Remembering...
Walter Rodney Speaks
Guyana Journal, June 2006
On the Nature of a Dictatorship
in General
A dictator is defined as one who wields absolute power. The dictator elevates himself above all other citizens, and often makes claims to be closer to God than mere mortals. Emperors, kings and nobles of the feudal period easily became dictators because they could justify despotic acts on the grounds that royal power and authority were of sacred origin. In more modern versions of dictatorship, the absolute ruler has to fabricate an elaborate cult of the personality to prove that he is more intelligent, more potent and generally superior to any other human being. Idi Amin fancied himself not only as a physical giant but also as an intellectual giant. Besides, he boasted of a direct line to Allah. Eric Gairy, our Caribbean ex-dictator, dabbled in obeah and convinced himself that he was better than the world’s leading scientists and would personally solve the problem of unidentified flying objects. This is the stuff of which dictators are made.
By definition, the dictator is responsible to no one, no organization, to no social institution. On the contrary, he creates the impression that he holds in the palm of his hand the existence of every person and every organization. The dictator is paramount. He gives out land, scholarships, etc., not because they belong to the people, but because he considers that he is doing the rest of mankind a great favor. That is why human and civil rights disappear under a dictator. At best, an individual may be permitted to enjoy certain privileges and is expected to be eternally grateful to the dictator. After all, that which the dictator giveth he also taketh away.
A dictator is representative of some class other than the majority of exploited workers and peasants. Class domination itself is sometimes called “dictatorship,” but of course all members of the class which controls the given economy normally expect to share in the political power. A dictator prevents this from happening. Even within his own class there is no scope for freedom of expression. The dictator obeys no rules other than those of his own making; and consequently there is a tendency for rules to be abandoned altogether. The rule of law is replaced by arbitrary conduct and orders from above.
Dictators surround themselves with mediocrities, lackeys – that is to say, by men and women with little competence and integrity who maintain their positions through cunning, opportunism and boot-licking in relationship to the dictator. In relationship to the people, the stooges of the dictator become tyrants, who imitate as best as they can, the intolerant and despotic behavior of the big boss.
In political life, men and women make decisions about their own welfare. Politics has to do with making choices and implementing decisions. The realm of politics therefore constitutes one of the highest aspects of a people’s culture. Through one-man rule, the dictatorship reduces politics to the art of manipulation. There is nothing big or small which lies outside of his personal intervention. Nor does he remember to draw the distinction between public policy and personal interests. That is why the dictator and his cohorts continually confuse the national treasury with their private bank accounts. That is why a dictatorial regime so often bases decisions on petty spite and vendetta – amounting to what we in Guyana would call “‘grudge” politics.
On the surface, dictatorship might appear to be efficient; but the opposite is usually the case. The fact that a dictator is ruthless does not necessarily make him efficient. A dictatorial system destroys initiative. It does not allow the genius of the people to flourish and it frustrates even that class from which the dictator emerged. Dictators always pretend to be strong men, but in practice, the effort to control everyone and everything is too much. The historical record shows that several dictators were more than a little bit mad before they seized power, and many of them certainly went crazy after some years of despotic rule.
On the Nature of the Burnham Dictatorship
in Particular
As soon as we have stated the tendencies of dictatorship in general, we have already begun to lay bare the characteristics of the Burnham dictatorship. But of course we must go further and identify all of its peculiarities. The first peculiarity is that the Burnham dictatorship has masked and camouflaged itself. It would prefer that its vices be hidden from the public. Why is this?
Men in the past have boasted of being dictators. Some have even pretended to be benevolent autocrats, ruling in the interest over whom they exercised absolute control. Recently, Samoza of Nicaragua went down fighting as an unrepentant dictator. But nowadays, hardly any rulers admit that they are dictators. The demand for freedom has become universal, and repression feels the need to camouflage itself. Thus the Pinochet regime in Chile rigged a referendum to tell the world that the Chilean people voted for a dictatorship! Idi Amin claimed to have had the support of the Ugandan masses whom he was butchering! The world has come to shun racist regimes, military dictatorships and all dictatorial governments. This climate of international opinion offers the first explanation as to why the Burnham dictatorship prefers to remain disguised.
The Burnham dictatorship presents itself as its own opposite – that is to say, it presents itself as a democracy. This pattern has been determined by the manner in which Burnham achieved political power. Some dictators seize power by violence, as frequently happened in Latin America. Some inherit from a previous strong-man, as in the case “Baby Doc’’ Duvalier who succeeded “Papa Doc” Duvalier of Haiti. Occasionally a dictator can arrive on the scene as part of an electoral process before taking the steps of brazenly undermining the self-same electoral system. This was the case with Hitler who subverted German bourgeois democracy in the 1930s. Burnham has taken a similar road to power – subverting the democratic system of which he was a part in 1953.
We cannot say that Guyana has reached the same stage as Germany under Hitler’s rule, because that would be to lose the sense of proportion. Burnham as a dictator is petty because ours is a nation of less that a million people. Hitler had a mad wish to rule the world. For this reason, he is generally described as a megalomaniac. Hitler’s megalomania was backed by the powerful German economy and the might of the German army. Burnham’s megalomania is closer to comedy and farce. It takes the form of wearing a General’s uniform and hoping that the army will conquer his own people. In the long run, however, every dictator is like any other dictator. Burnham certainly has the capacity to make life miserable for the entire population of our small nation.
Like all classic dictatorships, that which exists in Guyana has fostered the cult of the personality. The minority PNC regime has used all manner of tricks and gimmicks to make the ‘Comrade Leader” appear to be a demi-god. Some of the gimmicks were inherited from our past of colonial oppression. Thus on the exercise books of school children, the face of reigning English monarch was simply replaced by that of the Prime Minister, even though there is a President as Constitutional Head of State in Guyana.
Other practices which promote the cult of the personality have been adopted in the flagrant violation of our culture. It is on record that one Hindu Pandit insulted his co-religionists and Guyanese as a whole by saying the Burnham is re-incarnation of Lord Krishna! All Guyanese can attest to the many maneuvers of the PNC regime to glorify and deify the man Forbes Burnham. We have been afflicted with his face, his name, his voice everywhere. This obscene and vulgar behavior eventually had a damaging effect on our entire artistic production, including the strangling of our calypso tradition so that the calypso crown could be won by whoever shouted the loudest praise to the dictator. When Burnham could not pretend that he was the greatest, he sought to attach himself shamelessly to the shirt-tails of those who had proved their greatness in one field or another – ranging from Fidel Castro to Mohamed Ali. Most West Indians were totally disgusted by the ridiculous practice of Burnham laying personal claim to Clive Lloyd and the West Indian cricket team.
For a small nation, Guyana has produced a discouragingly large number of lackeys and stooges who hide in the shadow of the “Comrade Leader”. Guyanese constantly complain of “square pegs in round holes.” The square pegs are the misfits and soup drinkers who flourish because each one is prepared to be his master’s voice. There is a double tragedy in this situation. First there is the tragedy (with some mixture of comedy) of the incompetent, the mediocre and the corrupt making a mess of things. Secondly, there is the tragedy in which men and women of ability and integrity have been dismissed or they have run away or they have been reduced to silence. This part of the tragedy involves honest police officers who must condone corruption, doctors who must heal without drugs, managers who are not allowed to manage and workers who are not permitted to produce and are then forced to consume a diet of lies and deceit. And all of this, incidentally, is carried on in the name of Socialism.
The smallness of our society also draws attention to the highly personalized nature of the dictatorship. The dictator and his cronies make it their business to hire and fire. They interfere with major management decisions and they intervene in the most trivial affairs. The ruling clique can be vindictive with appointments at the supposedly independent University of Guyana as they can be vindictive with regard to businessmen applying for licenses for imports controlled by the Government. The dictator can personally intervene to stop a soldier from going on leave, to prevent a junior clerk from getting a promotion, to victimize a casual worker for failing to “toe the hue.” Decision as to who to prosecute in the courts should normally be made by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Many of these decisions are made by the dictator himself in Guyana and are influenced not by the well-being of the state but by personal spite. It is said that the “Comrade Leader” boasts of his long memory and marks down persons for victimization even if he has to wait for fifteen years before he can vent his wrath on them.
When Guyana achieved independence in 1966, the PNC was a minority Government which had come to power through dubious means. Ten years later, it had become a dictatorship in which the state control over the economy was the main weapon used to keep people in line. Burnham and his cronies consider themselves powerful and clever men when they successfully threaten and intimidate an old man with a possible loss of his pension or when they intimidate a mother by bring threats against her children.
The Italian writer, Machiavelli, is famous for his analysis of politics as the art of manipulating power. Machiavelli’s best known book, The Prince, was written some 450 years ago as advice to a ruler with absolute power. We have it on the authority of the late Jessie Burnham that her “Brother Forbes” was a firm disciple of Machiavelli. In his own words, Burnham has described politics as the “science of deals.” He likes to wheel and deal and to treat persons as though each can be bought and sold. Burnham encourages around himself individuals who are weak or corrupt because he then exercises vicious control over them. According to Burnham’s thinking, the ends justify the means, and the only means which matter are those which have to do with achieving and holding on to power. Any means are acceptable if they allow him to keep control over the state machinery. This is the ultimate in cynicism and fully reveals the Machiavellian strategy which has guided Burnham in his pursuit of absolute power in Guyana.
On the international scene, Burnham could never be a powerful force. But he has proved crafty and cunning in achieving his end within Guyana. An old woman at Bourda shouted at a recent political meeting that “Burnham mek Satan cry!” This remarkable piece of wit from the Georgetown street was in response to the deviousness of a man who has worked out a long-term plan for dividing and ruling the Guyanese people – all of whom he holds in deep contempt. Again we should refer to the pamphlet by Jessie Burnham, entitled Beware My Brother Forbes, in which she described his racist attitude to Indians, his absolute selfishness and his limitless ambition to hold others in domination. Jessie Burnham also provided evidence as to the stealthy manner in which Forbes Burnham went about his objectives.
The Burnham dictatorship crept up upon Guyanese outside of the government. Many have been beaten down into silence, but there are individuals who travel and who know the world. They therefore know that internationally the Guyana government is totally discredited and that Guyanese have to bear the shame heaped on them by the dictator. Many members of the middle class are therefore entering the political movement. Many are willing to be mobilized, others will commit resources and a few are prepared to take serious risks as part of the movement.
The middle class understands that it can never monopolies a Guyanese government. From 1953, that has never been possible. Thinking members of the middle class are therefore in agreement that the solution is a Government of National Unity. This would be a government which they cannot dominate but one in which their interests are adequately represented and in which their views be given honest and careful consideration.
The WPA stands within the ranks of workers and peasants. There is no hesitation in so doing; there are no ifs and buts about our commitments to building a society in which working people enjoy the fruits of their own labor. A united working class is the base on which national unity is to be built. It is the working class (including housewives and the unemployed) who suffer most under the corrupt dictatorship. It is the working class which has sacrificed most in the struggle for bread and justice. A working class interpretation must win over the progressive elements of other classes and strata. It will have to be made clear that the Burnham dictatorship came forth from a particular economic system – a system rooted in inequality and exploitation. It will also have to be made clear that working people require fundamental change in the political structure to permanently guarantee rights which they temporarily won in the face of colonialism. The Guyanese working people who are in the immense majority will expect to have their labor power reflected in the power of the state.
The WPA has called for a Government of National Reconstruction and National Unity. Inevitably, the working people must play a leading role in such a government. Yet, it is proof of the maturity of our workers that they fully understand the need for patriotic compromise with other classes and social strata. Workers know from the most bitter of experiences how hopeless the economic situation has become. Small farmers know from heart-breaking experience that it is impossible to cultivate and survive. So the vast majority of our people will surely rally round a programmed which restores the economy through the participation of all. They will rally round a program which restores democratic rights.
One can sum up on the national question by saying that all classes in Guyana have an objective interest in unity. That is to say, each class has suffered materially from economic chaos; each class has suffered in one way or another from arbitrary rule, insecurity and lack of the opportunity to do an honest job. Collectively, we are faced with the threat of disintegration and the loss of commitment to Guyana as a nation state. This is tragically seen through the large numbers lining up at the embassies and passport offices, and in large numbers who have but one ambition in life – to leave Guyana.
This is a time for calling on our resolves of patriotism. The road to recovery of national purpose lies through the restoration of democracy. All parties and all interest groups must somehow be represented in a Government of National Reconstruction and National Unity. Burnham Must Go! Yes, but that is only one side of the coin. There must be an alternative to replace the dictator. Let that alternative be a Government of National Unity. A clear alternative is a powerful political force. It gives our people something to mobilize around. It gives the outside world something to think about as the force of the future in dealing with Guyana. In the last days of the Burnham dictatorship, a Government of National Unity must be declared. It will unite races and classes, it will attract civilians and uniformed personnel, it will itself contribute to speeding up the end of the reign of King Kong.
On the Rights of the People
When Guyana gained its independence it inherited what is called the bourgeois democratic system of Britain. Socially and economically, the population remained divided into different classes, while politically everyone had a right to help elect a Parliament which had one or more parties. The Constitution of independent Guyana was a product of class struggle waged partly in Europe and partly inside Guyana itself.
It was the people’s struggle inside Guyana which contributed most to political freedom in our country. The efforts of slaves and indentured bondsmen made the question of liberation both a national and international issue. Given our background of slavery, the question of freedom can never be ignored in Guyana and the Caribbean.
Today, we take for granted the freedom to worship. But it is not a freedom readily granted by our oppressors. When a few non-conformist ministers of religion first suggested that slaves should have access to Christianity, they were resisted by the slave masters. Those slaves who wished to practice the Christian religion ran terrible risks in order to insist on their right to worship as they chose – just as how thousands of slaves had earlier fought to continue holding their African beliefs. Under indentureship, the situation was not very different. It was usually after the end of their five-year bond that our Indian foreparents were able to turn to the temple, the mosque or the church as the case might be.
One of the most bitter struggles in the history of Guyana has been the struggle to establish the right to work. That is to say, the right to be offered employment which would provide a decent living. The right to work means the right to eat and the right to live. After slavery, the free population was willing to work. But they demanded fair conditions; and planters brought in indentured laborers to undercut the demand for better wages and conditions. The indentures laborers themselves soon grew aware of the situation. They too demanded better conditions and the result was that they were refused employment while fresh indentured laborers were brought in. The right to employment in crop time, the right to employment out of crop season, the right to employment in the public sector, all of these were at least partially won by the end of the colonial period.
Alongside the right to work was the right to housing. Acquiring a house depends on what one earns and is therefore linked to the right to work. Plantation workers were housed in logies from slavery days. When laborers became free, the planters told them that they could enjoy the privilege of staying in the plantation logies if they worked on the estates without protest. Right up until recent time, estates have ejected tenants who exercised the right to strike.
That is why our people have always preferred houses in a village instead of houses on estates. On the sugar estates, in the villages and in the towns, workers have organized to demand decent housing and to demand housing with no strings attached. Housing is not a favor which the dictator has granted to the people. The right to housing is an internationally recognized and fundamental human right. It is one for which the Guyanese have struggled in the countryside and in the towns.
In the colonial days of British Guiana, rural workers and farmers made the magnificent contribution of establishing free villages – like Buxton on the East Coast, Demerara, Queenstown in Essequibo and Fyrish/Gibraltar in East Berbice. The village residents fought the planters and the colonists in order to practice democracy at the local government level.
The urban working class led the way in establishing trade unions and in exercising the right to strike. Stevedores were amongst the most abused and exploited workers in the colonial system. Yet it was the stevedores and other dockworkers who sacrificed to make trade unions possible.
Our middle classes identified themselves with popular campaigns against dictatorial governors, against corruption in the public service, against planters manipulating elections, and against the misuse of the authority of the courts. All classes in the colony of British Guiana fought to promote freedom of expression in public places and in the press. The end result of all this was the election of governments of their choice. Popular struggle in Guyana won concessions which were partial or temporary. Clearly, there could never be full justice under colonialism, capitalism and imperialism because of deep-rooted class inequalities. The hope of the majority was that elected governments and national independence would revolutionize the economy and society so that justice would prevail.
Most Guyanese live on the coastlands. These coastlands were once desolate swamps flooded by the sea and the savannah waters. The dams and the canals, and roads and the houses, the fields and the factories, the schools and the churches, the words and the gestures – all of these represent our common heritage. Our foreparents planted their strength, their seed and their intelligence in a country which is now ours.
Neither the land nor the rights of the people are gifts of the Burnham dictatorship. On the contrary, that dictatorship has placed the nation in reverse gear. It is destroying the economy and it is stealing the rights of the people.
What Happened...
STATEMENT DISTRIBUTED BY (WPA/MILES FITZPATRICK) ON TUESDAY JUNE 17, 1980 AND HANDED TO POLICE LATER THE SAME DAY
Donald Rodney, Quantity Surveyor, age 29, of 566 West Ruimveldt, Greater Georgetown states:
I am the brother of Walter Rodney. At 7:30 pm on Friday, June 13, 1980 I picked up Walter with my motor car PBB 2349 in Church Street, outside St. Rose’s High School. Walter sat on the left side of the driver’s seat while I drove the vehicle to Broad Street and parked on the southern parapet east of Russell Street.
I came out of the car while Walter remained seated in it. I proceeded to the home of Gregory Smith, at the corner of Russell and Howes Streets. I arrived there at 7:35 to 7:40 pm.
I had met Gregory Smith on several previous occasions. I knew him as a Radar and Electronics technician. He had told me he was a Sergeant in the Marine Wing of the Guyana Defence Force. I got to know him through Walter, whom he had approached with an offer to make walkie-talkie sets. I acted as a liaison between Smith and Walter, reporting on the progress Smith was making on the manufacture of the sets.
Smith had claimed at that time to be self-employed and working on radar and electronic systems on ships coming into Georgetown. He said he was working as a serviceman. I once met him in the company of a person whom he claimed was currently in the GDF, but was dissatisfied with his position and was seriously considering leaving the GDF. He said this person was helping him with his work on the ships.
On some occasions I met Smith at his home, on others in Lombard Street near the waterfront. On these occasions when I met Smith we discussed the progress he was making with the sets. He also talked quite a lot about his competence. On one occasion, he told me that he had been sent by the GDF to the United Kingdom on a training course in radio and electronic engineering. He had also offered to acquaint me with the elements of practical radio and electronics work.
Walter told me that he found Smith unreliable in keeping appointments. Walter was also sometimes in direct contact with Smith. Smith had made several arrangements to deliver the walkie-talkie sets to Walter, but he failed to deliver them on many occasions when I was sent by Walter to uplift them.
The purpose of my visit to Smith on the night of June 13, 1980 was to collect one walkie-talkie set for testing. When I went to his home, Smith came to the door and appeared surprised at seeing me. He asked me where Walter was; I told him that Walter was around the corner. He asked me if we were walking or driving and whether we would test the set in the car or on foot. I replied that Walter would decide that. He told me the set was ready. He then went inside. I remained at the door.
Smith returned with an object in his hand. The object was in a brown paper bag. He pointed to a knob on one side of the object; by pressing the paper bag against it, the knob protruded. He explained that the set would be tested at two positions. After the first test, the knob was to be turned. He demonstrated by turning the knob clockwise. He made me repeat the action.
He said that Walter and I should walk along Russell Street, making our first stop at Princess Street where we should carry out the first test. He said we should then proceed along Camp Street and be ready to have the second test opposite the Georgetown Prison. He particularly wanted to have a test near to the prison wall so as to observe the effect of the expanse of metal on the efficiency of the set. He himself would remain at home to operate the companion set which would be in his possession. He repeated the instructions and added that if we wanted, for the first test we could go past Princess Street, but it was important that the second test take place in Camp Street, near to the prison wall. He said he wanted to observe whether the transmission would be interfered with by the extensive metal wall.
He explained that the trial would consist of a visual signal on our set when he activated the companion set which would be in his possession. He showed me a hole at the top of the box which in fact the bag contained and said that the light flash would be seen through the hole. When the light came on, the set would then be ready for communication.
He then put the set down on the table inside the room near the door. Smith then came out of the door and into the yard into the road light. He said we should synchronies our watches. He wished to make the first signal at 8 pm and he wanted to make certain that if we received a light Signal it was from him. I set my watch to 7:30, the time Smith’s watch carried. Smith then moved back to the doorway and handed me the set. The set weighed about one to two pounds and from the way it felt, it seemed to be box-shaped. It was a small package. I took the package and left the yard. At all times I believed it was a walkie-talkie set.
At Smith’s home that evening I saw at least two children. I also saw an elderly man seated on a bench outside of the house near the door.
I left the yard with the package in my hand and returned to my motor car. I went into the driver’s seat and told Walter, who was still sitting on the left side front seat that we should start walking immediately and I would relay Smith’s instructions as we walked. He said that we should drive. I replied that the instructions included walking along Camp Street. He said that we would drive along Adelaide Street, as he didn’t think the difference mattered. I agreed and handed ever the package to him and then started the car.
As I drove on to Breed Street, I explained that we were required to make trials at two positions: the first, at Princess Street at 8 o’clock by my watch which was synchronized with the Smith’s, and the second sometime after by the prison. I drove north along Adelaide Street and parked in John Street. I looked at my watch. It was not yet 8 o’clock. We waited until 8 o’clock. At 8 o’clock by my watch Walter looked down at the package which he held in his lap. The signal light flashed. Walter remarked that that was very good. I then reminded him to turn the knob which he immediately did. I then drove off north along John Street across D’Urban Street, and passed the prison. I parked the car on the western side of John Street approximately 20 yards from Hadfield Street, and turned off the ignition and all the lights.
We waited for a signal from the package. There was no signal. Within a minute from the time I parked the vehicle, Walter started saying something in reference to Gregory. I turned slightly to look through the driver’s window which was open. Suddenly, I heard a loud noise and at the same time I felt my body being twisted against the driver’s door which flew open. I became blinded on the left side, and became aware of the dashboard lights coming on. There was no feeling in either of my hands, even though I instinctively raised both hands to secure my spectacles as I was getting out of the car.
I realized then that there had been an explosion on Walter’s side of the car and that he was seriously injured. I thought immediately of getting help for him. I pushed back the driver’s door with one hand and ran north along John Street to the home of Dr. Omawale on Croal Street. When I arrived there I shouted and the door was opened by someone whom I told that something terrible had happened in my car at John and Hadfield Streets, and that Walter was still there and needed help.
I went upstairs and then realized I was bleeding profusely. I told Andaiye and Karen (de Souza) to go to the scene. I was left alone in the house and went into the bathroom. I was finally taken into the medical care of Dr. Horace Taitt.
(Signed) Donald Rodney
Walter Rodney Speaks
Guyana Journal, June 2006
On the Nature of a Dictatorship
in General
A dictator is defined as one who wields absolute power. The dictator elevates himself above all other citizens, and often makes claims to be closer to God than mere mortals. Emperors, kings and nobles of the feudal period easily became dictators because they could justify despotic acts on the grounds that royal power and authority were of sacred origin. In more modern versions of dictatorship, the absolute ruler has to fabricate an elaborate cult of the personality to prove that he is more intelligent, more potent and generally superior to any other human being. Idi Amin fancied himself not only as a physical giant but also as an intellectual giant. Besides, he boasted of a direct line to Allah. Eric Gairy, our Caribbean ex-dictator, dabbled in obeah and convinced himself that he was better than the world’s leading scientists and would personally solve the problem of unidentified flying objects. This is the stuff of which dictators are made.
By definition, the dictator is responsible to no one, no organization, to no social institution. On the contrary, he creates the impression that he holds in the palm of his hand the existence of every person and every organization. The dictator is paramount. He gives out land, scholarships, etc., not because they belong to the people, but because he considers that he is doing the rest of mankind a great favor. That is why human and civil rights disappear under a dictator. At best, an individual may be permitted to enjoy certain privileges and is expected to be eternally grateful to the dictator. After all, that which the dictator giveth he also taketh away.
A dictator is representative of some class other than the majority of exploited workers and peasants. Class domination itself is sometimes called “dictatorship,” but of course all members of the class which controls the given economy normally expect to share in the political power. A dictator prevents this from happening. Even within his own class there is no scope for freedom of expression. The dictator obeys no rules other than those of his own making; and consequently there is a tendency for rules to be abandoned altogether. The rule of law is replaced by arbitrary conduct and orders from above.
Dictators surround themselves with mediocrities, lackeys – that is to say, by men and women with little competence and integrity who maintain their positions through cunning, opportunism and boot-licking in relationship to the dictator. In relationship to the people, the stooges of the dictator become tyrants, who imitate as best as they can, the intolerant and despotic behavior of the big boss.
In political life, men and women make decisions about their own welfare. Politics has to do with making choices and implementing decisions. The realm of politics therefore constitutes one of the highest aspects of a people’s culture. Through one-man rule, the dictatorship reduces politics to the art of manipulation. There is nothing big or small which lies outside of his personal intervention. Nor does he remember to draw the distinction between public policy and personal interests. That is why the dictator and his cohorts continually confuse the national treasury with their private bank accounts. That is why a dictatorial regime so often bases decisions on petty spite and vendetta – amounting to what we in Guyana would call “‘grudge” politics.
On the surface, dictatorship might appear to be efficient; but the opposite is usually the case. The fact that a dictator is ruthless does not necessarily make him efficient. A dictatorial system destroys initiative. It does not allow the genius of the people to flourish and it frustrates even that class from which the dictator emerged. Dictators always pretend to be strong men, but in practice, the effort to control everyone and everything is too much. The historical record shows that several dictators were more than a little bit mad before they seized power, and many of them certainly went crazy after some years of despotic rule.
On the Nature of the Burnham Dictatorship
in Particular
As soon as we have stated the tendencies of dictatorship in general, we have already begun to lay bare the characteristics of the Burnham dictatorship. But of course we must go further and identify all of its peculiarities. The first peculiarity is that the Burnham dictatorship has masked and camouflaged itself. It would prefer that its vices be hidden from the public. Why is this?
Men in the past have boasted of being dictators. Some have even pretended to be benevolent autocrats, ruling in the interest over whom they exercised absolute control. Recently, Samoza of Nicaragua went down fighting as an unrepentant dictator. But nowadays, hardly any rulers admit that they are dictators. The demand for freedom has become universal, and repression feels the need to camouflage itself. Thus the Pinochet regime in Chile rigged a referendum to tell the world that the Chilean people voted for a dictatorship! Idi Amin claimed to have had the support of the Ugandan masses whom he was butchering! The world has come to shun racist regimes, military dictatorships and all dictatorial governments. This climate of international opinion offers the first explanation as to why the Burnham dictatorship prefers to remain disguised.
The Burnham dictatorship presents itself as its own opposite – that is to say, it presents itself as a democracy. This pattern has been determined by the manner in which Burnham achieved political power. Some dictators seize power by violence, as frequently happened in Latin America. Some inherit from a previous strong-man, as in the case “Baby Doc’’ Duvalier who succeeded “Papa Doc” Duvalier of Haiti. Occasionally a dictator can arrive on the scene as part of an electoral process before taking the steps of brazenly undermining the self-same electoral system. This was the case with Hitler who subverted German bourgeois democracy in the 1930s. Burnham has taken a similar road to power – subverting the democratic system of which he was a part in 1953.
We cannot say that Guyana has reached the same stage as Germany under Hitler’s rule, because that would be to lose the sense of proportion. Burnham as a dictator is petty because ours is a nation of less that a million people. Hitler had a mad wish to rule the world. For this reason, he is generally described as a megalomaniac. Hitler’s megalomania was backed by the powerful German economy and the might of the German army. Burnham’s megalomania is closer to comedy and farce. It takes the form of wearing a General’s uniform and hoping that the army will conquer his own people. In the long run, however, every dictator is like any other dictator. Burnham certainly has the capacity to make life miserable for the entire population of our small nation.
Like all classic dictatorships, that which exists in Guyana has fostered the cult of the personality. The minority PNC regime has used all manner of tricks and gimmicks to make the ‘Comrade Leader” appear to be a demi-god. Some of the gimmicks were inherited from our past of colonial oppression. Thus on the exercise books of school children, the face of reigning English monarch was simply replaced by that of the Prime Minister, even though there is a President as Constitutional Head of State in Guyana.
Other practices which promote the cult of the personality have been adopted in the flagrant violation of our culture. It is on record that one Hindu Pandit insulted his co-religionists and Guyanese as a whole by saying the Burnham is re-incarnation of Lord Krishna! All Guyanese can attest to the many maneuvers of the PNC regime to glorify and deify the man Forbes Burnham. We have been afflicted with his face, his name, his voice everywhere. This obscene and vulgar behavior eventually had a damaging effect on our entire artistic production, including the strangling of our calypso tradition so that the calypso crown could be won by whoever shouted the loudest praise to the dictator. When Burnham could not pretend that he was the greatest, he sought to attach himself shamelessly to the shirt-tails of those who had proved their greatness in one field or another – ranging from Fidel Castro to Mohamed Ali. Most West Indians were totally disgusted by the ridiculous practice of Burnham laying personal claim to Clive Lloyd and the West Indian cricket team.
For a small nation, Guyana has produced a discouragingly large number of lackeys and stooges who hide in the shadow of the “Comrade Leader”. Guyanese constantly complain of “square pegs in round holes.” The square pegs are the misfits and soup drinkers who flourish because each one is prepared to be his master’s voice. There is a double tragedy in this situation. First there is the tragedy (with some mixture of comedy) of the incompetent, the mediocre and the corrupt making a mess of things. Secondly, there is the tragedy in which men and women of ability and integrity have been dismissed or they have run away or they have been reduced to silence. This part of the tragedy involves honest police officers who must condone corruption, doctors who must heal without drugs, managers who are not allowed to manage and workers who are not permitted to produce and are then forced to consume a diet of lies and deceit. And all of this, incidentally, is carried on in the name of Socialism.
The smallness of our society also draws attention to the highly personalized nature of the dictatorship. The dictator and his cronies make it their business to hire and fire. They interfere with major management decisions and they intervene in the most trivial affairs. The ruling clique can be vindictive with appointments at the supposedly independent University of Guyana as they can be vindictive with regard to businessmen applying for licenses for imports controlled by the Government. The dictator can personally intervene to stop a soldier from going on leave, to prevent a junior clerk from getting a promotion, to victimize a casual worker for failing to “toe the hue.” Decision as to who to prosecute in the courts should normally be made by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Many of these decisions are made by the dictator himself in Guyana and are influenced not by the well-being of the state but by personal spite. It is said that the “Comrade Leader” boasts of his long memory and marks down persons for victimization even if he has to wait for fifteen years before he can vent his wrath on them.
When Guyana achieved independence in 1966, the PNC was a minority Government which had come to power through dubious means. Ten years later, it had become a dictatorship in which the state control over the economy was the main weapon used to keep people in line. Burnham and his cronies consider themselves powerful and clever men when they successfully threaten and intimidate an old man with a possible loss of his pension or when they intimidate a mother by bring threats against her children.
The Italian writer, Machiavelli, is famous for his analysis of politics as the art of manipulating power. Machiavelli’s best known book, The Prince, was written some 450 years ago as advice to a ruler with absolute power. We have it on the authority of the late Jessie Burnham that her “Brother Forbes” was a firm disciple of Machiavelli. In his own words, Burnham has described politics as the “science of deals.” He likes to wheel and deal and to treat persons as though each can be bought and sold. Burnham encourages around himself individuals who are weak or corrupt because he then exercises vicious control over them. According to Burnham’s thinking, the ends justify the means, and the only means which matter are those which have to do with achieving and holding on to power. Any means are acceptable if they allow him to keep control over the state machinery. This is the ultimate in cynicism and fully reveals the Machiavellian strategy which has guided Burnham in his pursuit of absolute power in Guyana.
On the international scene, Burnham could never be a powerful force. But he has proved crafty and cunning in achieving his end within Guyana. An old woman at Bourda shouted at a recent political meeting that “Burnham mek Satan cry!” This remarkable piece of wit from the Georgetown street was in response to the deviousness of a man who has worked out a long-term plan for dividing and ruling the Guyanese people – all of whom he holds in deep contempt. Again we should refer to the pamphlet by Jessie Burnham, entitled Beware My Brother Forbes, in which she described his racist attitude to Indians, his absolute selfishness and his limitless ambition to hold others in domination. Jessie Burnham also provided evidence as to the stealthy manner in which Forbes Burnham went about his objectives.
The Burnham dictatorship crept up upon Guyanese outside of the government. Many have been beaten down into silence, but there are individuals who travel and who know the world. They therefore know that internationally the Guyana government is totally discredited and that Guyanese have to bear the shame heaped on them by the dictator. Many members of the middle class are therefore entering the political movement. Many are willing to be mobilized, others will commit resources and a few are prepared to take serious risks as part of the movement.
The middle class understands that it can never monopolies a Guyanese government. From 1953, that has never been possible. Thinking members of the middle class are therefore in agreement that the solution is a Government of National Unity. This would be a government which they cannot dominate but one in which their interests are adequately represented and in which their views be given honest and careful consideration.
The WPA stands within the ranks of workers and peasants. There is no hesitation in so doing; there are no ifs and buts about our commitments to building a society in which working people enjoy the fruits of their own labor. A united working class is the base on which national unity is to be built. It is the working class (including housewives and the unemployed) who suffer most under the corrupt dictatorship. It is the working class which has sacrificed most in the struggle for bread and justice. A working class interpretation must win over the progressive elements of other classes and strata. It will have to be made clear that the Burnham dictatorship came forth from a particular economic system – a system rooted in inequality and exploitation. It will also have to be made clear that working people require fundamental change in the political structure to permanently guarantee rights which they temporarily won in the face of colonialism. The Guyanese working people who are in the immense majority will expect to have their labor power reflected in the power of the state.
The WPA has called for a Government of National Reconstruction and National Unity. Inevitably, the working people must play a leading role in such a government. Yet, it is proof of the maturity of our workers that they fully understand the need for patriotic compromise with other classes and social strata. Workers know from the most bitter of experiences how hopeless the economic situation has become. Small farmers know from heart-breaking experience that it is impossible to cultivate and survive. So the vast majority of our people will surely rally round a programmed which restores the economy through the participation of all. They will rally round a program which restores democratic rights.
One can sum up on the national question by saying that all classes in Guyana have an objective interest in unity. That is to say, each class has suffered materially from economic chaos; each class has suffered in one way or another from arbitrary rule, insecurity and lack of the opportunity to do an honest job. Collectively, we are faced with the threat of disintegration and the loss of commitment to Guyana as a nation state. This is tragically seen through the large numbers lining up at the embassies and passport offices, and in large numbers who have but one ambition in life – to leave Guyana.
This is a time for calling on our resolves of patriotism. The road to recovery of national purpose lies through the restoration of democracy. All parties and all interest groups must somehow be represented in a Government of National Reconstruction and National Unity. Burnham Must Go! Yes, but that is only one side of the coin. There must be an alternative to replace the dictator. Let that alternative be a Government of National Unity. A clear alternative is a powerful political force. It gives our people something to mobilize around. It gives the outside world something to think about as the force of the future in dealing with Guyana. In the last days of the Burnham dictatorship, a Government of National Unity must be declared. It will unite races and classes, it will attract civilians and uniformed personnel, it will itself contribute to speeding up the end of the reign of King Kong.
On the Rights of the People
When Guyana gained its independence it inherited what is called the bourgeois democratic system of Britain. Socially and economically, the population remained divided into different classes, while politically everyone had a right to help elect a Parliament which had one or more parties. The Constitution of independent Guyana was a product of class struggle waged partly in Europe and partly inside Guyana itself.
It was the people’s struggle inside Guyana which contributed most to political freedom in our country. The efforts of slaves and indentured bondsmen made the question of liberation both a national and international issue. Given our background of slavery, the question of freedom can never be ignored in Guyana and the Caribbean.
Today, we take for granted the freedom to worship. But it is not a freedom readily granted by our oppressors. When a few non-conformist ministers of religion first suggested that slaves should have access to Christianity, they were resisted by the slave masters. Those slaves who wished to practice the Christian religion ran terrible risks in order to insist on their right to worship as they chose – just as how thousands of slaves had earlier fought to continue holding their African beliefs. Under indentureship, the situation was not very different. It was usually after the end of their five-year bond that our Indian foreparents were able to turn to the temple, the mosque or the church as the case might be.
One of the most bitter struggles in the history of Guyana has been the struggle to establish the right to work. That is to say, the right to be offered employment which would provide a decent living. The right to work means the right to eat and the right to live. After slavery, the free population was willing to work. But they demanded fair conditions; and planters brought in indentured laborers to undercut the demand for better wages and conditions. The indentures laborers themselves soon grew aware of the situation. They too demanded better conditions and the result was that they were refused employment while fresh indentured laborers were brought in. The right to employment in crop time, the right to employment out of crop season, the right to employment in the public sector, all of these were at least partially won by the end of the colonial period.
Alongside the right to work was the right to housing. Acquiring a house depends on what one earns and is therefore linked to the right to work. Plantation workers were housed in logies from slavery days. When laborers became free, the planters told them that they could enjoy the privilege of staying in the plantation logies if they worked on the estates without protest. Right up until recent time, estates have ejected tenants who exercised the right to strike.
That is why our people have always preferred houses in a village instead of houses on estates. On the sugar estates, in the villages and in the towns, workers have organized to demand decent housing and to demand housing with no strings attached. Housing is not a favor which the dictator has granted to the people. The right to housing is an internationally recognized and fundamental human right. It is one for which the Guyanese have struggled in the countryside and in the towns.
In the colonial days of British Guiana, rural workers and farmers made the magnificent contribution of establishing free villages – like Buxton on the East Coast, Demerara, Queenstown in Essequibo and Fyrish/Gibraltar in East Berbice. The village residents fought the planters and the colonists in order to practice democracy at the local government level.
The urban working class led the way in establishing trade unions and in exercising the right to strike. Stevedores were amongst the most abused and exploited workers in the colonial system. Yet it was the stevedores and other dockworkers who sacrificed to make trade unions possible.
Our middle classes identified themselves with popular campaigns against dictatorial governors, against corruption in the public service, against planters manipulating elections, and against the misuse of the authority of the courts. All classes in the colony of British Guiana fought to promote freedom of expression in public places and in the press. The end result of all this was the election of governments of their choice. Popular struggle in Guyana won concessions which were partial or temporary. Clearly, there could never be full justice under colonialism, capitalism and imperialism because of deep-rooted class inequalities. The hope of the majority was that elected governments and national independence would revolutionize the economy and society so that justice would prevail.
Most Guyanese live on the coastlands. These coastlands were once desolate swamps flooded by the sea and the savannah waters. The dams and the canals, and roads and the houses, the fields and the factories, the schools and the churches, the words and the gestures – all of these represent our common heritage. Our foreparents planted their strength, their seed and their intelligence in a country which is now ours.
Neither the land nor the rights of the people are gifts of the Burnham dictatorship. On the contrary, that dictatorship has placed the nation in reverse gear. It is destroying the economy and it is stealing the rights of the people.
What Happened...
STATEMENT DISTRIBUTED BY (WPA/MILES FITZPATRICK) ON TUESDAY JUNE 17, 1980 AND HANDED TO POLICE LATER THE SAME DAY
Donald Rodney, Quantity Surveyor, age 29, of 566 West Ruimveldt, Greater Georgetown states:
I am the brother of Walter Rodney. At 7:30 pm on Friday, June 13, 1980 I picked up Walter with my motor car PBB 2349 in Church Street, outside St. Rose’s High School. Walter sat on the left side of the driver’s seat while I drove the vehicle to Broad Street and parked on the southern parapet east of Russell Street.
I came out of the car while Walter remained seated in it. I proceeded to the home of Gregory Smith, at the corner of Russell and Howes Streets. I arrived there at 7:35 to 7:40 pm.
I had met Gregory Smith on several previous occasions. I knew him as a Radar and Electronics technician. He had told me he was a Sergeant in the Marine Wing of the Guyana Defence Force. I got to know him through Walter, whom he had approached with an offer to make walkie-talkie sets. I acted as a liaison between Smith and Walter, reporting on the progress Smith was making on the manufacture of the sets.
Smith had claimed at that time to be self-employed and working on radar and electronic systems on ships coming into Georgetown. He said he was working as a serviceman. I once met him in the company of a person whom he claimed was currently in the GDF, but was dissatisfied with his position and was seriously considering leaving the GDF. He said this person was helping him with his work on the ships.
On some occasions I met Smith at his home, on others in Lombard Street near the waterfront. On these occasions when I met Smith we discussed the progress he was making with the sets. He also talked quite a lot about his competence. On one occasion, he told me that he had been sent by the GDF to the United Kingdom on a training course in radio and electronic engineering. He had also offered to acquaint me with the elements of practical radio and electronics work.
Walter told me that he found Smith unreliable in keeping appointments. Walter was also sometimes in direct contact with Smith. Smith had made several arrangements to deliver the walkie-talkie sets to Walter, but he failed to deliver them on many occasions when I was sent by Walter to uplift them.
The purpose of my visit to Smith on the night of June 13, 1980 was to collect one walkie-talkie set for testing. When I went to his home, Smith came to the door and appeared surprised at seeing me. He asked me where Walter was; I told him that Walter was around the corner. He asked me if we were walking or driving and whether we would test the set in the car or on foot. I replied that Walter would decide that. He told me the set was ready. He then went inside. I remained at the door.
Smith returned with an object in his hand. The object was in a brown paper bag. He pointed to a knob on one side of the object; by pressing the paper bag against it, the knob protruded. He explained that the set would be tested at two positions. After the first test, the knob was to be turned. He demonstrated by turning the knob clockwise. He made me repeat the action.
He said that Walter and I should walk along Russell Street, making our first stop at Princess Street where we should carry out the first test. He said we should then proceed along Camp Street and be ready to have the second test opposite the Georgetown Prison. He particularly wanted to have a test near to the prison wall so as to observe the effect of the expanse of metal on the efficiency of the set. He himself would remain at home to operate the companion set which would be in his possession. He repeated the instructions and added that if we wanted, for the first test we could go past Princess Street, but it was important that the second test take place in Camp Street, near to the prison wall. He said he wanted to observe whether the transmission would be interfered with by the extensive metal wall.
He explained that the trial would consist of a visual signal on our set when he activated the companion set which would be in his possession. He showed me a hole at the top of the box which in fact the bag contained and said that the light flash would be seen through the hole. When the light came on, the set would then be ready for communication.
He then put the set down on the table inside the room near the door. Smith then came out of the door and into the yard into the road light. He said we should synchronies our watches. He wished to make the first signal at 8 pm and he wanted to make certain that if we received a light Signal it was from him. I set my watch to 7:30, the time Smith’s watch carried. Smith then moved back to the doorway and handed me the set. The set weighed about one to two pounds and from the way it felt, it seemed to be box-shaped. It was a small package. I took the package and left the yard. At all times I believed it was a walkie-talkie set.
At Smith’s home that evening I saw at least two children. I also saw an elderly man seated on a bench outside of the house near the door.
I left the yard with the package in my hand and returned to my motor car. I went into the driver’s seat and told Walter, who was still sitting on the left side front seat that we should start walking immediately and I would relay Smith’s instructions as we walked. He said that we should drive. I replied that the instructions included walking along Camp Street. He said that we would drive along Adelaide Street, as he didn’t think the difference mattered. I agreed and handed ever the package to him and then started the car.
As I drove on to Breed Street, I explained that we were required to make trials at two positions: the first, at Princess Street at 8 o’clock by my watch which was synchronized with the Smith’s, and the second sometime after by the prison. I drove north along Adelaide Street and parked in John Street. I looked at my watch. It was not yet 8 o’clock. We waited until 8 o’clock. At 8 o’clock by my watch Walter looked down at the package which he held in his lap. The signal light flashed. Walter remarked that that was very good. I then reminded him to turn the knob which he immediately did. I then drove off north along John Street across D’Urban Street, and passed the prison. I parked the car on the western side of John Street approximately 20 yards from Hadfield Street, and turned off the ignition and all the lights.
We waited for a signal from the package. There was no signal. Within a minute from the time I parked the vehicle, Walter started saying something in reference to Gregory. I turned slightly to look through the driver’s window which was open. Suddenly, I heard a loud noise and at the same time I felt my body being twisted against the driver’s door which flew open. I became blinded on the left side, and became aware of the dashboard lights coming on. There was no feeling in either of my hands, even though I instinctively raised both hands to secure my spectacles as I was getting out of the car.
I realized then that there had been an explosion on Walter’s side of the car and that he was seriously injured. I thought immediately of getting help for him. I pushed back the driver’s door with one hand and ran north along John Street to the home of Dr. Omawale on Croal Street. When I arrived there I shouted and the door was opened by someone whom I told that something terrible had happened in my car at John and Hadfield Streets, and that Walter was still there and needed help.
I went upstairs and then realized I was bleeding profusely. I told Andaiye and Karen (de Souza) to go to the scene. I was left alone in the house and went into the bathroom. I was finally taken into the medical care of Dr. Horace Taitt.
(Signed) Donald Rodney
Main
Writings