IN politics, as in most areas of public life, optics matter. Thus, it was most refreshing to see two high-powered ministerial delegations visiting the sugar belt and holding frank discussions with the workers. The government’s case, no doubt, would be strengthened.

Significantly, these delegations were led by Prime Minister Nagamootoo and Vice-President Khemraj Ramjattan—the two government members with the most intimate political and sociological connections to the majority section of the sugar workforce.

Indeed, some commentators have, in the past, urged the government to initiate such visits as a matter of urgency. Guysuco has done its work; it is now for the government to convince sugar workers and the country at large about the political and economic wisdom of the plan and how this would in the short to medium term and in longer term benefit them. The stakes are very high, precisely because we are dealing with a centuries-old industry that is structurally built into the country’s political economy. Sugar is economics, politics, sociology and history. It evokes good and bad memories. Hence, it is not a matter to be trifled with.

It is no secret that the PPP has launched a well-orchestrated campaign among sugar workers that has little to do with workers’ rights and interests and more to do with the party’s preparation for the 2020 elections. In other words, the PPP is using the understandable apprehension of some workers over the government’s bold move to restructure the industry as the occasion for planting partisan political narratives among the mainly Indian-Guyanese workers.

And it does so in the most ethnically crude manner possible by suggesting to the workers that the closing of some estates was aimed at weakening Indian-Guyanese and by extension the PPP. The twinning of workers’ angst with ethnic motives on the part of the opposition is as dangerous as they come. In that regard, that party may well be on the wrong side of history. It is for that reason that we urge other commentators and organisations with genuine concerns for the workers’ rights to be careful not to wittingly and unwittingly bolster the PPP’s sinister political master-plan.

It has come to light, perhaps belatedly, that the government through Guysuco went to tremendous lengths to ensure that it balanced the restructuring process with detailed concern for the livelihoods of the workers. In such bread-and-butter matters, it is often difficult to convince workers that management has their best interest at heart. In this case, that task becomes harder, given the political and ethnic sensitivities involved.

It is against that background that the government must be commended for going straight to the workers—there is no substitute for direct democracy in small societies such as Guyana. Given the political poison that has been nurtured by the PPP in the affected communities, it is understandable that some workers would be angry at the government. But that is precisely why it is important to speak directly to and with them. The government’s task is two-fold. First, it must delicately explain the economics of the industry and why “right-sizing” is in the long run beneficial to the sugar communities. In ethnicised societies such as Guyana, it is important to address group concerns both as part of the larger national interest and as the direct group interest. That the ministerial teams sought to do precisely this demonstrates that the government is aware of the complexity of the situation.

The second task for the government is to explain to the sugar workers the politics of the situation. Again, our ethno-political architecture whereby ethnicity is linked to political affiliation makes it quite a challenge for parties not politically grounded in the sugar communities to explain the underlying politics. This is where the leadership of Nagamootoo and Ramjattan is pivotal. As former members of the PPP and as products of those very communities, they are better equipped to address the complex politics of sugar.

It is always risky to assume that because the workers are partial to the PPP, they cannot be reasoned with. Workers have political affiliations, but their primary concern is the livelihoods of their families and communities. The PPP’s narratives should not be the only ones in circulation—there must be a counter-narrative that is grounded in reason and truth.
PPP members would protest and even try to disturb the meetings. That is to be expected—one of the objectives of garrison politics is to keep other voices and narratives from penetrating the communities. It is also the party’s right to protest. But that should not daunt the spirts of the government ministers. As we suggested above, their task is not narrow partisan manoeuvring. It is to speak to workers on their turf about their concerns. Such a task assumes humility, fearlessness and steadfastness.