Burnham and Jagdeo: Abuse of Power in Guyana

Dear Editor,

Guyana has never had a simple relationship with the exercise of political power. From independence to the oil age, the country produced leaders who promised to transform the nation while accumulating extraordinary power over the institutions meant to restrain them.

Forbes Burnham and Bharrat Jagdeo belong to different generations and different political parties. Yet the comparison between them raises an uncomfortable question: Has Guyana really escaped the politics of the strongman or authoritarian regimes? There was undeniable political ambition to both, and they did everything to acquire power and oppress opponents. Burnham left London with the ambition to become ruler and Jagdeo left Moscow on a similar mission, skilled in the communist mode of exercising power.

Guyana’s current authoritarian politics and governance (of fear, vindictiveness, and corruption) were or have been profoundly shaped by two strong men rulers—Forbes Burnham and Bharrat Jagdeo who were quite unlike the incorruptible, peaceful, all-embracing democrat Cheddi Jagan. Burnham led Guyana through independence and the difficult years of nation-building, from 1964 to 1985, while Jagdeo governed from 1999 to 2011 during a period when the country was attempting to modernise its economy. Both understood that controlling the political machinery of Guyana was essential to controlling the direction of the country and for self-accumulation of wealth. And they controlled all machineries of the State using different method—Burnham a crude direct power method and Jagdeo a softer, manipulative approach. Burnham developed as an authoritarian ruler without respect for democratic principles while Jagdeo developed authoritarian tendencies allowing democratic practices nationally while being authoritarian inside the PPP driving fear on party stalwarts.

There was under Jagdeo Presidency and since 2020 as VP excessive centralisation and authoritarian tendencies. Some critics even compared aspects of his administration with the authoritarian political style associated with Burnham.

Although Burnham and Jagdeo belonged to different political traditions and operated in dramatically different circumstances, comparisons between them are inevitable on the issues of corruption, greed, and authoritarianism. Political observers have also noted similarities between Jagdeo’s centralised political style and aspects of Burnham’s governing approach. They became increasingly dominant, manipulating the political system to preserve hold on personal power. Both placed strong emphasis on the role of the State and heavy-handed personal control, leaving legacies that remain deeply debated. Yet their approaches to economics, nationalism, political power were markedly different.

Just as a reminder on the academic background of two leaders: Burnham was trained in London and was one of the central figures in Guyana’s struggle for self-government, a gifted lawyer, powerful speaker, charismatic figure, orator, scholar, intellectual, widely feared and interested in total power. Jagdeo didn’t do well in GCE and was sent by Jagan on a Soviet scholarship to study economics in Moscow^[1]; he lacks the above characteristics of Burnham except of being feared. Jagdeo is also known like Burnham for victimisation of critics and opponents.

Burnham was a charismatic nationalist who gave Guyana a strong sense of sovereignty and pride. But he increasingly centralised governance, persecuted opponents, and made life difficult with his authoritarian tendencies. Jagdeo lacked the nationalism and charisma and intellect of Burnham and Jagan. But he learn well in Moscow on how to manipulate situations and people for power and party control. Like Burnham, he used the State for control of others and to get his way. Like Burnham and quite unlike Jagan, Jagdeo did not and does not allow democratic principles in the party – his way or the highway. That is why many stalwarts left or were pushed out. Jagdeo does not allow party democracy.

When Jagdeo came to power in August 1999, the ideological battles of the Burnham era had faded, and the major challenge was how to generate sustainable economic growth while addressing poverty, infrastructure deficiencies and social divisions it. He did a fair job given limited resources. During Jagdeo presidency, Guyana experienced significant economic and social changes. Contemporary accounts highlight improvements in education, health, housing, roads, transportation, water and sanitation, alongside reforms to taxation, public procurement and investment policy. Guyana also reduced its external debt and accumulated greater international reserves. Since his return in 2020, debt has ballooned approaching US$10 billion, much of it looted by a handful of corrupt figures, friends, families, and preferred contractors.

Also, most of the budget of the last six years of over US $50 B was looted by the same government officials. Looting also took place under the Burnham, Hoyte, and Granger presidencies, but their budgets were a fraction of those from 2021 onwards; there has been large-scale looting over the last six years from almost every official, particularly the Ministers and high-ranking officials. To their credit, Jagan and Janet did not allow looting. On the issue of looting, Burnham used Rabbi Washington and House of Israel while over the last five years, the Chinese mafia have been used to collect money. An armoured black SUV has been used to regularly collect Chinese royalty money that is converted into American dollars, millions weekly, and sent to China for safe keeping. The Chinese have been allowed duty free imports and to sell VAT free; in exchange, for the privilege, they pay a fee which is collected by the armed black SUV. The duty-free goods make their way in containers at the back of the Chinese Embassy where they are distributed to the Chinese businesses.

The special privileges given to Chinese have driven local business out of the wholesale and retail market; because of the special privileges granted to the Chinese, Guyanese can’t compete and they close shops or rent out to them. The Chinese dominate and largely control the local market at the expense of local Guyanese. The amount of money Burnham and his cronies siphoned off was small change compared with what was looted over last six years from the Treasury, loans, and the collected from the Chinese businesses and contractors.

Jagdeo lacks the charm, charisma, intellect, and suave of Burnham, but he has been able to control the State through victimisation. He does not allow dissent resulting in good people leaving the PPP or being cast aside. He manipulated the party machinery that resulted in the selection of flawed characters like Donald Ramotar and Irfaan Ali as PPP Presidential nominees^[2] when there were far more qualified candidates. And that helps to explain why Guyana is in the mess it is today — a very corrupt state with hardly any way out of the miasma. With all of his flaws and authoritarian ways, Burnham did not put a flawed character like a Green to succeed him. And Burnham was not driven by excessive, compulsive greed as has been the case over the last six years.

Guyana was and is in theory a democracy after independence. But institutional weakness had (has) allowed the rise of the authoritarian Burnham and Jagdeo. A democracy is not protected merely because citizens vote as has been the case since 1992; Burnham and Hoyte rigged elections between 1966 and 1985.^[3] Democracy also requires independent institutions, a free press, judicial independence, parliamentary scrutiny and political leaders willing to accept limits on their authority. Will Jagdeo and Irfaan Ali?

References

1. Jagdeo, Bharrat | Encyclopedia.com — www.encyclopedia.com ↩
2. Ali seen as frontrunner ahead of PPP vote today on presidential candidate - Stabroek News — www.stabroeknews.com ↩
3. Legacy of Forbes Burnham strong in Guyana UPI NewsFeature - UPI Archives — www.upi.com ↩