The controversy surrounding minibus fares is not merely about whether operators should charge more or whether commuters can afford to pay more. It is about a government that has become accustomed to deciding who gets what, when they get it and how much they should receive, while disregarding the requirement for meaningful engagement with those affected by its decisions.
Such engagement is a constitutional obligation reflected in Article 13, which mandates an inclusive system of governance grounded in the participation of citizens and their organisations in the management and decision-making processes of the State. That is the real crisis before us. Not simply a dispute over fares, but a persistent disregard for citizens’ rights, constitutional governance and the rule of law.
When a government believes it can impose decisions rather than engage the people, it ceases to govern by consent and begins to govern by dictate.
The Irfaan Ali/Bharrat Jagdeo regime appears to believe it alone possesses the wisdom to determine what is fair compensation for workers, operators, businesses and citizens. It believes it can dictate outcomes rather than facilitate solutions. This approach may satisfy political instincts, but it does nothing to resolve the underlying problems confronting society.
The minibus operators did not wake up one morning and arbitrarily decide they wanted higher fares. Their demand arises from the same economic realities confronting every Guyanese family. The cost of tyres has increased. Fuel prices remain a major burden. Spare parts, maintenance, insurance and other operational expenses continue to rise. They are real expenses that affect the viability of every operator struggling to keep a vehicle on the road.
At the same time, commuters are facing their own crisis. Many citizens are already struggling to feed their families, pay rent or mortgages, keep the lights on, meet utility bills, send children to school and purchase the basic goods and services necessary for daily life. An increase in transportation costs would undoubtedly add another layer of hardship to households already stretched to the breaking point by the high cost of living.
The above realities should have compelled the government to bring all parties together around a table.
However, rather than bringing stakeholders together to find common ground, the regime has chosen to inflame tensions and manufacture conflict. Instead of confronting the economic conditions that have driven operators to seek fare adjustments, it has sought to turn commuters against operators and operators against commuters. The travelling public is encouraged to view operators as profiteers, while operators are painted as enemies of the people.
Having created the confrontation, the government then attempts to parade itself as the protector of the public interest. Nothing could be further from the truth. Its conduct has shown little regard for either commuters struggling with the cost of living or operators struggling to keep their vehicles on the road.
The regime appears more intent on harvesting political capital from social discord, sowing division where unity is needed and conflict where dialogue should prevail.
A responsible government would recognise that both operators and commuters are victims of broader economic pressures. It would acknowledge that rising costs affect everyone. It would facilitate dialogue and negotiate solutions that balance the interests of all stakeholders.
The regime points to concessions granted through the removal of duties, excise taxes and customs charges. Those measures are important and should be acknowledged. But they cannot be presented as the sole consideration in determining whether fares are sustainable. Every relevant factor must be examined honestly and comprehensively.
What are the actual operating costs? What is a reasonable return for operators? What can commuters realistically afford? What role should government play in supporting public transportation? These are the questions mature societies ask.
Unfortunately, government has shown little interest in addressing public transportation as a public responsibility. It wants to determine what fares should be charged, but it demonstrates no comparable enthusiasm for investing in transportation systems, creating subsidies, supporting commuters or improving efficiency across the sector.
The state possesses substantial financial resources. The question is whether those resources are being utilised to improve the lives of ordinary citizens or simply to strengthen political control over national discourse.
The solution lies not in threats, decrees or public confrontation. It lies in meaningful engagement. Operators, commuters, trade unions, consumer advocates and government representatives must sit together and honestly examine the realities confronting society.
Consensus-building is not weakness. Consultation is not surrender. Dialogue is not defeat. Notwithstanding that, this regime appears more comfortable with what has increasingly become its governing philosophy—brute force and ignorance. It prefers command to consultation, division to dialogue and confrontation to cooperation.
This nation cannot advance economically while social tensions are deliberately aggravated and citizens are encouraged to see one another as adversaries. Progress requires peace. Development requires harmony. Stability requires trust.
The responsibility of a caring government is not to sow division, pit one group against another, or govern by decree. Its duty is to bring people together, build consensus and craft solutions that advance the common good. It must therefore dismount from its high horse, abandon its know-it-all posture, and engage citizens where they live, work and struggle every day.
