Freddie Kissoon’s latest column that was published in the Guyana Chronicle 23 February, 2026 on Forbes Burnham is not history; it is hostility dressed up as scholarship. It is also deeply ironic. Mr. Kissoon is, quite frankly, licking the very vomit he once spewed
I readily acknowledge what Mr. Kissoon finds so offensive: I was not born during Forbes Burnham’s presidency. But historical understanding is not confined to lived experience. Serious people research, read, interrogate sources, and situate leaders within their global and regional context. I have done exactly that. It is through study—not nostalgia—that I conclude Forbes Burnham stands among the most consequential leaders Guyana and the wider Caribbean have produced.
Burnham inherited a fragile, deeply divided post-colonial society at the height of the Cold War. He led Guyana through independence, republican status, and the assertion of sovereignty in a hostile international environment. That alone places him firmly in the category of nation-builders, not caricatures.
Let us dispense with the dismissive sneer that Burnham’s achievements are a “stuck record.” Nations are built by institutions, not soundbites, and Forbes Burnham’s legacy is rooted precisely in the durable foundations he helped to establish. Under his leadership, Guyana attained full political sovereignty and republican status in 1970, severing the final constitutional ties to the British Crown and affirming the nation’s right to self-determination. At a time of intense external pressure, he also defended Guyana’s territorial integrity, choosing to internationalise the Venezuelan claim through diplomacy and strategy rather than capitulate on sovereignty.
Burnham pursued nationalisation as a pathway to economic independence, reclaiming key sectors such as bauxite, sugar, and public utilities from foreign control so that Guyana’s resources could serve Guyanese interests unlike the PPP government deals with ExxonMobil, His administration laid critical social and economic infrastructure through the establishment and expansion of institutions such as the National Insurance Scheme, the National Flour Mill, the Guyana Pharmaceutical Corporation, the Sanata Textile Mill, and the clay brick factory—each aimed at self-sufficiency, industrial development, and employment creation.
Major development works, including the Demerara Harbour Bridge and the Mahaica–Mahaicony–Abary (MMA) Scheme, transformed transportation, agriculture, and food security. Complementing these material investments was a strong emphasis on education and national consciousness, with free education from nursery to university and cultural initiatives designed to produce confident, self-aware Guyanese citizens.
Were there errors, excesses, and contradictions? Of course. No serious defender of Burnham claims otherwise. But to describe his entire period of governance as “the third most terrible period” in our history is not analysis—it is polemic. Slavery and colonialism were systems of total dehumanisation imposed by foreign powers. To equate a post-colonial government, led by Guyanese, with those crimes is historically obscene.
Mr. Kissoon mocks my reference to political stability and national unity. Yet it was Burnham who insisted that Guyana must not fracture along racial or external lines, even when regional and international forces actively sought to destabilise the state. The very fact that Guyana survived as a coherent nation through that era is testament to leadership, however imperfect.
The constant invocation of Walter Rodney, stripped of nuance and weaponised for partisan convenience, does not advance truth. Commissions of Inquiry, like all historical instruments, must be read critically and contextually—not selectively brandished to settle ideological scores
Guyana deserves mature historical debate, not ritualised demonisation. Forbes Burnham was not a saint, but neither was he the cartoon tyrant Mr. Kissoon insists on resurrecting every February. He was a complex, formidable, and visionary leader whose imprint on Guyana remains indelible
History will remember him long after today’s columnists have exhausted their recycled outrage.
