Did Burnham get a free pass into governance? How the delusion of a “DIVINE RIGHT TO RULE” still exists within the APNU today

Dear Editor,
Forbes Burnham did not technically bribe his way into becoming Prime Minister or President of Guyana in the traditional sense of paying for votes; rather, he established and maintained his power through widespread electoral fraud, constitutional manipulation, and foreign support from the US and UK. Based on declassified U.S. documents, Forbes Burnham was not merely an informant but a recipient of CIA financial support during the 1960s to oust his left-leaning rival, Cheddi Jagan. He accepted covert funding, including $5,000 USD a month in the late 1960s, to build his party (PNC) and facilitate his rise to power.
Declassified files also show Burnham requested and received funds from the CIA between 1962 and 1968 to assist in winning the 1964 and 1968 elections. In 1969, Burnham asked the U.S. government for a subsidy of $10,000 USD per month for two years to maintain his political party and its organizers. Covert assistance continued to be discussed and provided by the U.S. “40 Committee” into 1970-1971, though it was later reconsidered as he adopted his own socialist policies. At that time, the US (and Britain) favored Burnham over Jagan, who was perceived as too close to Cuba and the Soviet Union.
While he did not directly “bribe” the electorate, his regime was supported by a strategy of patronage, political maneuvering, and, in some cases, the allocation of land, such as the 1974 agreement allowing Jim Jones to set up his sect’s settlement in Guyana. Burnham operated under a political philosophy that treated the People’s National Congress (PNC) as the sole legitimate guardian of the state. His actions, particularly after 1974, suggested a belief that the PNC was destined to rule Guyana to prevent the opposing party from creating an “Indian State. “ Burnham declared the PNC to be “paramount” over the state, meaning all institutions, including the courts, civil service, and military, were subordinate to the party.
This fundamentally aligned the existence of the state with the life of the party, suggesting only the PNC was suited for leadership. He articulated that the PNC was necessary to prevent the PPP from regaining power. He was also supported by various regional leaders who, at that time, encouraged him to form a party to block Cheddi Jagan, framing it as a necessity to keep the country out of the hands of what he perceived as a “communist” opposition.
There is no question that his rule was extremely dictatorial, marked by systematic rigging of elections, intimidation of the opposition, and the use of the military to break up opposition meetings. This indicated a belief that staying in power was more important than democratic processes.
His power base was largely Afro-Guyanese, and he played upon the fears of this community to maintain the PNC’s power, cultivating an “us vs. them” political climate (which they still practice today, decades after his passing). While some supporters saw him as a “visionary” who built Guyana into a republic, the consensus among most Guyanese, many historians, and political critics is that Burnham’s actions aimed to create a “lifetime” rule for himself and the PNC.
This dictator ‘s delusion of a “ divine right to rule” continues to live on in the PNC today and actively shapes their policies and agendas within that camp. Most notable in this regard was their “desperate attempt” to cling to the spoils of government by rigging the 2020 elections in broad daylight just to stay in power. Prior to this, they independently appointed their own Chair of GECOM, ignoring the legal framework to do so, and in the process, offered up a lame excuse to justify their actions-all with the intent of scrapping the list of electors. They attempted to pass the NRF bill in January of 2019 while technically being a defunct government.
That legislation gave the then former Finance Minister too much power over the fund’s management and investment decisions; there was no separation between political and national interests, which raised fears of abuse and malicious spending (I personally believe this because of their attempt to “smuggle out” $18 million USD in signing bonuses from government coffers, which became quite the public scandal).
It is unfortunate because they have managed for 60 years to stymie their supporters, forcing them to abandon their morality to parrot their divisive gospel of political indoctrination, publicly naming and shaming them when they choose to act with their own conscience and critical thinking instead. Guyanese need to wake up and understand this dynamic because the PNC’s sole objective is power, not national development, and they will use all tools at their disposal to achieve this.
History, however, is the primary indicator of it (something they wish they could erase today). Guyana is a democracy, not an autocratic state; we do not want kings. Again, history serves as solid evidence that Guyanese continue to reject that style of leadership; just look at their dwindling numbers over the years.

Kind Regards,
Dev Harry