Politicians should simplify their message so that every listener can know what they intend

Dear Editor, Whatever your political leanings, there is little doubt that arguably the most prolific and technical orator in Guyana’s political history, Linden Forbes Sampson Burnham, has had a noticeable and lasting impact on the cadence of political communication and commentary in Guyana. Burnham’s mastery of the English language lent itself to an aspirational nation seeking to establish independent sophistication in the separation from British rule. A supremely impressive scholastic career that included Queen’s College, London University, and admission to the Bar at Gray’s Inn saw Burnham hone the skills of brilliant communication. It can of course be argued that he stands as only one of many key influencers on the landscape of political communication today; however, it can never be argued that he has had no impact.

Burnham’s captivating and relentless use of language famously led Errol Barrow of Barbados to remark on his ability to “tire the sun with talking” on political subjects. Burnham was, however, both astute and versatile enough to have a strong appreciation for the resonance of the common language of the country. As founder of the People’s National Congress and Leader of the Opposition within the legislature, Burnham questioned the Financial Secretary with the remark, “If houri tell you trench bottom got plimpla, you must believe um.” As a sage of messaging, he was in a class of his own. However, possibly connected to this era, is the fact that it is incorrectly assumed there is a correlation between cultured language and societal superiority.

Burnham’s chief political rival through much of his career was stylistically different, but no less gifted at effective communication. Also, like Burnham, the ripple effects of Dr Cheddi Jagan’s dialogue reverberates through the political landscape today. The “father of the nation” also attended Queen’s College, and pursued dentistry at Howard and Northwestern Universities in the United States. Dr Jagan’s early political career faced seemingly insurmountable obstacles that had been shaped by the forces of colonization, rising racial and politically fuelled animosity, and the manoeuverings of external forces. Dr Jagan’s natural charisma and leadership acumen saw him effectively shepherd a base, and like Burnham, his use of speech was a significant contributor to his political prowess. Where he may have lacked in eloquence, he made up for by excelling at unfiltered, sharp, poignant, and honest speech; the unmistakable influence of his intonations and expressionism can still be heard in parliamentary debate today.

In a particularly telling and characteristic quote, Dr Jagan, in 1992, remarked, “I am the son of sugar workers who hasn’t forgotten his roots. Many politicians like me have forgotten where they came from but Jagan will never forget and you can be sure of that.” This can be interpreted as direct repudiation of political gymnastics; Dr Jagan strove to be seen as a man for all people, and used language to illustrate himself as such. However, it is not always the case that unfiltered expression has a positive impact. In fact, unfiltered expression can in some cases be detrimental to the social fabric.

Our collective admiration of both leaders, at least in part, and the complex influence of their unique personal use of language on our society’s contemporary conversation leaves us to wonder, what has been the outcome? Has their influence meant that we are now reaping the fruits of effective speech? Conversely, have we so far gone into the idolization of elevated speech in our political dictum that we have lost content and meaning in our effort to appear sophisticated? Have we created such a communication separation between the common citizen and the political commentators that we have a corrosive separation of interests? We can take for granted that at a minimum, it is surely not the case that every voice is heard. These are not simple questions and I do not possess definitive answers. However, my humble intention is to ask those in power and those with public platforms to ensure that in their attempts to establish personal branding and emulate the powerful lessons of the past, they remember that they serve, and must cater to, the voices of today. They should simplify the message so that every listener across the nation, can digest their intention. They should lace their speech with honesty and integrity and denounce the use of language to encourage social stratification. Language has evolved, and so too must we.

Yours faithfully, Rene Azeez