CLIVE THOMAS’ EXPLANATION FOR THE BURNHAM DICTATORSHIP IS INADEQUATE

By Prem Misir, Ph.D.

Social classes & lack of democracy
Levels of class consciousness
Emergence of an authoritarian regime
Cross-ethnic voting

Clive Thomas in The Rise of the Authoritarian State and in a panel discussion, described Guyana in the Burnham era as an authoritarian state. He explains the authoritarian state as characterized by repression, political assassination, disappearances, and installed dictatorships. He argues that the colonial experience was responsible for the prevalence of authoritarian regimes in the Third World, including Guyana. In addition, Thomas believes that social classes did not emerge to counterbalance the power and interest of the local elites in the ruling People’s National Congress (PNC) years. This comment on social classes, however, was not even true in the colonial era.

Social classes & lack of democracy
The Burnham epoch had social classes and an intelligentsia. The African bourgeois class was born and nurtured in this dictatorship, and the Indian bourgeois class, already established, fortified its strength during this period. Not surprisingly, the African and Indian bourgeois class did not counteract but ensured the persistence of the Burnham authoritarianism. The Burnham regime could not have survived without this bourgeois patronage.

Both the African and Indian bourgeois class was really the comprador class, as described by Andre Gunder Frank. These were the local elites who greatly benefited and contributed to the system of exploitation, and whose interests became closely connected with the Burnham dictatorship and allies in the Western countries like the United States, Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom. The African and Indian bourgeois class had a complicity in the exploitation of their own country and was dependent on Western allies for their income and frequently great wealth. Meanwhile, the masses of Guyanese, however, experienced dislocation and chronic economic and social deprivation.

The Burnham dictatorship was born out of the PNC’s need to secure political and economic power on a permanent basis for Africans. The PNC, at that time, was largely African-based, and the PNC’s computation of the electoral arithmetic clearly signalled that the Party could not have guaranteed a persisting electoral victory through open, transparent and free elections. This was unmistakably understood by Burnham.

The colonial legacy left a political vacuum that both Indians and Africans attempted to fill. The Burnham dictatorship was meant, at least initially, to ensure permanence of African dominance in politics and economics. The embryonic African bourgeois and paradoxically, the reinforced Indian bourgeois, were instrumental in the pursuit of this goal.
Thomas’ explanation of a lack of democracy in the colonial period as a reason for the emergence of the Burnham dictatorship is lacking. It fails to consider the dialectics among ethnics in filling the power vacuum. In the colonial era, relative limited elements of democracy prevailed as evidenced by the elections of 1953, 1957, 1961, and 1964, and in the society at large.

Levels of class consciousness

I would, however, concede that this was allowable democracy in so far as the colonial interests were not disrupted. But it was a democracy necessary for the construction of an embryonic working-class mobilization, which subsequent consolidation became a barb in the side of the PNC regime. However limited democracy might have been from 1953 through 1964, this democracy did allow for the evolution of different levels of consciousness. We can talk about three levels of class consciousness. The first is class identity which implies recognition of differences that separates one class from another class. The second is class conflict which implies the recognition of opposition of interests with another class. Finally, we have revolutionary class consciousness which implies a recognition of the possibility of a total reorganization of a society and that such reorganization can be induced through class action. Thomas fails to consider different levels of class formation at different levels of consciousness.

If nothing else, the working class, at least between 1953 and 1964, developed an understanding of class identity that helped them to see their place in Guyana vis-à-vis the colonial power elite and the indigenous elite (African and Indian petty bourgeois class). Workers’ sense of their class identity, among other factors, undoubtedly, accelerated the drive toward Independence from Great Britain and provoked a reexamination of their social and economic-disadvantaged status.

Emergence of an authoritarian regime

I think it’s fair to point out that Guyana has always had its lower middle class contingent in the 1953 through 1964 period, and right through the Burnham dictatorship. This class comprises average-income people who are small business operators, teachers, nurses, technicians, and middle-management personnel. Let me remind you that the emergence of the ‘barrel and suitcase’ economy in the 1970s and 1980s, rapidly increased the number of small business operators. But again, just as with the working class, the middle-class level of class consciousness was limited merely to class identity. The bonding of the working class with the middle class was and still is not a reality. But both classes have existed during the colonial period right through the Burnham dictatorship. In addition, contrary to Thomas’ assertion, some democracy was available, enabling both classes to persist during this time period.

The comprador class, that is, both the African and Indian bourgeois class, stunted the growth of the working and middle classes toward achieving the second and third level of class consciousness. Both the African and Indian bourgeoisie were able to retard the working and middle class social and economic progress because of their enormous control over the resources required for international trade, albeit through dependent relationship with the Burnham dictatorship and Western traders. That is, the Indian and African bourgeoisie were pawns in the hands of the Burnham dictatorship and the dictatorship’s dependent ties to the Western allies.

Clearly then, Thomas’ argument that an authoritarian regime emerges because of a lack of internal democratic procedures and an absence of classes to resist the power elite, is inadequate. The PNC dictatorship emerged in the 1970s and 1980s to sustain PNC party political power and the consolidation of an African elite. Amid these dark days of Guyana’s history, the Indian bourgeois class was fortified. Make no mistake about the role of both the working and middle class, among other forces, in removing the Burnham dictatorship. Despite the acquisition of limited class consciousness of the working and middle classes during both the colonial period and the Burnham rule, their role in the people’s history of Guyana is secured.

Cross-ethnic voting
What is heartening, today, is that both the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR), a perceived traditionally-based African party and the People’s Progressive Party (PPP), a typically-based working-class party with a strong Indian constituency, are vigorously attempting to increase their multiethnic membership. To the advantage of the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) in December 15, 1997 national elections, we saw some cross-ethnic voting toward the PPP/C in Regions 1, 2, 4, 7, and 10. This pattern persisted in the 2001 election which is healthy for Guyana’s politics.

I should add that while Clive Thomas refers to Burnham’s regime as authoritarian, he sees the present PPP/Civic Government as displaying paternalism. I will continue with the dialog to address Thomas’ description of the PPP as paternalistic.
TOP