Guyana’s democracy

Jul 28, 2011 Editorial

---

Generally, it takes a person from the outside to describe the unfavourable things in this country. More often than not, we are too close to the action to realise that there are so many things wrong. Most times when a local voices the wrongs, those views are seen as anti-government. In fact, any criticism or serious query is met with some measure of hostility from the government.
But a visiting professor who is talking about governance says that Guyana is a democracy. However, in a round about way he highlighted the wrongs and the shortcomings. He is a foreigner and people would listen to him more than to a local.
All over the world Governments are unhappy with inspection by the media and they often do strange things to throw off the media. But those countries in which those things happen are not considered democracies by the popular definition. In fact, they are considered dictatorships.
The visitor said that Guyana was a dictatorship when the PNC ruled and that it has moved to a democracy. Indeed, the ruling party did its best to silence the other newspapers although they were political organs. The Catholic Standard, a church paper did not escape sanction by the government. It was not allowed to import newsprint as was the newspaper of the main opposition political party, the People’s Progressive Party.
Things changed in the late 1980s after Forbes Burnham died. His successor, Desmond Hoyte relaxed the stranglehold on the media and paved the way for the establishment of the private media. Private televisions had already begun to appear before Burnham died. They blossomed and by 1992 there was a preponderance of television stations.
The new government was a breath of fresh air and it enjoyed a favoured position with every media. But over time things changed. The PPP in opposition protested its inability to enjoy favourable access to the media. On occasions it had cause to go to the courts to demand access. Now that it occupies the seat of Government the cycle of oppression continues. It is as if being in government determines the treatment a political party would impose on the media.
The political parties have little or no access to the state media. There was a brief excursion but that grounded to a sudden halt within two weeks. Just this past week the state-owned television station refused to carry advertisements from the political union, A Partnership for National Unity.
But even before that episode the government had developed an aversion to criticisms, particularly from the private media. For a government to describe the private media as the new opposition, is to clearly define the aversion that the government has for the scrutiny by the very private media.
Sometimes the government is not content with rhetoric, it often attacks with a vehemence that would be unheard of in a western democracy. It moves to the court, even if it does not intend to pursue legal action. This is just one way of silencing the private media because it is costly to defend legal actions.
A visiting American professor was at pains to say that Guyana has moved from being a dictatorship to a democracy. People would accept this but they would also question the extent of democracy. The visiting professor declined to rate Guyana’s democracy. He also refused to point fingers at the relationship between the government and the media.
All he would say is that in other countries where there is state-owned media, these media are independent. The British Broadcasting Corporation is one such example. The visiting professor, David Lublin, said that should any government attempt to control the BBC that government would surely be seeking a way out of office. It is the same in Australia and Canada where the state media operate. The government has no say in its content.
The converse is true in Guyana but then again, the ruling party is quick to claim that it represents a fledgling democracy. This has been a fledgling democracy for nearly two decades.
In the United States the media as a matter of policy allows ready access to the opposition. Professor Lublin was able to boast that his government is so confident that it can afford to pay for the opposition to take its message, whatever it may be, to any part of the country or even overseas.
Guyana would be a jewel if only its government could be so confident that it could afford to grant free rein to its opposition via the media. It is not. While other governments ride with the criticisms ours lashes out and threatens.Professor Lublin says that it is a democracy, even if it is about to pass legislation that would give the head of state the power to preside over the media.

---

---