Government has betrayed its own rhetoric about democracy in Guyana

Feb 18, 2013 Letters

Dear Editor,
Something is very wrong with the attitude of the Government to the laws of Guyana and to the constitutional rights of Guyanese. I refer to statements made by Dr. Roger Luncheon, Head of the Presidential Secretariat, who indicated that the Government did not go through the appropriate regulatory bodies- NFMU and GNBS- to grant licence to China Central Television because it is the government.
It was a sad and worrying admission and all Guyanese need to speak out against that kind of executive lawlessness by a government that got less than 50% of the votes in the last elections in 2011. Shading that dubious deal under a Government-to-Government arrangement does not help the situation. In fact, it makes it worse because the government ought to know better. It should set the highest standard when it comes to issues of compliance with the laws and sovereignty.
First, by that act (by-passing the competent authorities), government has set itself above the law. More than that, the government has been less than transparent in handling this issue. Even Dr. Luncheon’s memory appeared to be fuzzy about important details about the arrangement, at his last press conference.
Yet, transparency is a fundamental aspect of democratic accountability and government must not set itself above the law. Clearly, this attitude of the Guyana government to break its own laws is affecting public trust and confidence in the systems, institutions and agencies set up to secure the rights of Guyanese and to ensure that they benefit from the resources of their great country.
If the government can show such scant regard for the NFMU and the GNBS and grant China a 24-hour channel on Guyana’s limited electro- magnetic spectrum then they can by-pass other institutions to satisfy the needs of their friends. In that sense, government has betrayed its own rhetoric about democracy in Guyana.
The other point has to do with our international relations. Three fundamental questions: What qualified China for priority or preferential treatment above our CARICOM neighbours or others in Latin America, to be granted a frequency to broadcast in Guyana? Who stands to benefit more from that arrangement with the CCTV, in Guyana? What is the nature and scope of reciprocity available and accessible to Guyana?
Perhaps, it would be a good thing for us to examine the processes involved in applying for and receiving permission from the Chinese Government to broadcast information in that country.
What is clear is that the Government of China would never break its own laws to satisfy the needs of any other country. What is also clear is that China has a long history of controlling its electromagnetic spectrum, and the information that is broadcast to its citizens. By doing that, it is preserving its cultural, political and moral philosophies and advancing its social and economic interests locally and globally.
Many international bodies including ‘Reporters Without Borders’ ranks China’s press situation as very serious, the worst ranking on their five- point scale.
Also, it has been reported in the international media that, during the Olympics in Beijing, all Chinese TV stations were instructed to delay live broadcasts by 10 seconds; a policy that was aimed at giving censors time to react in case of negative political activities against the leadership of that country.
Again, in January 2009, during a television report of the inauguration of U.S. President Barack Obama, the state-run China Central Television suddenly cut away from its coverage of Obama’s address when he spoke of how “earlier generations faced down fascism and communism”.
Finally, the entire situation has to do with media governance; the framework of policy, legislation, regulation and other forms of governmental oversight. It involves civil society and the general population, particularly in the areas of transparency, accountability and responsiveness. The regulatory bodies- NFMU and GNBS- should function independently and report directly to the legislature. Unless and until that happens, government will continue to arbitrarily grant, suspend, and deny license to individuals. However, if a proper media governance regime were in place, the executive lawlessness we witnessed by the government would be removed.
Aubrey James

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News