GUYANESE Professor, Linden Lewis, has published the only biography to date on the former dictator of Guyana, Forbes Burnham. In a newspaper column, I am unable to do justice to a review of Dr. Lewis’ work; my brief notes here I think should suffice for the moment.

The biography is a fine piece of scholarship. I recommend it to the Guyanese people. But there is always the caveat; a talented person may have his weak point. A phenomenal strokemaker may be susceptible to brilliant spin bowling.

Dr. Lewis’ biographhy of the towering personality of Burnham has two gargantuan holes, and those apertures should be filled by another biography from another scholar. The last chapter is entitled “An ambivalent legacy.” Dr. Lewis’ approach to Burnham is one of ambivalent conclusion. Anyway, here are the two missing factors.

The first hole – to understand how Burnham used power and why the utilisation of that power became demonic, Freudian analysis is a definite requirement. Social scientists can apply Freud to their subjects; you don’t have to be a psychoanalyst. In 1977, historian Robert Waite published a biography, which was a thorough application of Freud in the writing of biography. How Waite used Freud to study Hitler has to be done in the study of Burnham.

This has eluded Dr. Lewis even though the requirement was staring him in the face. I offer two examples where Dr. Lewis’ weakness showed up. Lewis applied the theory of the state by Greek philosopher, Nicos Poulantzas, to analyze what Lewis thinks was the normal descent into authoritarian power by post-colonial leaders. For Burnham, the Pakistani theorist, Hamza Alavi should have been applied rather than Poulantzas.

Alavi invented the theory of the over-developed state in post-colonial countries where the new leaders inherited an expanding, vast state apparatus which the colonials had to use because it was needed to control anti-colonial resentment. Burnham inherited such a state. Lewis went on to assert that Burnham was more excessive in his authoritarian output than the other West Indian leaders.

But he stopped there. He needed to tell us why Burnham was the exception. The answer lies in Freudian analysis. And it seems that Lewis was not interested in Freud because Lewis summarily dismissed Jesse Burnham’s booklet, warning about her brother’s youthful narcissism and ideas of greatness. Why Lewis did not find Jesse’s thing useful but found panegyrics of Burnham’s children important to discuss remains a mystery.

The second example is Lewis’ failure to explain to readers some disturbing manifestations of Burnham’s mind that Lewis made public for the first time. They could easily have been elaborated on if Lewis had adopted the style of Waite. Lewis tells us of many of Burnham’s little megalomaniac things for which Freudian analysis was crying out to be used and which again was staring Lewis in the face.

Forbes Burnham may have inherited the overdeveloped state and may have succumbed to many of the temptations of the authoritarian pathway which existed in the post-colonial world, but the post-colonial rulers did not have the psychology of Burnham. I saw Burnham’s obsession with his omnipotence and his belief in his godly status, for myself.

The first was 1979 when I graduated as best UG student. Burnham sent to call me and I sent a cuss-down message with his emissary. I offended the god, so he made me persona non grata. I could not find a job to take care of my parents.

Marriage and exodus saved my life. Again, in 1984, after I returned from the ashes of the Grenadian Revolution, Burnham sent for me. I refused and he re-instituted his fatwa against me, this time extending his evil mind to my wife.
These are the psychological nuances of Burnham that for some reason or the other Lewis did not outline.

Lewis concedes Burnham did terrible things that had destructive consequences. But he looks for factors in colonialism and the particularities of Guyanese sociology and politics to answer for Burnham’s descent. It is for this reason I describe Lewis’ conclusion about Burnham as ambivalent.

Lewis either did not want to see or couldn’t see that Burnham’s problem was his psychology. Burnham thought he was the greatest Caribbean man that was infallible and it compelled him to treat his Guyanese subjects as mere subjects.

The second hole is Lewis’ failure to offer an analysis as to why Walter Rodney with coruscating penetration weakened Burnham’s rule to the point that Rodney, if he had not alienated Jagan and the PPP, would have toppled Burnham. The reason is that Burnham’s ramparts – the African masses and the Mulatto/Creole class – wanted Burnham removed because they thought he had become delusional. Nevertheless, this is a fine biography that you must read.