THE threat by the Guyana Gold and Diamond Miners Association (GGDMA) to call a mass strike within two weeks, if President David Granger does not meet with them in order to address what are clearly policy matters, says it is time for us to ask why as a people with common historical experiences we refuse to treat each other with respect and dignity. The miners’ request cannot be faulted if we are serious about and committed to inclusionary democracy as prescribed in Article 13 of the Guyana Constitution.

Here is another group involved in productive activities that are ensuring the development of this country, yet in asking to meet with the president to discuss matters of import to them, are being told when his schedule “permits time” he will meet with them. This treatment can be seen as being contemptuous of the people you are elected to serve and departure from the principles of the oath of office.

Many are failing to take note that among the dissatisfied and those requesting to meet with the president have voted for the administration he leads. They are others who stood up to the excesses of the Bharrat Jagdeo and Donald Ramotar regimes when many who hold political and other offices today were colluding and kowtowing with those regimes.

This administration sees it fit to send Godfrey Statia, Guyana Revenue Authority Commissioner-General to address the miners’ concerns, many of which border on policies and not enforcement and administration. We have less than a million people and reputable organisations such as the GGDMA are requesting to meet with the president and ministers of government and these requests are being treated with some level of disdain.

This same disdain the trade union federations and private sector continue to receive. Last December, the Guyana Trades Union Congress (GTUC),the Federation of Independent Trades Unions of Guyana, and the Private Sector Commission sought, via letter, a meeting with the leaders of the National Assembly. Leader of the Opposition Bharrat Jagdeo responded by saying he is ready to meet. Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo, Leader of Government Business, through the media, said he will meet but the time requested was not appropriate. Dr. Barton Scotland, Speaker of the National Assembly, has not responded.

Daily, there is discourtesy and intolerance exhibited by individuals in this society. For instance, men continue to beat, maim, and kill women and many are asking what is responsible for this behaviour. One of the factors is the emulation of discourtesy and intolerance demonstrated to the people by those who hold office. This attitude started under Bharrat Jagdeo and instead of moving to eliminate it, we are witnessing determined attempts to entrench it.

The continued disregard for Article 13 and engagement with the people is becoming the norm under this administration. People are asking to meet to discuss issues of policies, programmes and laws which fall under the purview of the president and ministers of government and we are being denied the opportunity of being heard. This arrogance must not be accepted as good governance.

Then Leader of the Opposition, David Granger,had incessantly bemoaned the Donald Ramotar government’s exclusion and championed the call for inclusionary democracy. Today he is either too busy to respect this principle or finding reasons to delay it. Had Ramotar given him the reason he gives others for not meeting, he would not have accepted it, and I would have stood in support of his rejection to being treated with contempt.

There are governments that preceded the Granger/Nagamootoo, Ramotar and Jagdeo’s, whereby issues that border on engagement with stakeholders in guiding decision-making courtesy and tolerance were displayed. During the Cheddi Jagan administration, the GTUC,of which I was then president, protested the increase in electricity charges. At a meeting at the John Forde car park, I said all politicians are dishonest. Jagan publicly reacted to this statement and said he would not speak with me again. A few weeks later, he requested engagement with me, which I attended, and in his company was Kellawan Lall, his political advisor.

We discussed the pressing issues at the time and he sought labour’s input. These issues are OMAI Gold Mines, foreign mining companies, and environmental standards. At the conclusion of the meeting and before our cordial departure, in my presence Lall said, “Comrade Cheddi, you didn’t discuss with him the statement he made at the car park.” Jagan responded: “Boy people discussing serious issues, me ent gat time for dem stupidness.”

In 1989 under Desmond Hoyte, the labour movement called a strike against Finance Minister Carl Greenidge’s G$10.00 to US$1.00 National Budget. We picketed and chanted in front of the National Assembly during its reading and debate. No barriers were there as existed under the Jagdeo and Ramotar regimes, which the Granger/Nagamootoo administration continues, inasmuch as they brought a motion and voted in favour of the removal when they were in the opposition.

Strikers called Greenidge names. Yet one day when the House had adjourned and Greenidge saw some of us on Brickdam, he alighted from his car, greeted us, and held engagement. He enquired as to our welfare, listened to what we had to say, and then continued on his journey. After the strike, Hoyte commenced a fan-out exercise, which brought him to Linden. Ashton Angel, Christopher James and I, as leaders in the bauxite unions, met with Hoyte and had fruitful discussion on matters of import to the trade union community and the impact of his policies on the workers.

There was this famous strike in 1983 during the Forbes Burnham government with the retrenchment of about 1000 bauxite workers.The relationship between the government and trade unions had deteriorated. Strikers and leaders of the trade unions called Burnham names. He travelled to Linden and engaged the trade union leadership, held fruitful engagement, and never made a reference to the names he was called.

This noted quality of Burnham, Hoyte and Jagan’s leadership, post these men, persons who have taken on political leadership, which is a tough job, are thin-skinned, feel offended by the slightest of slights, want to meet people solely on their terms, and by extension miss the essence of what leadership is all about, and the responsibility they have to the people. Criticism comes with the turf of being in leadership and politics. The failure to deal with this in a mature manner will continue to see endless conflicts in the society.