Dear Editor,
We live in a difficult time, a time when we are celebrating 60 years since we fought for independence. It has come to a point where we need to take note—not only take note, but make decisions about the decisions that are being made on our behalf.
From the time of independence, and from the time we acquired, to a large extent, republican status, we have spoken about making this country one that belongs to all of us—a country that takes on board not only the political and social will of the people, but also their economic will. We have spoken about making Guyana desirable to all of us, regardless of race, culture, creed, or religion.
But after 60 years, we must ask ourselves a serious question: who is really being empowered in this country, and who is being kept on the outside looking in?
We have talked about capitalism. We have talked about socialism. We have talked about State control, cooperatives, and private ownership. We have spent decades discussing systems that supposedly take into consideration the well-being of our people. What our people have always wanted is something that is best not only for us individually, but collectively. We have always sought programmes that take on board the well-being of every one of us.
The BERMINE issue stands as one of the clearest tests of whether those principles have ever been applied equally.
When the BERMINE Bauxite Company was put up for sale by the Bharrat Jagdeo regime, the trade union movement embraced the opportunity. Every effort was made to ensure that preference would be given to the workers. The workers, management, and trade unions came together and said to the government: “If you want to get rid of this company, then give us the opportunity to buy it.”
It was a simple proposition put forward by the Guyana Bauxite and General Workers Union (GB&GWU), of which I serve as General Secretary, together with the Berbice Mining Union (BMU).
The workers were not asking for charity, handouts, or special treatment. They wanted to purchase the company they helped to build and sustain. They formed a company, secured the support of the trade unions and management, and prepared a bid during the tenure of the Jagdeo-led People’s Progressive Party (PPP) regime. The stakeholders also developed an arrangement to bid for the rights to mine bauxite over a ten-year period. Nothing happened.
Since that bid was submitted, no one—from management, the workers, or the trade union movement—has received a response from the government.
There was no acknowledgement. No rejection. No acceptance. No explanation.
To this day, I do not believe the silence was accidental. It was intended to send a message to a particular section of this society. It told bauxite workers that their aspirations did not matter. It told them that their efforts at economic empowerment were not worthy of engagement. It told them that when African-Guyanese workers seek ownership, they can be safely ignored.
The significance of that silence becomes even more apparent today.
At around the same time, workers argued that similar arrangements could be replicated in the sugar industry. We argued that the people who laboured in these industries should have the opportunity to own part of what they helped build. The PPP government took a different position where bauxite was concerned.
Today, however, we are hearing that a sugar estate in Berbice can be handed over to workers to manage and own.
If worker ownership is a good idea today, why was it not a good idea when the BERMINE workers proposed it? If workers can own in one sector, why were bauxite workers denied the same opportunity?
These are not unreasonable questions. They go to the heart of fairness, equality, and justice.
I am also convinced that the bauxite workers’ proposal, now gathering dust on the desk of Jagdeo, the President, or some PPP minister, will eventually serve as the blueprint for helping sugar workers acquire an estate. While I have no objection to sugar workers and their unions benefiting from the intellectual heavy lifting undertaken by the bauxite workers and their unions, this society must know where the idea originated, who was denied the opportunity, and who is now being empowered to reap the rewards of another’s initiative.
The BERMINE workforce was overwhelmingly African-Guyanese. These workers sought ownership, economic participation, and a greater stake in the productive assets of this country. They wanted to move beyond wages. They wanted to create wealth and build something for themselves and future generations.
Many African-Guyanese have come to the conclusion that whenever Africans seek ownership, control of productive assets, or economic independence, resistance emerges. There appears to be comfort with Africans working. There appears to be comfort with Africans depending. But there appears to be discomfort when Africans seek to own.
The BERMINE experience did not create that perception. It reinforced it. The issue, therefore, is not merely about the sale of a company. It is about whether economic empowerment in Guyana is intended for everyone or only for some. It is about whether ownership opportunities are available to all citizens or selectively extended to some while denied to others.
Against that backdrop, it becomes absolutely important that we ask whether there exists a deliberate reluctance to support African-Guyanese economic empowerment. Many have concluded that these people do not want Africans to own anything in this country. They would rather Africans join and embrace whatever government decides they should have than become owners in their own right.
That is why BERMINE still matters. It remains one of the most powerful examples of how African-Guyanese efforts at ownership and economic empowerment have been treated. It remains a reminder that there is often a significant difference between what is said about inclusion and what is done when Africans seek a place at the ownership table.
As we celebrate 60 years of independence, Guyana must confront that reality. Independence cannot be confined to political slogans. It must include economic empowerment. It must include ownership. It must include the right of every community to participate meaningfully in the nation’s wealth.
The workers of BERMINE wanted to buy the company they helped to build. They organised themselves, submitted a proposal, and sought no handout from the State. They simply asked for an opportunity. The PPP denied them that opportunity. That fact should trouble every Guyanese who believes this country belongs to all of its people.