Public officials create the atmosphere for dialogue or violence

Aug 13, 2015 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,
It was reported in the press that a Brazilian Radio host who was openly critical of his nation’s Government [was] assassinated during a live broadcast. It was said that he “was an outspoken personality who frequently railed against official corruption”.
In 2014, Reporters Without Borders described Brazil as “One of the region’s deadliest countries for journalists”. The organisation disclosed that since 2000, a total of 38 journalists had been killed “in clear or probable connection with their work . . . covering sensitive stories such as drug trafficking, corruption or local political disputes.” Noting that “321 journalists have been the victims of violence from 2009 to 2014,” the group claimed that “local authorities were often involved in the attacks on journalists . . .”
Editor, when a government publicly demonstrates disdain for criticism; exhibits intolerance for opposing views, and engages in verbal attacks against unfavourable commentary, it can create an environment for supporters to resort to violence as a means of silencing critics. The way that public officials respond to criticism could either defuse or incite violence against their critics.
Of course a government has a right to respond to its critics or opponents. But its response must be grounded in facts and tempered with civility. If a critic makes a false claim or distorts its message, the government has an obligation to set the record straight, but must do so with evidence and in an atmosphere of respectful exchange. If the “criticism” is libelous, the government has the legal recourse of filing a lawsuit.
It is, however, unacceptable for government officials to engage in threats (veiled or otherwise) and uncivilised behaviour, including blackmail, threatening to “expose skeletons”. It is reprehensible for those who occupy the seat of power to descend into name-calling and personal attacks against opponents.
Here in Guyana, it is not uncommon for government officials to engage in aggressive behaviour against critics. To express an opposing view is to make yourself a target for the government’s rage. Critics have been labeled “opposition forces” wanting “to destabilise and overthrow the democratically elected government”. One dissenter was labeled “a snake that betrayed his people” and a group of protesting women was described as “loonies . . . from the fringe”.
It is public knowledge that the late Ronald Waddell “drew heavy criticisms” from the then president. Waddell had used his programme, Taking Care of Business, to rail against the government’s “sham” democracy. Both Kaieteur News and Stabroek News drew the ire of the previous administration; were branded “anti-government” and suffered at the hands of the Executive. Government ads to these news outlets were severely reduced. Kaieteur News was said to be “damaging the country’s image with its negative reporting.” And although we don’t know who did it, five of the outlet’s pressmen were executed on the job.
A private TV Channel was axed as the home of the National Lottery Game. Its owner, a member of the main opposition party, was also a constant critic of government’s (mis)handling of the sugar industry. All of these actions had one objective: to silence anti-government sentiments.
Even the matriarch of Guyana’s oldest party (GOP) – herself a former Head of State – did not escape the vitriol of her successor. He summarily dismissed her as “just a private citizen”. She became a target just because she dared take a principled position against, what she saw as, attempts by the executive branch to silence the press. A former party faithful had lamented, “No one came to her defence.” The collective silence of party officials to the public rebuke of one of their co-founders, only confirmed the perception that the vicious silencing of anti-government critics, was part of their ethos.
A well known columnist and former UG lecturer had been a fierce critic of the previous administration. He was, reportedly, branded by the then sitting president as “a self-confessed man-kisser” and a “sleaze ball”. According to one online dictionary, a ‘sleaze ball’ is “a disreputable, disgusting, or despicable person (also used as a general term of abuse).” The official didn’t debate his critic’s commentary. He verbally attacked the individual. That columnist was, reportedly, drenched with faeces and was also physically assaulted by some unknown character.
Courtney Crum-Ewing was labeled “a nuisance,” albeit after his assassination. In the course of exercising his democratic rights, he had criticised and protested against a former government official and was calling on residents to elect a new government. He was murdered in cold blood. He was silenced. Speaking at Courtney’s funeral, retired Major General of the Guyana Defence Force, Joseph Singh, reportedly, said, “It would be naïve of anyone not to perceive that the murder of Crum-Ewing was somehow linked to his protest activity and his public advocacy . . .”
The experiences of the above-mentioned persons/entities reveal four commonalities: (1) They were, in one way or another, critical of the government of the day; (2) Their criticism put them in the cross hairs of the rulers; (3) Government officials made no secret of their contempt for these critics and their message; (4) Attempts were made, some with deadly results, to silence them.
Editor, an American news anchor once said, “In a democracy, you counter negative talk [criticism] with more talk.” It is my belief that public officials, by their reaction to criticism can, and do create an atmosphere where negative talk is answered with either more talk or violence. When leaders label critics as “enemies of progress” and “traitors,” sympathisers who are prone to violence, may see that as their cue to “silence the enemy.”
We have to send a clear, strong message to our elected officials, that we will not countenance intolerance against opposing views and that political violence has no place in a civilised society.
Remington Nelson

---

---