When did Dr. Jagan support a one-party state for Guyana?
Peeping Tom
Kaieteur News
March 9, 2007
There was once a running joke about Guyana 's former dictator Forbes Burnham. On the night of an election, a member of Burnham goes to him and says, “I have excellent news, Mr. Burnham! You won 98.6% of the vote in the election! Less than 2 percent of the people dissented! What more could you possibly want?
Mr. Burnham replied, “Their names.”
We should stop playing games about what defines a dictator. The above joke provides the two defining elements; first, the legitimacy of power, and secondly the manner in which that power is exercised.
There is no need to debate whether Forbes Burnham was a dictator. This is like questioning whether the sky is blue. We can engage in all manner of semantics and polemics about whether it is indeed blue or whether it simply appears blue, but that does not change the way the sky is seen and viewed by all human beings.
Similarly, we can try to revise the outlook on the Burnham's years in Guyana , but the verdict on what he was and the nature of his rule are already in.
It is an incontrovertible fact that Forbes Burnham was a dictator.
We may debate whether he did good things, what his overall record was or whether this was the best form of administration for a divided country. We can and perhaps should debate those issues. However let us not as Guyanese would say, “beat around the bush” and end up in denial. Forbes Burnham was a dictator, and furthermore he was a tyrant.
I will respectfully ask the person who wrote a letter in the media yesterday claiming that Burnham did not satisfy the criteria of a dictator to have a chat with the professor who writes for this newspaper. I am sure after that chat, that person may wish to revise his definition of a dictatorship as a form of rule in which absolute power is vested in one individual. By such standards, very few leaders outside of totalitarian systems could be deemed as dictators. That definition better describes a totalitarian ruler.
A dictator is a more qualified definition for one that ascribes values to the legitimacy of the possession of power and the ways in which it is wielded.
In the context of democratic values, when one speaks of a dictator, one is referring to someone who holds power without legitimate consent and who exercises power in way that violates the human, political and social rights of his subjects. It does not mean that there is a lack of recourse, for example through the courts, for redress; it simply implies the possession of power without democratic consent and the exercise of that power in a manner that violates democratic norms.
I can incontrovertibly establish against this framework that Forbes Burnham was both a dictator and a tyrant. But that is not the central purpose of this article.
I instead wish to raise another issue that was raised in a televised discussion about Forbes Burnham. In that discussion an attempt was made to justify the nature of Burnham's anti-democratic rule by mentioning that Cheddi Jagan had told some commission that he believed in a one-party State.
The exact commission was not mentioned, but some names were suggested as possible sources. Now that the dust has settled, I would like the person who made that statement - and that person knows who he is - to produce the source of his information. I ask for this proof because I have never come across a record of Dr. Cheddi Jagan proposing a one-party State for Guyana .
The Robertson Commission established after the suspension of the constitution in 1953 mentioned the PPP's submission to the Waddington Commission. It noted that in a written memorandum to the Waddington Constitution Commission, the PPP proposed a wholly elected single chamber legislature and an Executive elected by and wholly and directly responsible to that legislature, with the Governor possessing reserve powers solely in relation to defence and external relations.
Similarly, there is no mention in the Wynn-Parry Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the disturbances of the sixties being told by Dr. Jagan that he supported a one-party State for Guyana .
Dr. Cheddi Jagan can be faulted on many fronts, but when it comes to democratic conduct, Burnham and Jagan cannot be said to have been on the same wavelength.
I have noted also another disturbing development, the advancement of the untenable claim that Burnham was interested in national unity and in power-sharing.
In the future, I will put into context what is being touted as the initiatives launched by Forbes Burnham to promote national unity and power-sharing.
When I am finished with my analysis, I am confident that never again in this country will Burnham's name be associated with national unity and power-sharing.