THIS month, Guyana celebrates its 47th Anniversary as a republic. Republican status means Guyana is free to chart its path of self-determination, having severed the final yoke of colonial domination on February 23, 1970. According to the online Merriam-Webster dictionary, a republic is a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law, and is headed by a president. The online Encyclopaedia Britannica notes that a “Republic is a form of government in which a state is ruled by representatives of the citizen body. Modern republics are founded on the idea that sovereignty rests with the people.”
The commonality in the stated definitions is that the people have a say in the management of their affairs and through their elected representatives. It is reasonable to conclude that people will want their elected representatives to treat them as human beings, with inalienable rights, and manage their resources consistent with laws that would redound to their collective benefit.
The name Linden Forbes Sampson Burnham often evokes spirited reaction — for and against him — depending on who is speaking about him. This is a young nation relative to its independence and republican status. With this comes inherent challenges, enunciation of the past, and frankly, in our polarised politics, the aspiring desire to have honest and frank discussions about our history.
At the same time, it cannot be ignored where approximately 65 percent of the population is 40 years and younger, most do not know Burnham,who died in 1985, and perceptions of him are shaped by others. His politics, local and international, was complex, reflecting the era of his time and cannot be defined or constrained by a straight-jacket, and analysing him through such lens should be striven for.
The view is held — not without justification — that to confine Burnham’s impact on Guyana — wider afield — to allegations and counter-allegations, the society is not only robbed the essence of his over-riding philosophy on nation-building and protecting Guyana’s sovereignty, but such focus would allow others to absolve themselves of responsibility to build on his positive contributions and eschew acts contrary to present times.

As a nation, it should be a matter of review what institutional support has been put in place to ensure that the representative system of government is strengthened, and where ordinary folk, outside of casting a ballot, can honestly say they have access to their representatives, and they feel their input is valued in the management and decision-making processes of the state. Though the framework was established by Burnham, was anything done to build on it and should he, who lived in the 20th century, be held accountable for political actions or inactions of the 21st century?
A country whose motto is “One People, One Nation, One Destiny” shouldn’t we be addressing in this 47th year, how far has the nation advanced beyond the framework to respect and celebrate diversity as in ethnic holidays, national ethos, and education curriculum? What progress, institutional and otherwise, has been made to solidify the sense of oneness? Do the people recognise this, and feel that sense of belonging to a collective, driven by common purpose, aspirations and goals?
As a people, what is the state of our identity, local, regional and international? How do we treat with each other, others treat with us, and our role in influencing the comity of humankind on the global stage? Is Guyanese still treated with respect in the Region and the country seen as a beacon for progressive thinking and change globally? Does the principle of being our brothers and sisters’ keepers as was the hallmark of Guyana’s Foreign Policy still felt?
On sustainable development, during his leadership, Guyana had positioned itself to be self-sufficient and the breadbasket of the Caribbean and simultaneously cultivating a thriving manufacturing sector, which was under-girded by free education from nursery to university. These not only provided diverse opportunities for learning and unleashing the people’s innovation but also pathways for political, social, economic and cultural self-determination.
In assessing the above, it would not be without justification for the people and the leaders to re-elevate where we are 47 years hence and what systems have been put in place to bring us into the 21st century and build on the progressive foundation of the 20th century. Forbes Burnham had put markers in place, built a structure/framework, guided by a philosophy that sought to realise self-determination for a people, whose history is checkered with slavery, indentureship and colonialism and though of diverse origins, our commonality in wanting to be treated with dignity and respect, prevails.