Dear Editor,
I recently made a short visit to the land of my birth. Like most Guyanese I celebrated the end of PPP rule. A period of rule that saw discrimination and corruption soaring to heights never before experienced in all of Caricom. The PPP represented a group of men and women consumed by selfishness and the love of power. Concern for the welfare of the common man rated low on their ‘to do’ list and this attitude gave rise to their involvement in a multitude of wrongdoings. A certain religion’s philosophy teaches that ‘selfishness is the father of every sin.’ The behaviour of the Jadgeo/Ramotar regimes bears witness to the correctness of that observation. So, after an absence of 4 years I was glad to return to a Guyana where there was hope and where decency and respect for the common man I assumed had returned. Sadly, in some ways I was disappointed.
I was taken aback by the level of complaining and disappointment expressed by citizens, and in this case known supporters of the PNC. Shockingly I heard complaints of ‘Deh only looking out fo dem self,’ being levelled against the Granger administration. People could not understand the need to build another military ceremonial area at old D’Urban Park. Party members complained about how hard it is to see a minister (incidentally I heard the same complaint from diehard PPP supporters during the reign of that party). Some spoke of walls placed between the ordinary citizen and ministers by their secretaries, who seem to see as their most pressing function, making their ministers inaccessible to the man in the street. A young man who sells religious tracts complained about the transportation situation. He was amused by the President’s initiative that gives a minibus here and another there, in his words, “as if da is a realistic solution to de problem.”
Yes, the complaints and criticisms were many, and difficult to respond to in terms of offering hope. As a person who wishes this government well I was tempted to respond in philosophical terms. Like pointing out that the presence of discontent is not entirely a bad thing. That individuals and nations can only know progress where there is discontent. That it is as we respond to our discontent that progress is realized. That where there is no discontent there can be no progress. But in the name of all that is decent, in the context of the average Guyanese reality today who would be impressed with such a response? What is there for me to point to of significance to the working class that would bolster hope and make such high-brow chatter convincing? Hurting people experience no satisfaction with this type of philosophizing. So all I could do was to shake my head in an effort to convey my sympathy.
But in all their complaining it is the government’s offer of a 10% increase in salaries to persons working at the lowest rungs of the public service that seems to be the source of the most disbelief and dissatisfaction.
Editor, I notice that recently a number of persons, mostly senior government operatives, have turned to mathematical calculations to prove that public servants have had a fairly sizable increase in income since the coalition government took office. Relative to what pertained during the rule of the PPP it is hard to dispute this obvious fact. Further, those making this claim seem to be suggesting that public servants are being somewhat unreasonable in rejecting the government’s final offer of a 10% raise for the lowest paid public servant and an even lower percentage raise for those above the minimum wage. Seeking to justify this 10% offer by the sole use of mathematical calculation is inadequate and perhaps even insulting. I am surprised that some politicians seem to be warming to this line of justification. Peoples’ attitude and behaviour cannot be appreciated by resort to mere mathematical calculations; some understanding of sociology and psychology is essential.
Today a number of writers and researchers who are experts in the areas of management and communication have turned their attention to studying persons they term as the Y Generation and the Millennials. Overall these two generations comprise persons born between 1970 and 1980 and those born after 1980 respectively. These experts in management and communication seek this understanding since they realize that the old ways for managing the parents (Baby Boomers and Generation X, persons born between 1940s and 1960s) of the before-mentioned generations are inadequate. Whereas management could have expected Boomers and to a lesser extent Xers, with all their alleged radicalism to accept the status quo (managers’ and politicians’ inherent right to the good life to the exclusion of workers), Generation Y and more so Millennials would have none of this. For members of these two generations while management is expected to have a better salary and overall package than the rank and file worker, what is offered the common worker must not be outlandishly different. So for Generation Y and Millennials while the children of management staff can have company cars take them to school, they expect the company to provide a bus to take their children to school. While senior management staff has a right to company paid visits to Disneyland three times per year, Generations Y and Millennials expect workers to have the same privilege at least once per year. They have a sense of the worth, the importance of the contribution of all workers and the right of all workers to a decent life.
Generations Y and Millennials are inclined to be far more egalitarian than any generation that preceded them, including Baby Boomers (the Hippie generation). An important note here is that even though Millennials are very often described as self-centred and feel the world spins for them, strangely on issues like the right of all to be able to live above a certain minimum standard is a value they hold dear.
Now different businesses and governments seek to reduce this gap in life experiences for their workers and citizens by way of different policies and programmes depending upon where their ability to impact on this need for equity lies. Google Inc, for example, understanding workers’ need for comparable opportunities to live the good life not only pays all its employees handsomely but took some impressive action and became the model for all workplaces in the USA. It provided free transportation to and from work for employees, healthy snacks and meals every day, free or subsidized access to fitness centres, six months’ paid leave for recent mothers and fathers and more than attractive death benefits for a worker’s family. It was not uncommon for family members of those working with Google to burst into tears of thanks and joy on hearing of the attractive benefits. Workers were fond of pointing out how much money they saved from working with Google.
Forbes Burnham understood the need for the common worker to have an opportunity to taste of the good life. He conceived the Mainstay Lake Resort for workers. So, while senior operatives might have been able to take their families to resorts in the Caribbean or USA on holiday, Burnham’s contribution to equity was ensuring that the common worker’s life experience would be somewhat similar. That the small man too would have a taste of the good life ‒ holidays at the beautiful resort located on the bank of Lake Mainstay was to be a start in this endeavour.
Here in Guyana, since Burnham, the largest employer (government), has exhibited less emphasis on adopting social programmes that would reduce the effects of small salaries on the poor. Both governments and workers see increases in salaries as the way to close the gap. So when the government gave itself a 50% raise on already relatively high salaries and offered a 10% increase to those already receiving ridiculously low salaries, the arrangement became intolerable for members of the Y Generation and Millennials. And today in Guyana members of these two generations make up the bulk of the Guyanese population and presumably the public service. In this context the offer of a mere 10% increase represents to the workers nothing but a stab in the back by a trusted friend. Anger and discontent were inevitable.
Editor, it is the failure to understand and/or willingness to take on board the values prevalent in the workforce today that is the source of the discontent and frustration with government. It explains government’s missteps when dealing with salaries in the public service. But why should this be so? No one can argue that the government does not have in its ranks persons who are intelligent and knowledgeable, so why are we not seeing evidence of this in their behaviour? Why an understanding of the values and expectations of the bulk of those making-up the public service seem not to be taken into consideration when government acts? What happens to brilliant people when suddenly they occupy the seats of power? When will the disrespect of the common man end? Since we know the PPP, where do poor people turn to with a reasonable expectation of being treated fairly? It really hurts when one contemplates what still pertains in Guyana even with a change of government. There is too much to complain about, too much confusion, too much wrongdoing.
When a government gives to its ministers 50% raise on their salaries and offers public servants at the bottom of the salary structure a 10% raise on theirs, we know something is wrong. When we hear of the presence of a National Youth Council while never hearing of youths in Guyana voting to elect their representatives for such a council, we know something is wrong. When we hear the government speak of the need for communities to take the initiative while hearing of no attempt to give communities the competence to carry out community assessment, we know something is wrong. When we hear leaders speak of the important role the elderly can play in national development and the need for them to ensure their issues are placed on the table; when we witness no effort to enhance the elderly’s understanding of the process of policy formation and how to influence policy; and when we know of no effort to introduce the elderly to modern techniques in advocacy, we know something is wrong. And when we see on the front page of one of our dailies two of our female police officers being made to climb a ladder in skirts and not a word of protest is heard from the various rights groups, we know something is wrong.
Yours faithfully,
Claudius Prince
