find that there is a need to rethink the role of ‘black intellectuals’ as was espoused by the Institute of the Black World (IBW) in the introduction of Dr Rodney’s book. They are needed now, more than ever, in the Guyanese communities, teaching cooperatives and wealth creation.
Yours faithfully,
F Skinner
