One of the tragedies of the neoliberal paradigm that was ushered in by former U.S. President Ronald Reagan and UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s was the justification for privatising most of the traditional functions of the state. Electricity, water, transportation, and even the roads, for the latter were now to be provided for by “the market,” and of course had to show profits.
Even in countries like Guyana, which spent their first centuries of existence being exploited for colonial empires, the commitment to social justice by the independence generation leaders was abandoned.
We therefore have the irony of an economist, Clive Thomas, who powerfully pleaded the case against neoliberalism for “The Poor and the Powerless” in the book of that name as recently as 1990, now becoming the main proponent of throwing 7000 sugar workers out of work, in line with neo-liberal policies of the PNC-led APNU/AFC government.
Referring to policies that included “people” and not only “markets” in their calculus, Dr Thomas had written: “First, in direct contrast to what prevails, development for me takes place when production is oriented towards satisfying the basic needs of the masses at large. By “the masses” I simply refer to all those “who do not have any power in society derived from property, book wealth, religion, caste, expertise or other sources not widely shared”.
He could be describing the sugar workers now being made “redundant”; but, for some reason, he now chooses to erase them from his plea for justice.
Dr Thomas continued, “In this way, the concerns of the poor and the powerless become the central focus of development, and not an incidental item on the agenda of export competitiveness, industry, new technology, or any such disembodied abstraction. That is to say, production for the basic needs of the masses implies a systematic, CONSCIOUS, deliberate, and planned attack on poverty, for the deliberate removal of poverty becomes a determinant of what is produced. In other words, the elimination of poverty is not treated as an incidental consequence of production, as when profit is the main determinant of output.”
How then can Dr Thomas, as the Chairman of GUYSUCO, justify the actions of the Board he now heads in placing “profits” before basic needs, as well as lives? Is the closure of Wales, Rose Hall, and Enmore a “planned attack on poverty”?
Dr Thomas was not finished, but went on to emphasis the fundamental right to work: “Second, development in the region can only take place when it is planned that the satisfaction of these basic needs are to be generated through the effective exercise of the right to work. By this I mean not only that all those who want jobs should have them, but also the right to a job without coercion as to place or type of job, given the particular skills.”
Yet he now demands workers from Wales have to work 22 miles away, at Uitvlugt; and cane planters become cane cutters.
Dr Thomas expanded on “the right to work” as including “a framework of industrial relations which permits free collective bargaining and effective representation, (as distinct from nominal) within bargaining units; a work process that allows for effective worker involvement and control; the protection of health, and guarantee of education and training for all workers for the tasks they are engaged in. The objective here is to situate work in a self-realization process. In other words, work is seen here as both an end and a means of development.”
Yesterday was “Mother’s Day”, and most of the media went into a frenzy on the neo-liberal expropriation of “mother’s love”. Sadly, no one remembered at least 1300 of the 7000 sugar workers fired were mothers, as were 5300 wives of the fired male workers. They have now been plunged deeper into the ranks of the “poor and the powerless”. And has been the case since slavery, indentureship and beyond, they will have to ensure the survival of their families — sadly, by any means necessary.
