I doubt if there is any Lindener who would disagree with Sharma Solomon when he wrote in the Stabroek News edition of December 14, “economic security is what Linden needs.” I am in agreement with his general concern for our community, like so many others. He struck a strident note which calls for urgent attention when he stated “my concern as a citizen of the town is that we are not properly prepared to handle the changes that time has brought.” However there were a few things which I’m not comfortable with, as when Sharma wrote: “One of the hangovers of the bygone era of Linden is the dependency syndrome, where things were provided at little or no cost.” Now, it bothers me somewhat when our historical past is being viewed so as to give the impression it was a period of mendicancy, in which we were too often pampered, and whatever little amenities we were lucky to have was because of the benevolence of the foreign owners. Indeed, the community was virtually a company town that took care of almost every aspect of the community’s affairs, but is someone to be blamed for that?
Things have changed yes, and we cannot cling to the past, but we must strive to have a proper understanding of it, so that it is placed in the true and proper perspective of how it was.
If we the people of Linden – then McKenzie – had been required to pay as with all the other amenities we enjoyed, then those cost factors would have had bearing on every Collective Labour Agreement and helped dictate the wage packages, not only of bauxite workers but others sector in the community as well. This is why it is unfair to suddenly make comparisons and implement increases in water and electricity in the community. These, as I have stated above, were amenities given based on the conditions under which men worked and the way the industry functioned, its effect on the community, etc. These weren’t just mere charitable handouts or generosity that we paid “little or nothing for.” Those services on the contrary came at a cost which to this day is immeasurable and difficult to calculate.
Sharma went on: “Maybe the economic upheaval that we are faced with could allow us to bring an end to such an era [dependency syndrome] and force a creative revolution upon us where we see economic enterprise differently; there are people who are already moving forward.” He then cites Dr Haynes as an example. I’m not sure exactly how he has this worked out. Against whom and in what form is this comparison being made? As an individual or a collective? It is not within the reach of the ordinary wage worker to acquire millions as they would wish; ordinary people do not have the kind of security or access to the backing which could entitle them to that amount of money. If they could, probably the economic landscape of the community would have been different.
But I need to point out that I think a good opportunity was lost when the bauxite industry pension plan (the largest ever) was dissolved. The kind of organization, help, guidance from all and sundry, but mostly well meaning resource personnel and technocrats that was so badly needed could have gone into a collective enterprise which would have ensured a level of economic viability. It is a pity that this was not thought about, and even more sad that many of these resource personnel are hardly ever inclined to get on board unless their involvement is self-serving.
But while a few private entrepreneurs would certainly fulfil a meaningful role, they are just a speck in terms of our economic security. In any event, it is hardly practicable for everyone to become self employed in this modern-day touch-button technology world. The Linden Economic Advancement Project, part of whose mandate it was to help create this condition of economic continuity has not been able to achieve it to any significant degree, even with $2.2B at its disposal. Gone is the past yes, and new openings must be found, and while we dig deep within ourselves for a way out, we should not forget that the elected government has a responsibility. Linden like all other regions is not autonomous as such; bear in mind that all the resources, assets and profits belong to all our people and must be used in respect of their condition/development in order of priority.
Lindeners still speak of the past (which some don’t like to hear) when profits from bauxite took care of and propped up other failing sectors; profits from this mineral were not, and could not have been used solely in the interest of workers and this community, but ultimately had to be used in the service of all Guyana.
The brother also sees a change in social consciousness as essential, “for only then can Linden begin to see beyond job security and become more concerned about economic security.” Becoming conscious of the reality is indeed essential; it is the initial step, but we cannot, in spite of all our consciousness wish things into place. There must be a means, a practical approach by which we cause things to happen. As I understand it, one way in which the economic continuity of the community can be guaranteed is with a resource base which can be exploited and from which production and services can be generated and sold, and employment provided.
It stands to reason that if all we do is utilize and employ only goods and services that we don’t produce, it would sooner than later bleed the community dry. It is the wellbeing of the community that provides the oasis for good business. But I do agree that there must be “a more aggressive approach” to both social and political activism.
Yours faithfully,
Frank Fyffe
