Dear Editor,

THERE continues to be a tendency by some in this society to elevate Walter Rodney to heights that resemble mysticism. In this month marking his 36th death anniversary, Guyanese continue to hear stories about his politics that deserve to be questioned, and hopefully the Working People’s Alliance (WPA) and those who promote him to such a level would truthfully answer the questions.

It is being said that Rodney was a prophet of self-emancipation. If to be so called means being in the opposition, following said logic, Cheddi Jagan and Forbes Burnham, who were the major political leaders opposing British rule, can be similarly identified.

Equally, too, such title would be befitting Jagan, Burnham, Desmond Hoyte, Robert Corbin, David Granger and Bharrat Jagdeo — being Leaders of the Opposition — and all other political leaders with no constitutional title, as was Rodney and others who oppose(d) government.

The argument being made by David Hinds that Rodney’s violence against the State is similar to that of Cuffy’s, Damon’s and Courtney Crum-Ewing’s is anti-intellectual. In the era of slavery in which Cuffy and Damon lived and fought the establishment, there was no universal law to which the people were subjected. Africans were not even considered humans and equals.

In the era of Rodney and Crum-Ewing, laws existed that made all equal and subject. Unlike Rodney, Crum-Ewing never advocated or sought to remove government with the use of violence. There was no violence in Crum-Ewing’s activism or advocacy to remove the PPP/C from office, and it is insulting to so malign him.

Guyanese are being told that Rodney and the WPA were multiracial. This claim is not singular to Rodney or WPA. All political parties in this country — outside of ROAR, which promoted being a party for Indians — have multiracial support. And the fact that a racial group may comprise the majority of support does not negate the fact of a multiracial presence.

The attendance at rallies — when not translated to votes, but used to claim superiority or singularity in any regard on multi-racialism — is a mythical or pseudo-argument.

The WPA’s claim to being multi-racial has seen only one Indian leader in the co-leadership – Dr Rupert Roopnaraine. How is it that Guyana’s ‘only’ multiracial party could not find another Indian or any other person from the other four races to appoint or anoint? It need not be forgotten that Guyana is a land of six peoples.

This society is being told that Rodney opposed Burnham’s illegitimate government, yet none of the elections that occurred under Burnham was so deemed by the court. And if the reason for saying the elections were illegitimate is because this was so said by local and external groups, it need not be forgotten that the 1997 elections, which were deemed free and fair by said groups, were vitiated in a High Court.

What standards are being used to pronounce on elections during Burnham’s or the PNC’s era, as against the 1997 vitiated elections or the 2006 elections, when GECOM awarded the AFC seat to the PPP/C and both elections were deemed free and fair?

Legitimacy and illegitimacy cannot be determined by whims and fancies.

Another area of duplicity by the WPA is this issue of democracy. If democracy is measured only by elections, the WPA and Rodney have never been democratic in their politics or nature. Neither Rodney, Roopnaraine, nor any WPA leader was ever elected by the membership of the party, neither was the membership allowed to cast their vote for a leader of choice. Those leaders were imposed on the people following the WPA’s logic of what constitutes democracy, thereby making Rodney et al dictators.

The truth is the WPA never held any election to elect any of its leaders. If the party is comfortable doing this, shouldn’t the society be concerned that had the party, as a single force, won national elections, elections thereafter would have been a thing of the past and leaders would have been handpicked and imposed on the people, as was done at the party level?

This is building on the logic of the WPA’s brand of democracy, because if it is practised at the party level, it is safe to assume it would have been replicated at the national level.

Finally, I read where a young lady who attended a function on Rodney has asked why nobody wants to accept that Burnham had done anything wrong. I’d say to that young lady that a similar question should be asked about Rodney.
The politics of Rodney is not used to create an educated society, but to ensure preposterous over-glorification of him, and foist on the society a saintly creature when he was far from that.

These pseudo-intellectual arguments being made of him and the WPA can only continue because enough people are not asking the right questions, and the WPA is not being forced to answer them.

Regards,
MINETTE BACCHUS