In his recent piece, “Hannah Arendt on the Identification of Totalitarianism”, Dr Bertrand Ramcharran cited increased interest in Arendt’s work in light of what he sees to be “growing manifestations of totalitarianism across the globe”. He also mentioned “Seyla Ben Habib, Professor at Columbia University, who identified six elements of totalitarianism”. I found it rather anomalous, however, that he chose to ignore our own experience with totalitarianism in Guyana under the rule of Forbes Burnham between 1968 and 1985, which had been noted by Dr Walter Rodney in his 1979 “People’s Power; No Dictator”. Especially so, since in light of the inevitable systemic continuities, there are the present PNC leaders’ and their recent coalition partner WPA’s David Hinds’ vow to fulfil Burnham’s “legacy”.
Contemporary European-origin political scientists of Arendt, Profs Carl Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski, had long pre-empted Ben Habib to extract six characteristics of totalitarian regimes drawn from the experiences of Stalinist Russia, Hitler’s Germany and Mussolini’s Italy. I had cited these repeatedly since 1988, starting with my paper “On the PNC dictatorship”. They are contextualised below:
A single mass party, led by a dictator. While Burnham permitted other parties existence, his electoral rigging eviscerated them so they couldn’t threaten the PNC’s rule. Guyana was effectively a one-party state. If they managed to pose a real threat to the regime, as the Working People’s Alliance (WPA) did briefly by 1979, the totalitarian “sharper steel”, in the words of Burnham, was bared. In 1980 (not coincidentally, when Rodney was assassinated), a new constitution “legally” sanctioned Burnham’s absolute control over Guyana.
A near-monopoly control over the “coercive” apparatus of the state. The Guyana Disciplined Forces – Army, Police Force, Fire Service, National Service, People’s Militia and National Guard Service – were expanded exponentially and staffed with a ninety per cent African membership. Their top brass swore personal loyalty to Burnham at PNC Congresses, while Major David Granger was in charge of their ideological training. While the GDF has commendably remained neutral, the GPF has proven more nettlesome.
A system of terroristic control. The House of Israel; “Kick down the door” bandits; arbitrary search and seizures by the police; ubiquitous police informers; assassinations; ostentatious marches by the army through opposition strongholds, etc., kept the opposition under control and their supporters in terror. Indians responded to the pressure by mass migration, joined in lesser numbers by other groups as the economy imploded. Soon more than half the country were abroad. For those who remained, corruption became institutionalised, and “lines” became the avenue of relating to, and dealing with, the regime. Corruption was power, and absolute corruption became absolute power, especially in state institutions and state operations. Corruption remains a major problem.
A near-monopoly control over mass communication and education. The Government’s nationalisation of, and PNC control over, the media (radio and newspapers; television was not permitted) and establishment of the GPSA in tandem with a programme of harassment of the opposition newspapers through libel suits and bans on newsprint consummated this imperative. The Government decided what the people should know. Private schools were all nationalised, and mass games were introduced from N. Korea for schoolchildren to feed Burnham’s megalomania. Denationalisation has resolved this challenge and the one following.
The central control and direction of the economy. Burnham boasted he had nationalised 80% of the economy – including banks – by 1976, affording sinecures to middle-class supporters. PNC membership and support for the party’s position became prerequisites for getting and keeping jobs. The Ujama-inspired co-operative, supposedly the cornerstone of the economy, was to make the African Guyanese “small man” into the “real man”. Profits were sucked from the Indian-dominated rice, sugar and retailing industries to develop other sectors.
A near-monopoly over all civil organisations. Trade unions, religious organisations, schools, cultural organisations, and social bodies were all either subverted or controlled by PNC intimidation through buying off compliant leadership (like the Maha Sabha) or creating paper organisations that were given official recognition and a place at the Government’s trough.
An official ideology. The PNC announced in 1974 it was a Marxist-Leninist party and was reorganised as the “vanguard of the masses” with paramountcy over the state. While there have been interminable discussions as to the “sincerity” of Burnham’s avowal, at a minimum, Marxism-Leninism gave the PNC a vocabulary and methodical postulate for its experiments and excesses. While both the PPP and PNC have abandoned their old “socialist” cant, stubborn behavioural traits remain.
Will the present PNC leadership fulfil this legacy?
