Unfolding events in the UK present an example of how democracy is supposed to work

Jul 19, 2011 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
Democracy stands on several pillars, and its truest form is manifested in outcomes like accountability, transparency, the rule of law, and non-partisan recognition and acknowledgement of wrongdoing, regardless of political or other affiliations.
As we witness the unfolding events in the United Kingdom involving the media empire of Rupert Murdoch, we are presented with a visible example of how democracy is supposed to work. That is to say, when the actions of a third party threatens the very foundation of democracy and the rule of law in the state, the political ensemble, ruling and opposition, comes together with the common purpose of addressing the issues, and calling to account any organization, person or persons responsible for the state of affairs.
The current situation in the United Kingdom revolves around allegations that media operatives of Rupert Murdoch’s tabloid empire hacked into the phones of sundry citizens of the UK, including victims of brutal crimes and the relatives of victims of terrorist attacks.
There are also reports that sundry officers of the Metropolitan Police Force were given bribes by operatives of Murdoch’s media empire to provide sensitive information for tabloid publication.
Three of the persons involved and named so far, were very high ranking employees of Rupert Murdoch, to wit, former editors of Murdoch’s 168-year-old tabloid News of the World, Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson, and Clive Goodman who was the Royal editor for the tabloid and covered issues involving the British Royalty.
All three were arrested by the Metropolitan Police on suspicion of being involved in corrupt practices.
Rupert Murdoch is perceived to be a political King Maker because of his massive media holdings, and the reach of those publications to citizens in the UK, the US, and indeed across the world.
He has a reputation of challenging the line of legality in order to scoop competitors and increase his monopoly of local and international media audiences.
Over the years, the media under his control in the UK have been pioneers in exposing the faux pas of politicians and celebrities – an undertaking that was welcomed and acceptable to audiences in the UK, and earned them both accolades and antipathy.
However, when news reports broke that media operatives of News of the World had hacked into the phone of a missing child who was later found deceased, the bereaved of criminal and terrorist attacks, and had bribed Law Enforcement for sensitive information on these persons, a wave of public anger erupted across the UK, demanding swift action from the Government to curb the alleged excesses, corruption and abuse of Journalism.
The Tory British Prime Minister David Cameron is known to have a close friendship with Rebekah Brooks, and hired her successor at News of the World Andy Coulson to be his Communications Chief.
This was despite earlier revelations of Coulson’s involvement in unethical journalistic practices, and passing money to Law Enforcement officials for sensitive information.
Faced with these conflicts of interest and perhaps more severe implications, Cameron has expressed support for a parliamentary motion called for Rupert Murdoch and his News Corporation to withdraw a 12 billion dollar bid for the lucrative British Sky Broadcasting Company BSkyB. That bid has since been withdrawn.
The Prime Minister also ordered a Police Investigation into the matter, has proposed the appointment of an independent committee of persons to carry out a private inquiry, and has pledged to ferret out whether 911 victims were also targets of News Corp Journalistic phone hacking endeavours.
That committee is to be headed by a Justice of outstanding repute, and one who is acceptable to the opposition, and the public in general.
In one of his comments on the issue, he has publicly state that his former Communications Chief Andy Coulston should be prosecuted if investigations disclosed that he had lied in the phone hacking scandal.
In summing it up, the Prime Minister told lawmakers that “a firestorm” was engulfing parts of the Private British Media, and British Police and others who had committed crimes must be prosecuted.
The objective and inclusionary actions being taken by the British Prime Minister, despite the ties he has or had with agents, executives, editors et al of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, are designed to produce the best results in the interest of the public in general and the nation in particular. They are actions that ensure that there is transparency in the investigation of journalistic wrongdoing. They are actions that are being addressed in a manner compliant with the Rule of Law.
The Prime Minister’s public reaction and decisions are consistent with the non-partisan recognition and acknowledgement that organizations and individuals who are suspected to have been involved in, or are involved in wrongdoing, must face legal sanction. And this must occur regardless of any private affiliation that might exist between one holding public office, and any of the offending parties.
When I juxtapose this scandal with several events of like circumstances, or circumstances amounting to gross violations of ethics and laws in Guyana, I cannot help but arrive at a conclusion that what we see transpiring in the UK is an example of democracy at work, but what we saw and continue to see in Guyana is “democorruptocrasy” at its most blatant and perverse manifestations.
To see how glaringly obvious these differences are, one only has to compare the reaction of the British political regime to a scandal that threatens the foundations of British Democracy, with the reaction of its counterpart in Guyana when faced with similar issues and circumstances.
The willingness of a Political Regime to put aside partisan considerations when an event of vast proportions that threatens the very foundations of democracy and the rule of law occurs in a society, is an example of servant leadership, and validation that democracy rather than “democorruptocrasy” exist in the society. The unwillingness of the regime in Guyana to acknowledge and recognize that the usurpation of the authority of the courts, and the violation of the rule of law and the presumption of innocence by a criminal vigilante coterie of individuals committing mass torture and murder, threatened the very foundation of democracy in Guyana, vitiates any postulation or argument being advanced that we have a democratic society in Guyana.
Every regime in a national society is charged with the legal responsibility and obligation of guaranteeing that these conditions obtain in the enforcement of law and the treatment of criminal suspects and citizens.
The foundational principle upon which our jurisprudence is based argues unequivocally that “it is not sufficient that justice is done, it must manifestly appear to have been done”.
In the absence of the public acceptance of, and adherence to that principle by a political regime during the time it holds the position of Government of a nation, any assertion or argument that its administration exemplifies democracy is seen as atrocious, dissembling, and more than a tad Orwellian.
Moreover, attempts by any sitting political regime to silence criticisms of current day wrongdoing by resurrecting allegations of decades-old occurrences, amount to an argument premised on the notion that they are “knacking back”, and that such “knacking back” is right and justified.
Robin Williams

---

---