Dear Editor,
Thirty one years on and from the grave the name Burnham commands more attention than those of both living and dead presidents. There can be no greater testimony to the stature of the man. To anyone brave enough to rise to the challenge of pronouncing on this controversial figure, I wish to offer two points.
First of all, in doing so one’s own honour and credibility is at stake. What really was going on in Guyana under Burnham is as well-known as it is unsaid—and unsayable. A researcher or historian or anyone making the call without bias is demonstrating courage more than insight and discovery. Say anything good about Burnham and the Burnham-half of the population adores you, while the anti-Burnham-half doesn’t want to see you. Say anything bad, and the response is reversed. This is so, regardless of the truism of what you say. In other words, damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
There is another obstacle to the search for truth here. When a god-man is so revered as a hero by his worshipping followers, you have to respect their feelings, whether they are wrong or right. You are forced to tread cautiously, sometimes compromising your research and intuitive skills and training. I suppose it is for these reasons most people hold their peace, preferring to write, for example, about the history of cricket—safe subject—rather than address the one under discussion.
The second point I want to make is that no assessment of Burnham can stand if that assessment completely ignores his election rigging achievements. You short-change his true genius by so doing, diminishing the man in the process, even though the opposite is intended. I am using ‘election manipulation’ as a fair game tactic in the context of Guyana’s party politics, without any pejorative intent. The fundamental essence of Burnham’s world is the perpetuation of self, party, and people via fraudulent means, especially when others might have won under free and fair circumstances.
Rulers elsewhere achieved the same things as Burnham through armed seizure of state power and much bloodletting, in other words, through force. Not so with our man. Every wrong was done within the framework of legality, parliamentary process, and democracy.
On top of it, all the CARICOM governments, the United States, the UN and its agencies went along with the Burnham government. It was business as usual, notwithstanding the travesty.
Also, in a racially divided Guyana, Burnham readily displayed the prominent Indians who were closely working with him (Sir Shridath Ramphal, Sir Lionel Luckhoo, Mohamed Shahabuddeen, Shakoor Manraj, to name a few).
These are greater achievements than harnessing Kaieteur Falls, and herein lies the true genius of the Founder Leader.
Yours faithfully,
P. D. Sharma
Los Angeles, CA
