Dear Editor,
The Oliver Tambo award should be rightly given to the people of Guyana. Burnham’s government was illegal due to consecutive rigged elections and, thus, he was not legally mandated to act on behalf of the Guyanese people. While allowing Cuban planes to transit here twice was acceptable, donating US$ 50,000 per year to freedom fighte
rs without approval was not. Not when the masses in Guyana were suffering and deprived of basic foodstuffs which were necessary to Guyanese culture (not just for religio
us practices, but acquired taste and food culture), and survival. An analogy here should suffice. If the breadwinner in a family economically abuses family members by not su
pporting them adequately financially while at the same time is generous to outsiders and freely spends with them, does s/he deserve praise from society? Most of the time people do not know about the domestic abuse so they think that the person is a model. Through partial ignorance the situation is never known holistically.
While Burnham was grandstanding on the world stage and opposing apartheid, many did not know about his dictatorship at home. He was bold enough to let them know, time and again, that outsiders should not interfere with the internal affairs of an independent, sovereign nation as he rigged elections and practised discrimination. While he championed equality abroad, he practised discrimination at home. People of a certain profile got the top jobs, scholarships and opportunities as they superseded more qualified and experienced individuals.
Those outside that profile had to prove allegiance by possessing a party card.
Most informed Guyanese were also against apartheid and minority rule in South Africa and supported the Gleneagles agreement. Many of us signed petitions in the 1970s and ’80s demanding freedom for Nelson Mandela and supported freedom fighters in Angola and Namibia. However, Burnham’s double standards and practices, his ‘wrang and strang’ mode of operation, to the extent of causing the deaths of Dr Walter Rodney (our own freedom fighter) and others do not entitle him to such a prestigious award. While his supporters are selective in putting forward reasons for him to be awarded, there should be no dichotomy here as all his actions should be evaluated holistically, and no set of actions should be exclusive of others.
It is my objective opinion ‒ I do not support the present government of Guyana ‒ that the Guyanese people should be given the award instead of Burnham. If there is no such category then it should be cancelled, not deferred.
Yours faithfully,
Karan Chand
