I AM NOT BURNHAM

March 30, 2015 | By KNews | Filed Under Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom , Source

It is not often that the Peeper is stumped. But I must confess when someone approached me recently and asked me what was meant by the words, “I am not Burnham”’, the Peeper was flummoxed.

I really did not know the answer to that question. As hard as I tried, a satisfactory answer evaded me.

Literally, of course, if someone says he or she is not Burnham what that person is saying is that he or she is not the person who is publicly known as Forbes Burnham.

Each person has his own unique fingerprint and each person is therefore distinct and different from others. I am me. I therefore cannot be Burnham.

But that is an obvious fact and therefore the statement, “I am not Burnham” could not have been said to correct any case of mistaken identity.

I suspect that there is some deeper meaning to the statement, “I am not Burnham.” To attempt to unravel that deeper meaning, I have employed the Socratic Method.

The Socratic Method is associated with the Greek philosopher, Socrates, even though he himself never laid claim to ownership or the development of any such method.

However Socrates had a way of questioning a proposition or claim until such time as a contradiction emerged. This was his way of calling into question the views of others.

This method of questioning views and propositions is what is known as the Socratic Method. The objective of the Socratic Method was however not to find flaws or loopholes in an argument but rather to arrive at the truth by putting under scrutiny a held or accepted proposition or viewpoint.

At the deeper level, when someone says to others that he is not Burnham, what does it suggest? Is it someone trying to say that he or she should is not associated with Burnham?

Is it a way of saying that person is not going to do the things that Burnham did? Or it is saying that the person is not going to employ the methods of Burnham? In other words, is it a form of disassociation from the later Founder Leader of the PNC? I don’t know.

In his lifetime, Burnham would have done some good things and he would have done some very bad things. To say that I am not Burnham cannot be an attempt to distance oneself from the good that the Founder Leader did, can it?

It can only mean to distance oneself from the bad things that the Founder Leader did. It is difficult to see why anyone would want to disassociate oneself from the good of another.

Therefore if the statement, “I am not Burnham” is an attempt to only  disassociate oneself from the bad of Burnham, then this means that Burnham did do bad things and there are things to be disassociated from.

So what are these bad things that Burnham may have done that is to be disassociated from? Is it rigging of elections?

Is it bringing hardships on the Guyanese people? Is it pressuring civil servants to march in the Peoples Parade in order to save their jobs?

Is it having senior professionals within the State sector having to attend the Congress of the ruling party, and having to pledge loyalty to the ruling party? Is it the banning of food items?

Is it the compulsory acquisition of private lands? What really is, if at all, being disassociated from Burnham?

Another possibility is that the statement, “I am not Burnham” simply means that it is time to move beyond the past of the PNC and to embrace a new future. That could well be the meaning of the statement, “I am not Burnham.”

Let us try the Socratic Method here also. Now if on the balance, that is the good minus the bad, one had a positive record in the past, or even a glorious record in the past, one that one could be proud of and hold up to public admiration, there would have been no need to argue that one should move beyond that past.

If the past was something that one could be proud of then there is no need to argue that we should not dwell on this past. We should not have to put it aside and press forward into the future. So is there on balance a past to be ashamed of? Is there a past that is better forgotten than remembered?

Or is there some deeper philosophical meaning to the statement, “I am not Burnham.” Quite honestly, I do not know.