DISCUSSIONS of past presidents and prominent political leaders, primarily Cheddi Jagan, Forbes Burnham, and Walter Rodney are usually done within the binary of good and bad. Looking at these men through such simplistic lens denies society knowledge of what shaped their actions and informed their policies. Further, such examination robs the nation the desire for national unity and social cohesion. For the truth is, none was good nor bad, there were variations to their leadership, informed by the environment they operated in, ideological leanings, and positions held in the society. Jagan and Burnham entered politics during the colonial era and embraced the struggles for universal adult suffrage, internal self-government and independence. Their ideological positions, while varied, did not prevent them from sharing and achieving these common goals.
Etched in this nation’s memory is the two men embracing on the night the Golden Arrowhead was hoisted declaring Guyana an independent State. This embrace occurred inasmuch as Burnham was Premier, Jagan Opposition Leader and the PPP’s pronouncement on their removal from office. During this period the Cold War divided the world along ideological lines and there were reservations by the West regarding the spread of communism in what it considered to be its backyard. Jagan being further left leaning (communist) comparatively to Burnham (socialist) did not enjoy the West’s confidence, whose role it was to grant Guyana its independence.
What the man in street may consider internal interference, in international politics/diplomacy such is seen as advancing and protecting national interest. This practice still exists today where world powers seek to influence governance and relations around the globe, including determining who is elected to government, or making known which group enjoys their confidence. Notwithstanding the geopolitical reality and leadership rivalry between the two men, they shared a cordial and respectful relationship, substantiated by none other than Jagan’s son, “Joey.”
Enter Rodney, a renowned academic, into the political fray. This entry came after Universal Adult Suffrage, internal self-government, independence and republican status were achieved. In this environment, though the Cold War existed, an internal framework for indigenous governance was shaped and was being implemented, at times with disagreement and support from Jagan and the masses.
Rodney’s politics, which was electrifying and thought-provoking, was marked by actions that challenged the status quo, internally and externally. It was also personal and demeaning to political rivals.  Simultaneously, the world’s economy was reeling from skyrocketing oil prices with the establishment of OPEC. Small countries such as Guyana, who heavily depended on imported oil, were badly affected and in instances of absence of social safety nets the masses reacted to the pains of austerity.
It was a period that increased the disaffection in society with the national development thrust of self-sufficiency pursued by the Burnham administration. Seething just beneath the surface were the racial upheavals and fragile industrial relations climate that marked the 1960s. This was the environment Rodney entered and plied his political trade on a message that racial and working-class unity could deliver Guyana from its economic woes, societal conflicts and Burnham’s leadership. Rodney’s message was simple and resonated, and those dissatisfied with Burnham’s leadership, in part or whole, or wanted to remove the PNC from office found an active leader and ally.
In juxtaposing these men one was Prime Minister, the other Leader of the Opposition, and another a political force, of which the former two held constitutional offices and concomitant responsibility to nation and constituents. Though Jagan was Leader of the Opposition and continuously vied to become Prime Minister, it had not been without giving support to Burnham’s national agenda, including nationalisation and border issues. Applying universal measurement in assessing Jagan, Burnham and Rodney which this nation must strive for at all times, there would be difficulty arriving at an honest position that any was good or bad. The actions of these men impacted the society and affected our lives, positively or negatively, whether they had our support or not. For though they operated from their respective political parties, they belong to all of us since their contributions carried universal consequences.
And this brings attention to the current spat about the acquisition and use of Red House for the Cheddi Jagan Research Centre. The argument that this building must only hold Jagan’s work because his ideological leaning and contributions should not co-mingle with other presidents since such will tarnish his good reputation is made of thinking this society must purge.
Jagan did not operate in isolation of other leaders and the masses or live on a deserted island. The evidence shows that he operated in disagreement and in concert with others on the nation’s business and was paid by the state coffers in the discharge of constitutional duties. This is a man who took pride influencing people to his side of thinking. Thus the venomous position advanced by those claiming to be keepers of his legacy does grave disservice to his legacy and this society.