Broadcasting of the sittings of the National Assembly is critical to deepening democracy

Jan 26, 2009 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

The reasons advanced by the Government for denying Guyanese the opportunity to witness live unedited proceedings in the Parliament are far from satisfactory.

The motion brought by the PNCR was unashamedly vetoed by the Government, who raked up all kinds of murky reasons as to why Guyanese should not have the right to witness unedited sittings of the National Assembly.

I am quite sure that most Guyanese were not shocked or surprised by the Government’s backward, selfish, and narrow-minded approach, in which it sought to view the motion.

In advancing the Government’s reasons for not entertaining the motion, the following rationales were advanced by the Hon. Gail Teixeira:

That engaging in such a venture would be too costly and would cost the Guyana Government some $600 million to implement. She further claimed that in those countries where such broadcasting exists, the project is funded by the private sector.

Now, in response to this specific concern raised by the Hon. Member, I must state that the price of democracy, according to popular thinkers, is not cheap; and should the Government seriously consider the implementation of such a motion, Guyanese are likely to become more involved in their government, thus strengthening our fragile democracy.

Since cost is identified as a major impediment, maybe Guyanese should be advised as to what use, if any, are the lotto funds put towards, or we can be appraised as to how the billions of dollars recouped from VAT since its implementation are spent.

It is amazing that the Government seems so intent on riding cost as the issue in this situation, when only in August it hosted CARIFESTA X, and boasted of spending $500 million to fund this activity, which, according to Minister Frank Anthony, was not intended to recoup any revenue.

Guyana hosted CARIFESTA X when other Caribbean countries, such as The Bahamas, refused to host the celebration because of cost.

Now we see the Government’s outright reluctance to invest in democracy.

The Government did not even contemplate the possibility of approaching the business community to assist in funding this most needed venture.

It appears as though the Government is more interested in spending tax payers’ money on ventures to showcase the Government, rather than to invest in the education of the masses, and in deepening the democratic process.

Further, Guyanese are still awaiting the accountability of the $500 million spent on CARIFESTA X.

In continuing to rebuff the motion, Teixeira also stated that live broadcasting of Parliamentary proceedings is not a norm in most Commonwealth countries.

However, she failed to remind Guyanese that in those very Commonwealth countries, the Governments are more open, the concept of democracy has a real meaning, and there is a greater level of people participation in the work of their Government.

Our Government should be paving the way for the same to happen. And since Madam Teixeira seems to have a handle on what is normal, she should also remind Guyanese that the use of audio/video evidence in court is also not a norm in many Commonwealth countries, but yet the Government of Guyana passed the Evidence Amendment Bill, which they claimed was meant to serve the populace and to put Guyana in the 21st century.

I guess unedited broadcasting of Parliamentary sittings does not serve these purposes. Or the Government is just oblivious to the facts.

In advancing the assault on the motion, Minister Rohee, in his usual unlettered manner, claimed that “the bill was politically motivated, in which the main opposition was trying to embarrass the Government by suggesting to the populace that the Government did not want the public to see what was occurring in the National Assembly”.

This comment demonstrates the raw thinking and petty politics which occupy the minds of the executive. They believe

that to entertain a motion brought by the opposition will diminish their power, and will justify the popular view that the Administration lacks foresight and vision.

The Minister went on to state that, “If persons want to view the proceedings of Parliament live, the public gallery was available to them”.

Now, let’s try to make sense out of this simple statement Mr. Rohee made. Firstly, I find the comment to be most coarse, out of place, and disrespectful to Guyanese. It is clear that the Government does not respect the intellect and dignity of our people. The last time I visited the Parliament to observe the sittings was last August. On that occasion, I was accompanied by 16 young people.

The 17 of us and about five other persons filled the first three rows to the right of the gallery; the top row on both sides is usually occupied by the press.

The point is that the Minister is either ignorant as to the limited accommodation the gallery offers for public viewing, or he genuinely believes that Essequibo, Demerara, and Berbice can fit comfortably in the gallery.

The fact is that the Government is afraid to let the public witness how it uses its Parliamentary majority to rush its motions through the Parliament without consideration for the genuine concerns of the opposition.

These unedited broadcastings would have also provided an opportunity for the public to understand why members on the opposition continue to experience a deep sense of frustration in the National Assembly.

Since the Government seems keen on protecting its image at all cost, it fails to see the value of implementing unedited broadcasting of sittings of the National Assembly.

Firstly, such broadcasting has the tendency to attract young and new people to the political process, thereby enriching the political landscape with fresh ideas and new talent.

Citizens will also be able to make meaningful recommendations and suggestions to improve the way in which the Parliament functions; Parliamentarians will also carry out their assignments more seriously, since they know that the public’s eyes will be on them.

I cannot overstate how valuable this motion, if passed into law, would be to deepen our democracy and broaden the local political landscape.

It will also pave the way for the building of trust the President claims is lacking in order to foster political participation between the Government and the opposition.

If the Government is serious about taking Guyana forward, it will focus on the broader value of the motion, and not be caught up in its own narrow-minded approach.

Lurlene Nestor

 

---

---