Civil society and consultation

In a nation such as ours where politics has insinuated itself into almost all facets of public life, about the only subject area to get the Guyanese mind exercised will be of a political order. More or less anything else – with the exceptions of oil as well as certain constitutional issues and social concerns − will cause eyes to glaze over and attention to shut down. It is unfortunate that it is usually difficult to engage citizens in general outside this framework, or at least the more informed sectors of the community.

Yet if we are to create a better calibrated local universe we need to reduce the influence of politics in all departments of our public life, and circumscribe it within the boundaries that are more traditional for democracies. In addition, there are so many spheres of collective existence which are essential for the rational functioning of any society, no matter which government is in office, that it is essential these be given space to discharge their responsibilities insulated from interference by political forces.

One thing Guyanese do not need to be told is that political intrusion in any institution causes distortions. We have half a century of that experience to inform us. The problem is that civil society is weak, many of its bodies having been infiltrated, neutralised or crushed by our politicians over the decades, and it is only now that some signals of a tentative resurrection in one or two quarters can possibly be discerned. We have little tradition, therefore, of specialised or professional associations systematically watching what decisions are being taken in their field, and even when they have made proposals or registered criticisms these more often than not have been ignored by those who rule over us.

The situation is made more unyielding by the fact that the watchword in the past both for Freedom House and Sophia – but particularly for the former – has been total control. One of the many ways in which this has found expression is that in nearly every item of legislation coming before Parliament it is either the President or a subject Minister who has the role of ultimate authority. As we drift into a more complex society, we will need an increasing number of autonomous bodies and institutions to manage it; our little cadre of politicians, several of whom have limited skills, cannot do it.

For all of that one can sense a certain shift in the political air, with a greater demand for openness from our governments on the part of a segment of the citizenry, at least. This has become more pronounced with the advent of the oil and gas industry, which to date has not been handled competently or transparently by either the previous administration or this one. The shift is buttressed by the fact that the internet has brought us into direct contact with the wider globe and

the norms which obtain in other places, while social media have created an international space for the immediate conveying of information on events – not all of it, it must be added, of an accurate or desirable nature – and the exchange of views.

Social media have revolutionised the whole media landscape, although neither the previous government nor this one appear to have fully absorbed what has happened, and have clung tenaciously to the state media in the belief that these organs are necessary for them to influence, even if not dominate, the public message.

It is true, of course, that commentary and criticism on the social media platforms are generally of an amorphous nature. As such, we still need civil organisations on a variety of fronts to be initiated or to emerge from the shadows if they already exist, and to draw attention to matters in the formal media space which might otherwise pass us by and to which the government can be required to respond. There have been one or two civil associations which have had a certain robust profile over the years, the Private Sector Commission being one of those which come immediately to mind. The problem here is that as a body it has never been regarded as entirely politically neutral. This has degraded the public perception of its objectivity – at least on one side of the political divide – no matter its arguments in favour or against a given issue.

It is the case that in recent times citizens have been concerned about corruption. The problem in our situation was that owing to the political grip on our public space, corruption was what the other major party was guilty of. With the exception of a small minority, there tended not to be a disposition to confront corruption on an impartial basis wherever it occurred, irrespective of party. It is a strong civil society which one hopes might eventually help cultivate a non-political morality in the wider community. These are the large issues, however. As indicated above there are also the less conspicuous ones which nevertheless are important in any functioning society but which simply do not capture the public imagination. For these one would expect special groups to keep an eye out for the rest of us and engage an administration in exchanges relating to best practices or disadvantages in a specific piece of legislation, and the like.

An example of this presented itself last week, when Parliament approved the Law Reform Commission (Amendment) Bill on February 12th. The original act had been passed by the previous administration in 2016, but it is only now that it is out of office we are beginning to learn the extent of that government’s inefficiency. While the act required the President to appoint Commissioners after consulting with the Minister, Mr Granger never appointed any Commissioner, although various other persons were hired for the Commission. As such, it was swallowing money from the Treasury while unable to function, and for four years no one in the public domain really was aware of this, or at least if they were, was prepared to make an issue of it.

The present AG sought to regularise the situation, and while his sentiments have tended in the right direction, there are still questions about some of the amendments he has introduced. It is the Guyana Human Rights Association which has drawn attention to these, not the Bar Association, which one might have thought would be the primary professional body interested in the matter. Even the current reservations have been expressed after the act has already been passed.

In fairness to the Bar Association it did raise questions in 2015 about the original law reform bill within the context of a column it used to write in this newspaper. But neither it nor any other civil society body needs a column in a newspaper to make its observations; it can just issue regular releases in the same way as the GHRA does, for example, and these will be carried by the independent press. The government ignored it in 2016, but the point is if it and every other professional or committed organization monitors what the government is doing in its field of endeavour, and consistently brings that to public attention, it will become harder for the administration to ignore such a chorus of voices. They will be giving expression to matters of concern across the board in society, and not just concentrated on those things which galvanise public attention.

Without going into the details, the GHRA had some interesting suggestions to make to the AG about how the apparent aberrations in the amended law reform act could be addressed. Traditionally, however, it has to be said that Freedom House has had a testy relationship with that particular association that is of long standing, and the PPP is likely to be antipathetic to discussing anything with it. But our politicians on all sides have to learn to rise above the pettiness which has characterised so many of their dealings with outsiders in the past. The more noise civil society makes on all subjects, the more likely it will be that the political class of all persuasions can be nudged slowly out of unilateral mode, and into a habit of consultation, whether or not they like the body concerned. This is a complex society, and we will not make progress unless there is wider participation and politicians learn to listen and accept proposals and sometimes criticisms from those outside their ranks.

Dear Editor,

The GAWU saw the letter written by former President Donald Ramotar titled “Paradigm shifts needed in sugar industry to regain viability” which appeared in the February 16, 2021 Stabroek News. Some of what was said by the former president has merit. Indeed, like Ramotar, we are of the firm conviction that the sugar industry can be revitalized and made successful. Like Ramotar too, we share the view that sugar and sugar-related products should be among the industries that would exist alongside the oil industry to ensure a diversified and robust economy.

Ramotar pointed out that the industry needs experienced and capable persons at the helm. We cannot express any disagreement. Indeed, the industry has suffered a deficit of skills for some time. The situation became more acute over the last five (5) years when innumerable personnel were lost and square pegs were placed in round holes. Certainly, the former president must be aware of what took place, especially given his long-standing association with the sugar industry.

We are aware former sugar men and women, whether near or far, have deep interest in the industry and have been willing to lend their skills. At the same time, the industry needs to listen to its workers who also have valued and valuable institutional knowledge. We need, too, to develop a new cadre of sugar leaders. We believe we may require assistance from known successful sugar industry and states to assist the process. They may be aware of doing the tasks differently and more efficiently.

At the same time, we do not believe that the seeming denigration of the management will assist in turning the industry around. It may well do the opposite and demoralize further a weakened management. The GAWU itself has not shied away from expressing critical views of the management. While we contend that our criticisms were principled and with merit, at the same time, we do not believe in seeking to pull down managers. The lamentations of the former president has to be considered in tandem with the critical role he played as a director of GuySuCo for several years and later as president. Undoubtedly, we believe, he must have had several opportunities to address the shortcomings he pointed to.

The former president touted the idea of workers’ cooperatives to farm cane lands. This sounds on paper like an enticing idea. We believe that this is a concept that must be studied properly and thoroughly. We remind Ramotar that the industry has had cane farmers supplying canes to the factory prior to our Independence in 1966. Yet despite that lengthy period cane farming potential has not been fully exploited. There may be good reasons for this, and several factors may be at play. We do know now that the industry is having difficulty to attract and retain farmers and thus to transition workers, who lack the financial wherewithal when compared to farmers, could be a bit of a stretch. That is why we believe this notion of workers’ cooperatives must be carefully considered and not be rushed into no matter how much it glitters.

With cane farming largely outsourced, the former president asserted that management could have more time to concentrate on product diversification. The GAWU does not believe it is a case where the management is not knowledgeable of what could or should be done. Much of it has been known for some time now. Several studies have testified to this and Ramotar must be familiar with some of these during his time on the GuySuCo board. Certainly, we do not believe that GuySuCo knows of every possibility, but at the same time, they are very much acquainted with several important possibilities. What is needed now is the mechanism to transform them from concept to reality. There are several avenues which may require deeper examination.

Mr Ramotar reminds of the possibility of liquid fertilizers and bagasse briquettes which he mentioned were experimented with a few years ago. In terms of the liquid fertilizers, we are aware that they did not have the intended effect and had the probability of fertilizing more than the canes given their method of application. This is not to say we should throw the baby out with the bathwater, but signals the need for further investigation to determine whether other solutions are available. Maybe fertilizer cost could be reduced through local production when gas is piped to shore.

Regarding the bagasse briquettes it was indeed a novel idea at the time and held out some promise. However, it required an availability of sufficient quantities of bagasse which had been limited by cane supply. We do not recall the compression of garbage as a possibility, but we believe it would require separation of organic from inorganic materials. Moreover, uses of other biomass such as saw dust and paddy husks were experimented with at Skeldon and did not yield positive results.

The former president made mention of the purchase of machinery. We agree with him that those suitable and economical machines should be purchased. At the same time, we do not believe the industry should purchase the lowest cost machine if it cannot fulfill the objectives of the industry. The union of course is most interested in these matters as we indeed want to see the maximization of scarce resources in the interest of the industry, and more so, the workers.

We are aware of the government’s deep desire to turnaround the fortunes of the sugar industry and its strong commitment to getting the task realised. Clearly, given the administration’s high level of interest in the industry it certainly must be paying close attention to the unfolding situation. Undoubtedly, it will take appropriate actions if necessary. At the same time, our union continues to closely pay attention to the happenings in the industry. We have a vested interest and we have seen the hardships spawned by the reckless policies of the Coalition. It is with this in mind that we will continue to do our utmost in seeking to ensure that the industry remains on the right track.

Yours faithfully,

Seepaul Narine

General Secretary

GAWU