At a media event at Congress to launch activities to mark the 60th Anniversary of the formation of the People’s National Congress (PNC), its General Secretary Mr Oscar Clarke, emphasised that Guyanese, particularly the youths should learn about the history of the party, and more importantly about the ideology of its Founder Leader, Forbes Burnham. He insisted, “Our present leader (Brigadier (rtd) David Granger) has taken that mantle and is carrying forward the ideas of Burnham today because they are so relevant to what is happening in this country, even now.” This might be the enunciation of “The Declaration of Sophia II”.
In 1989, to save the bankrupted economy, the PNC Government of Desmond Hoyte accepted as part of the IMF “stabilisation” package, the neoliberal premise that the State must be a “night watchman” – that is, play a minimal role in the economy and other societal affairs. This was a complete refutation of the Burnhamite ideology which saw the state and its institutions – especially the Disciplines Forces – as playing the pivotal role in “modernising” all aspects of the nation’s life, not just the economy.
If President Granger is going to reintroduce the “ideas” of Burnham in the present, then indeed, our youths need to know what is in store for them. The President, as the present leader of the PNC, is uniquely situated to perform the role described by his General Secretary. Within the broad sweep of the ‘decolonisation” imperative Burnham had embarked on, his assessment was that Guyanese society was not disciplined enough to accomplish the far reaching changes that were to be initiated and executed in all the institutions of the state and society. Oscar Clark referred to the collection of Burnham’s speeches, which was given the revealing title, “A Destiny to Mould”. If the Guyanese people were to be “moulded”, what exactly would form the “mould”?
Burnham envisaged the military and military-patterned institutions as inculcating that “discipline” into the Guyanese people. Immediately on inheriting the state through the CIA-midwifed “electoral coup” of the PPP, Burnham dispatched some young Cadets – including the 19-year old David Granger – to army schools such as Mons in the UK. He then disbanded the ethnically balanced Special Services Unit (SSU) upon the return of these young officers, and launched the Guyana Defence Force, with a number of British officers to bring them up to speed.
By 1970, however, Burnham revealed he did not want a hands-off “British-style”, professional army: the GDF was to the very tip of the vanguard spear that would re-orient the nation in the new path. Young David Granger was made head of the unit that would re-orient the army for its vanguard role. Young Elvin McDavid played the same role in another other key state institution – the Public Service. When the army by 1979 was being influenced by Walter Rodney, the British-trained officers of the GDF were shunted aside to allow a very junior, but ideologically trusted David Granger to become its Commandant.
Now that the ideology of Burnham has been declared as once again guiding our national affairs, the superabundance of ex-military types and the programmes launched to resuscitate military organisations like the Peoples’ Militia and the Cadet Corps, since the PNC-led APNU/AFC government assumed office, now make sense. Just as in 1969, the intrusion by Venezuelan troops into our territory offered a rationale for massively expanding our militarised manpower, it is quite likely that the (fortuitous?) present meltdown of Venezuela might see a repetition of that policy.
But Guyanese must be wary of history repeating itself if the government insists on using the army as a vehicle for “modernisation” once again. There is the danger of what was called “praetorianism”: the tendency of the military to intervene in political life in one of three forms: moderator, guardian, or ruler. In whatever form it takes, praetorianism undermines democracy and in a divided polity like Guyana will inevitably lead to authoritarian dictatorship.
