GUYANA as a nation and all that it represents has been severely tested by the crisis in the sugar industry. It was the first time that an industrial occurrence of such magnitude, because it involves the livelihoods of so many thousands of sugar workers and their families, had ever occurred in Guyana.

Undoubtedly, it tested the resolve of the nation, for the intellectual contents of what it had to offer not merely as views, but tangible solutions as to the way forward.
What had been very interesting, are the opinions/views/statements from the various interested parties, inclusive of the political opposition, its allied sugar union, the Guyana Agricultural and General Workers’ Union (GAWU) and the media.

It was a delicate situation, and still is,  deserving of much national concern  because of the socio-economic impact on the livelihoods of the sugar workers involved, and what such uncharted waters meant for their families, communities, and the numerous sectors that stand to be affected  from the fallout of redundancy.

It was in this milieu that the dangerous characteristic of dishonesty became a hallmark of the debate on the way forward for the industry. It was to become the political brand of critics of the government, beginning with the political opposition; it was astonishing to say the least, that the coalition government was blamed for the industry’s crisis, which had its genesis during the long night of the PPP/C’s governance.

How this could have been possible, when the former administration squandered the opportunities to take care of the well-being of thousands of sugar workers after the European Union (EU) announced the removal of preferential prices for our sugar since 2006? It is still to be understood, given the fact that the government at that time had been well aware of the continuous slide of the industry into the bog of being unproductive. Politics, as some would say, but surely of a dishonest and dangerous type. Further, it has not added to any viable solution of any kind.

What the nation witnessed, beginning from the coalition government’s first working day of its ascension to office, when GuySuCo declared that it was “broke’’, were sustained attacks from the political opposition, that were riddled with half-truths, misinformation and obfuscations of all genres, designed to mislead, as well as exonerate themselves from the blame that all honest-minded Guyanese should know, lies squarely on its shoulders.
It was astonishing for what was being offered as debate for a solution to crisis that involved the livelihoods of so many; but which clearly had the unmistakable ring tones of self-serving the well-known political end of keeping an industry alive for purely political purposes.

The media also played no small role in the debate. In fact, it should play the role of honest broker, given its pivotal position as zealous guardian of the public’s trust and the fourth estate. Further, because of its powerful position as being able to influence national debate, and public agendas, it ought to beware of partisanship, especially of the type that does not add to the solution for whatever challenge.

Regardless of its political leanings, the media’s masthead must always be objectivity, while concomitantly raising the intellectual bar of debate. It left much to be desired as to the content in some sections of the media, both print and electronic, through opinion pieces especially, regarding government’s decisions on the industry. Again, the mantra was that all of the estates should continue as they are.  In this mix, there was not even an attempt to discuss the former PPP/C government’s role in bringing the industry to its knees. It was as if GuySuCo as an entity only commenced as from May, 2015.

Government has gone to tremendous lengths to ensure that it balanced the restructuring process with detailed concern for the livelihoods of 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, but the administration must continue the engagement, for there is no substitute for direct democracy in small societies such as Guyana.