Dear Editor,
I offer some comments on a letter by Mr Abu Bakr, (‘An evocation of context is important to an understanding of events surrounding Walter Rodney’s death,’ SN, June 28). Mr Bakr informed readers that he ran into a friend in Paris who was close to the Burnham family and this friend told him of the shock and anger on Burnham’s face when the President heard of Rodney’s death.
Some people can be blinded by sentiment. It is common to humans and has run through the history of civilization. It will never end. The book of Adolph Hitler’s secretary is a poignant example. However, for people writing history, sentiment has no importance. Maybe, because of the closeness the gentleman shared with the Burnham family he accepted that the emotional reaction of Burnham was based on real psychology. But why was Burnham not faking it? At that time, Burnham must have known that even the American President would be interested to know what would take place in Guyana seeing that such an internationally known scholar was murdered.
I believe that this acceptance of the emotions and psychology of authoritarian leaders by those who speak to them or know them is wrong, misplaced and dangerous. I recall the anger in me when a former Guyanese journalist in the seventies and who currently lives in Florida and writes about Guyana told readers in one of his columns that he met President Jagdeo at a function in New York and after talking to him he was impressed by what he saw as Jagdeo’s genuine intention about democracy. As an academic and historian, I hold the view that Mr Jagdeo was less democratic than Forbes Burnham.
This interviewer’s journalistic imbroglio was beyond belief. What did this guy expect from the facial expression of Mr Jagdeo? Did it occur to him that Mr Jagdeo would have laughed broadly and yelled out that he doesn’t care who criticizes him? Mr Jagdeo’s facial reaction is banal stuff that all interviewers must be on the look-out for when they question leaders known for their undemocratic instincts. And any trained, mature journalist should know this.
Of course that gentleman that Mr Bakr met may still believe that Burnham’s reaction was sincere, but he ought to internalize the thought that Burnham had no choice but to appear aggrieved. But what about Mr Bakr’s position on citing the incident? Could it be interpreted that Mr Bakr also believed Burnham had no role in Rodney’s death because his friend transmitted to him the look of shock and anger from Burnham when the President heard about Burnham’s death?
My position on Burnham’s death has remained unchanged since 1980. I honestly believe Burnham lived in mortal fear of being overthrown and subsequently humiliated by Walter Rodney. If Burnham had a main weakness throughout his lengthy political career, it would be that he feared removal by Rodney. He took the decision to harm Rodney because he felt he had no other option.
I believe from circumstantial evidence, the present Commission of Inquiry will implicate the Burnhamite state but not the President himself. The Commissioners will be hard-pressed to directly find that Burnham ordered Rodney’s death or to find evidence that he directed the conspiracy that led to Walter’s death. So in the end, it will be back to square one but with a huge, and I mean a really huge difference.
Those who believe Burnham was not involved would have been bolstered in their advocacy. They would point to a Commission of Inquiry that did not pronounce on Burnham’s guilt, and I am predicting that the Commission will not do such a thing. One factor definitely exists that prevents such a pronouncement – there isn’t the evidence after such a long time. If it existed five years after Walter’s death, it doesn’t exist any longer. The present government took too long to pursue the inquiry we are now seeing.
The biggest loser after the Commission completes its work would be the Rodney family. And this is indeed sad. I think the Rodney family erred in two ways in requesting the Commission. It believed that evidence and personnel exist that would expose Burnham in the murder plot without the family reflecting on the tremendous loss of documents since 1980. Guyana is run by an administration whose cultural ideology is devoid of the consciousness about the importance of historical record collecting.
Secondly, the family got close to the PPP government who no doubt deceived them with a false sincerity of a vigorous judicial investigation. The Rodney family, being away for so long from Guyana lost its ability to analyze the nature of the Jagdeoite PPP since Cheddi Jagan died. As the Commission’s work shows, the PPP is using the inquiry for propaganda purposes of the crudest, most vulgar type. Rodney’s murder was a tragedy. The Commission probing his death thirty-three years after is a tragedy, and the unanswered question the Rodney family will have to live with is a tragedy.
Yours faithfully,
Frederick Kissoon
