IT WAS, at some point, bound to happen. The apparent rift between the GAWU leader and his comrades over tactics and strategies regarding the restructuring of the sugar industry should not come as a surprise to those who have a keen understanding of Guyana’s contemporary politics.

That the opposition leader has all but thrown Mr. Komal Chand under the bus for adopting a conciliatory approach to the government’s initiative, should also not surprise those who have keenly followed the politics of the PPP under Mr. Jagdeo’s leadership.

Understandably, PPP detractors would be quick to gloat over this apparent crack in the seemingly impregnatable armour. Others would want to make dire predictions about the PPP’s ability to remain a viable political force. Still, others would be moved to condemn Jagdeo and sympathise with Chand. But in the final analysis, this development must alert Guyana to the extent to which our politics have degenerated. It must also impel us to draw lessons and in the process, come to grips with the fact that age-old political modes of operation may well be unsuited to the current environment.

It is no secret that from the 1950s to the present, GAWU and the PPP have been mere branches of the same three. GAWU is the PPP and the PPP is GAWU. Most of GAWU members are PPP members. While Dr. Jagan was alive, he was the leader of both organisations. GAWU primary role was to use the trade union arena to fight PPP’s political battles—hard core labour matters were secondary on that agenda. This was also the case of the Guyana Labour Union and the PNC until the latter was outmanoeuvred of ownership of the union.

So, when Mr. Chand took an independent position after the meeting with the government last week, he was committing one of the biggest political sins. Some of our political parties in Guyana and the Caribbean do not nurture or tolerate independence.

This is indeed one of the sad realities of our political culture that has, in turn, contributed to the underdevelopment of our politics. Truth be told, GAWU is caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place.” Now that the government has moved on with restructuring the industry, does the union fight for the workers compensation and other entitlements or does it privilege the PPP’s stated political agenda of non-cooperation with the government?

Whether Mr. Chand has deliberately thought through his stance and calculated the consequences, he has punctured the decades-old praxis of the GAWU-PPP pact. He has made the workers’ interest primary. This is not to say that he has abandoned the PPP’s agenda, but on this pivotal matter, he has rearranged the priorities. This is what is so galling to Mr. Jagdeo and his cohorts in the PPP and explains calls for Chand’s removal. Not unexpectedly, to date, none of the PPP stalwarts has come to Chand’s defence, except Indra Chandarpal.

Given the mysterious ways in which the party operates, Chand most likely would either be removed or forced to retract his conciliatory stance towards the government. That would be an unfortunate outcome, but the dam has already been breached. Jagdeo is correct when he suggests that Chand has given the government a lifeline. That may be injurious to the PPP’s political health, but in the long run it benefits the sugar workers. And that should be of paramount concern.

Sugar workers will no doubt be encouraged to denounce Chand, but saner voices should point out to them that Chand is looking out for their material interests rather than pursuing narrow political interests. We are not trying to bat for the GAWU leader nor are we proselytising for the government, but as we editorialised last Sunday, the sugar impasse would be sorted out amicably when all stakeholders sit down and act in the interest of the country.