Dear Editor,
In 1905 when Hubert Nathaniel Critchlow mobilised city workers to challenge the merchants and ruling class it was because the citizens wanted a change in the way business was conducted and how they were treated. It was the period when there was no universal right to vote and the International Labour Organisation and United Nations were non-existent. It was a time when the world did not advocate universal liberties and freedoms yet the 21-year-old Critchlow had the foresight to recognise the importance of these to the development of humankind. This is the foundation of modern Guyana that we cannot and must not run away from.
The trade union movement preceded the political movement. In 1926 it was this movement that started the march for one man one vote that many today are using to ride on the backs of workers, the under-privileged and the not so privileged. This vote is taken seriously by the Guyana Trades Union Congress and its affiliates, and citizens are urged to recognise that there is power in their vote, and this power must be used wisely.
The vote must not be used to allow persons to ride our backs, and as such we need to stand up, embrace universal principles and advance a cause. The cause today is for a better way of life for every Guyanese, for sharing in our national patrimony and building a foundation for our children and their descendants. We live in an era of representative democracy where elected officials under this system ought to be the people’s servants and be accountable to the people. The monarchical system has gone forever and no one, regardless of how loyal we are, should be loyal to any individual who is elected to public office.
Loyalty must be to universal principles and not an individual, and it is for this reason whatever is being done leading up to May 11 and after, must be seen and practised through this lens. There were acts which we condemned during the Forbes Burnham government, the Desmond Hoyte government, the Cheddi and Janet Jagan governments, and there was our expressed intolerance of the mismanagement and abuse of the Bharrat Jagdeo and Donald Ramotar governments, so those who offer themselves for leadership must not practise what they condemn. The yardsticks used in measuring the behaviours of other governments must also be applied to the opposition.
The current campaign has seen an upsurge in the voices for change. This clamouring is as strong as the waves that broke the seawall and flooded the coastland. The change that persons are advocating must not be misconstrued by any political leader as love for him or her. It must be recognised for what it is; this is a grassroots movement by the people to save Guyana by removing it from the reckless control of the Jagdeo/Ramotar leadership. This is a people’s march to create a fair and just society where all can dwell and elected officials respect us as the real masters of our destiny. This must be heeded.
This surge for change must not be taken for granted by leaders who seek political office. Leaders ought not to see themselves as the movers of the people’s struggle for a better way of life, and as such can use their privileged position to trample and deny citizens and communities their rights. The movers of this struggle are the ordinary man and woman, the rank and file. Gone are the days when struggles were centred around charismatic and visionary leaders. Today the struggle is centred around universally acceptable principles, and the faster the leaders come to recognise and accept that this is what the tidal wave is built on, it will make their job easier and the desire to hold office realisable.
Coming from the bowels of the trade union, let me remind this nation of three incidents: 1) Charles Carter, a trade union leader in the Linden community at the height of his popularity was seen riding in a company vehicle to where the striking workers were gathered after the union and management had signed Terms of Resumption. Carter was never given the opportunity to deliver that agreement; he was confronted with a no-confidence motion on the question that the workers had lost trust in him. It was the period when there was a total lack of trust among citizens, foreign capital and colonial authority. 2) In April 1966, Winston McKinnon Verbeke, President of the Guyana Mine Workers Union turned up at Cuffy Square in McKenzie to present to workers an agreement negotiated with DEMBA. This agreement enraged workers who reacted by placing a rope around Verbeke’s neck. 3) In 1961, popular trade unionist, James Downer in Kwakwani failed to carry out a position mandated by the workers, and he was removed at a membership meeting by a vote of no-confidence.
These examples are given for those leaders who live away from the mining community to step back, examine and appreciate the culture of this community when it comes to issues that border on rights and self-determination. The bauxite communities are also known for challenging decisions they disagree with. During the Burnham and Hoyte governments even though they supported the party, they challenged their governments and the success of these gentlemen in the bauxite communities was premised on their responses in giving comfort to the people’s outcries.
The failure of many leaders today is their refusal to be guided by history, and this is contributing to a process of stymieing the mobilising and galvanising of the young brigade in their quest for change and betterment.
Every person affected by the intransigence of the national leaders who incidentally are leading the march for change must not only condemn their wrongdoings, but as citizens who are committed to change while we passionately guard principles, must pursue with vigour the achievement of the cause, which is making Guyana a better place. We can only do so if we come out in our numbers on May 11 to conduct that referendum on the Jagdeo/Ramotar leadership.
The trade union movement was there before every mass-based political organisation. The trade unionists were there before the local politicians. The trade union movement and unionists will not go away since we have a responsibility to every community within which we operate. Our right to involvement is enshrined in international, regional and local declarations, conventions, charters and laws. It is stipulated that every worker should spend 8 hours at the workplace, while the remaining 16 is spent within their community. Ours is the responsibility to protect them, on and off the job. The trade union shall hold everyone accountable for respecting universal principles, citizens’ rights and the rule of law, regardless of the party of association. This is the change we want to see and this is what it ought to be. Let us collectively continue our campaign for this change.
Yours faithfully,
Lincoln Lewis
