By Randy GoPaul
A friend recently sent me Ruel Johnson’s latest tirade against Forbes Burnham and the PNC. I must confess that I have never met Ruel, but I have read many of his writings and after reading his most recent, allegedly paid, anti-PNC outpourings, it was clear that this one was yet another exercise in historical revisionism, a long-standing issue in Guyana’s political discourse.
While Johnson’s colorful storytelling and self-indulgent theatrics may entertain, they do little to educate the nation on the real challenges Burnham faced, the genuine economic reasoning behind his policies, and the undeniable fact that the PNC laid a foundation for self-sufficiency from which modern Guyana continues to benefit.
As the electoral season progresses, one cannot ignore the deliberate distortions that seek to erase the complexities of our history in favor of simplistic narratives that serve partisan interests. The true measure of Burnham’s legacy lies not in the exaggerated condemnations of his detractors but in the tangible progress that emerged from his leadership, progress that remains embedded in the fabric of Guyanese society today.
Let’s be clear, Burnham’s policies were not about deprivation; they were about survival. Guyana in the 1970s and 80s was not an economic powerhouse. It was a small state navigating the pressures of a global oil crisis, economic sabotage, and political destabilization, many of these forces driven by the same foreign interests that Ruel Johnson conveniently ignores while cherry-picking his narratives. Burnham understood that true independence required economic independence, and his policies were aimed at reducing Guyana’s reliance on expensive foreign imports. The introduction of local substitutes like rice flour and cassava flour was not some bizarre “North Korean” experiment, as Johnson ridiculously suggests, but a pragmatic response to an economy struggling with external shocks from a far reaching global economic crisis and continued efforts at destabilization!
And let’s not forget who was working against Guyana’s self-sufficiency. The very opposition that Johnson now defends, the PPP, was actively engaged in economic sabotage. It was under the PPP’s influence that young sugar cane fields were burned, cutting off critical foreign exchange earnings at a time when Guyana needed every resource it could muster. While Burnham was pushing for local food production, urging Guyanese to cultivate and consume their own products, the PPP and its allies were busy smuggling, hoarding, and ensuring that the economy suffered, all so they could later blame the PNC.
I was baffled as to why Johnson ignored this context. He seemed to prefer to paint a picture of Burnham as a tyrant while absolving the real economic traitors of their role in Guyana’s struggles. Worse, his argument reeks of elitist disdain for the very people Burnham sought to empower. To mock a child’s experience with local substitutes as some kind of indictment of Burnham’s policies is not just intellectually dishonest, it’s classist nonsense. Johnson’s entire argument rests on the assumption that local production was inherently bad and that Guyanese should have remained dependent on foreign imports, no matter the cost. A sad, example of a colonized, confused Afro-Saxon feverishly working to support his employer’s political narrative!
Ironically, much of what Burnham championed has now come full circle. Today, there is a global movement toward reducing food imports and increasing local production. Countries are recognizing the dangers of excessive dependence on foreign goods, dangers Burnham warned about decades ago. Guyanese products that once faced derision are now proudly exported to international markets. Meanwhile, the PPP, after years of ridiculing Burnham’s vision, has quietly adopted many of the same policies, albeit under the guise of modernization.
Johnson’s critique is not just historically inaccurate, it is intellectually lazy. One is left to question this deliberate stupidity delivered albeit with reckless intellectual abandon! Johnson, predictably, refuses to acknowledge the global economic conditions of the time, the deliberate sabotage Guyana faced, and the long-term benefits of Burnham’s policies. Instead, he engages in his usual brand of provocative but ultimately hollow rhetoric, more concerned with impressing his sparse social media following than with presenting a serious historical analysis.
Aubrey Norton, for all his imperfections, at least understands the importance of defending Burnham’s legacy. The PNC was never about elitism; it was about empowerment. It was about ensuring that Guyanese, especially the poor, had access to basic goods without being at the mercy of foreign monopolies and economic predators.
So, to Ruel Johnson, I say, “Stop the nonsense!”. Your revisionist attacks on Burnham only serve to expose your own ignorance of history and your contempt for the very people Burnham fought to uplift. The next time you feel the urge to spin another self-indulgent tale to please your political masters, try telling the truth for once!
