Dear Editor,
We must remember that Guyana’s birth was after a period of Slavery and Indentured Labour where people had only the little that was given to them by the ruling class of old slave masters. It was not much at the time and many basic rights that many people take for granted today had to be fought for. A process during which many lives were lost. This is why we celebrate Cuffy, Critchlow and the Enmore Martyrs. Coming from such a beginning our leaders at the time saw communism as a path to equality where money was not the objective, but equality in rights and access to resources were more important.
Communism advocates for a classless society where wealth is evenly distributed to ensure that all people have their needs met. Ownership is also communal and no one person or group of individuals gets to have a tremendously large amount of wealth when compared to others. It is a philosophy and approach that removes the role of a slave master and prevents the rise of another person or group from taking the place of those previous masters in another form. It is a system where need is more important than effort in the distribution of resources. Socialism’s goal is to reduce inequality and provide equality in opportunity by regulating the distribution of wealth. Capitalism on the other hand is focused on profit maximization and individual wealth. The key differences between these economic ideologies are rooted in the distribution of wealth.
The culture of Guyana since independence has been primarily influenced by the ideologies of Communism and Socialism. Under Dr. Jagan who was a declared communist, the focus was on the worker and improving the conditions under which the worker lived. The ideology of the PPP at that time was one which focused on improving worker rights in the workplace and providing the salary and benefits on equitable footing so that everyone in Guyana had an opportunity to live a comfortable life. Dr. Jagan believed strongly in this idea and was willing to reject socialism and capitalism even if it meant being sidelined for many years due to external pressures from those that embraced capitalism. Capitalists see communism as an ideology that prevents them from earning a profit. Thus, the resulting conflict. The PNC, whose leaders had initially embraced communism, chose to shift to socialism which many capitalist leaders saw as a middle ground between communism and capitalism.
Since finding oil in Guyana, which was accomplished primarily by a company rooted in the capitalist ideology of profit maximization, many Guyanese have struggled with the approach of wealth distribution outlined in the production sharing agreement. In Guyana, the culture is one in which equality in the distribution of national or shared resources is expected. In the U.S. this is not the culture. The expectation is that of profit maximization of those who can gain the advantage in the contractual agreement. The resulting gap in expectations has created a conflict that has lasted over a decade and continues today. The PPP government has also shifted from Dr. Jagan’s approach to the worker and has embraced a more capitalist system. This has resulted in the allowance of profit maximization by Exxon, the rise of a wealth gap, the rejection of Cuba’s leadership, and the mocking of the poor via the taunt of the holiday cash grant.
The response has been a public uproar due to the majority being left behind and struggling to make ends meet while seeing the rise of a small group who have gained excessive wealth. In a capitalist society this is not new, but in Guyana it is a major change in our socioeconomic system. President Jagan, President Hoyte and other key Ministers of their day always lived like the common man, but now Guyanese are seeing a marked difference between the new capitalists that live like old slave masters and workers who continue to live as they always have, but with a few improvements. This is also occurring in an environment where workers’ rights, such as a rights to a safe and healthy environment are being sidelined. A situation that has added to the discontent within the general population. Has the shift from one economic ideology to the other gone too far? Many will argue that it has.
There is a solution that can prevent a further widening of the wealth gap while not restricting the ability to make a profit, and that can prevent increased risk to workers and prevent the rejection of old allies. But to accomplish this greed must be abated and the focus on the rights of workers must be regained. Is it possible to accomplish this today? To do so, a clear message from the masses that this is a change that is needed and demanded by the electorate must be sent to the current government. With such a mandate the government will have no choice but to adjust. Those in power react and change when staying in power requires an adjustment be made. The upcoming local government elections is the platform that the electorate must use to send a clear message as to what is needed. If the PPP/C wins a landslide victory during those elections nothing will change. If the opposition proposes policies that abate greed, allow for profits to be made, prevent the widening wealth gap and uplifts the rights of the workers the electorate will respond. Only then will true change be accomplished that will be in the best interest of all Guyanese.
Given the clear departure in the approach to the worker and his or her struggle we all should also ask ourselves what would have happened if the oil sector in Guyana was being led by China instead of the US? Would the PPPC have shifted their ideology? China has been aggressively working on eliminating corruption and uplifting the working class. Will the U.S. also support those efforts while implementing policies that have resulted in mass layoffs of government workers and tax cuts to the wealthy and their corporations? Where is the line that allows for the balance between profitability and worker prosperity? Our government must remember the culture and history of our great nation and adjust accordingly.