THIS WEEK I continue examination of the debased pervasive political culture, where leaders today, when the shoe is on the other foot, would do unto others that they would not have liked done to them. Last week attention was paid to the PPP/C government’s disparate treatment in handling the sugar and bauxite industries and their communities. The PPP/C moved ruthlessly to address the challenges in bauxite. They took away bauxite workers’ negotiated tax free overtime-which was achieved through their sweat, and extended to sugar workers under the Desmond Hoyte administration-but kept it in sugar.  All bauxite workers were fired, their approximately $3 billion Pension Plan was dismantled, repeated public calls for stakeholders engagement were ignored, LINMINE was sold to a foreign investor for $1.00, and the well-being of workers and their communities were placed on life support.
Today the same uncaring PPP/C, now in opposition, is calling for a compassionate approach to sugar, and this is only because these workers are seen as their support base. Sugar workers must also remember the poor treatment meted out to them under the Bharrat Jagdeo regime, and the Guyana Agricultural and General Workers Union served with a letter of de-recognition which conflicts with the Trade Union Recognition law. Managers were imposed on the industry without consultation and agreement with the Guyana Sugar Corporation (GuySuCo) Board.
Sugar workers are within their right to be concerned about their future given the problems of GuySuCo and the uncertainty about the way forward. Sugar has had problems for years. When during the Hoyte administration, the Booker Tate management firm was invited in 1990 to manage the company, the other crops division did not rank in primacy of interest. The PPP/C assumed office in 1992 and the continued relegation of the other crops division worked to the perils of the company.
To his credit the Forbes Burnham government sought to address the economic problems by seeking to diversify the company. These efforts were resisted by others and the opposition political forces, including the PPP and Working People’s Alliance. Ideas of diversifying and creating a Diversification Plan, as now being floated, though appear new, were applied in the past and many who today advocate for these worked against them. This is indicative that our debased politics is of such that emphasis is not placed on programmes and messages, but on the messengers.
On entering office the APNU+AFC commissioned a public inquiry into the performance of GuySuCo. The PPP/C refused to appear before the commission and let its views be known, including recommendations to make the company viable, content to stand on the side line and shout that the company must not be closed. The commission has completed its work but its report remains a secret and the National Assembly has not deliberated on it.
The government has subsequently chosen to establish a special committee, and it must be said this came after much public agitation for the inclusion of stakeholders. The committee is headed by Minister Khemraj Ramjattan who was at time of its commissioning Leader for the AFC. The PPP/C participated in these meetings but failed to submit a proposal, and as it calls for the industry not to be closed, it is also calling for a needs assessment before closing it.
Asking for a needs assessment is not without merit, but PPP/C failed to do exactly this during its 23 years in office, even as it was fully aware sugar was in crisis and such an assessment would have been important in making decisions on the industry’s future. This instance serves as another reminder how politicians treat the people and their business with contempt.
In the absence of Ramjattan Committee’s Report stating its findings and recommendations, the government announced that it would not be closing GuySuCo but privatising three estates in the immediate future, and will determine what it will do with the remainder. The question that has not been answered is what this decision means. And just as the parties in government would not have accepted this secrecy when in the opposition they shoulder a responsibility to treat the society with no less respect.
The Wales estate was closed last year and it entailed a process that treated the workers and their unions as beast of burdens not stakeholders who must be accorded due respect and deserving to be involved in the decision-making processes. This is a serious indictment on this government, the Board of Directors, and management of GuySuCo. The PPP/C mistreatment of Diamond workers and the bauxite workers does not make what the APNU+AFC did to Wales’ workers acceptable.
When the sugar and bauxite companies were nationalised it was predicated on widespread consultation with stakeholders, including the opposition PPP and the trade unions who had a seat at the table.  These matters were debated in Parliament, and the opposition under the leadership of Cheddie Jagan supported the legislations to make them possible. Back then Burnham said his government was pursuing “consultative democracy” to bring about a socialist society.

Today the Guyana Constitution (Article 13) mandates “inclusionary democracy” and expressly stipulates involvement of individuals and groups in the management and decision-making processes that impact their well-being. The APNU and AFC who rightly castigated exclusion when in the opposition, now in government, must not be seen as stomping on inclusionary democracy.