On New Year’s Day 2021, Eusi Kwayana, talking about what seemed to have considered some rather remote exaggerations emanating from the government, recommended that delegates should be offered equal time on state media ‘as soon as possible official of the previous coalition. government to respond as it sees fit, and tends to make the indictment given in the public arena by the Honorable Minister of Finance on December 29, 2020. Such a proposal if accepted will allow the population forming an opinion based on what each of the main competitors is prepared to defend as true and factual. ‘My own view is that, in this age of communication, if the leaders of the previous regime have disputes and care to make them, there are now significant opportunities through press conferences, social media, letter writing, and so on. However, the media has a significant economic influence. , political and social life and its coverage is expected to be impartial and balanced.
In Article 146, the Guyana Constitution states, ‘Except with his own consent, no one shall be prevented from enjoying his freedom of expression, that is, freedom to hold opinions without interference, freedom to receive ideas and information without interference, freedom to convey ideas and information without interruption and freedom from interference with his correspondence. ‘And in the political world we are regularly reminded’ that if the press and television coverage of the media is not free and fair, the results can be biased to the extent that the elections as a whole, even if the formal voting process has done so properly, it can still be judged to be free and fair. ‘(Bernd-Peter Lange and David Ward ed. (2004) Media and Elections: A Handbook and Comparative Study. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).
And yet, Kwayana has been long enough in politics to know that his fleet hope would be if not hopeless. For much of Guyana’s pre-independence era, the press opposed the ‘communist’ Progressive People’s Party and the coming of the National People’s Congress (PNC) to government and independence did little to change that. Between 1973 and 1980, the PNC government gained control of 90% of the mass media, so that it collapsed with the United States in the late 1970s, ‘Although the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech. , the press, religion and assembly,… The local daily press and radio are owned by the government and serve as the organs of the ruling party. ‘
The PNC was a dictatorial regime but expectations were high when the PPP in its manifesto in 1992 told us’ Under the PPP / CIVIC administration a free and democratic media policy will mean:… opening up the media to different shades of opinion; making the state-owned media autonomous with a management board made up of representatives of political parties, trade unions, religious and socio-economic groups; establishing a broad-based, independent Publication and Broadcasting Authority that will offer standards that are in line with journalistic ethics, balance and fairness. ‘However, ten years after returning to’ democracy ‘the PPP had not yet fulfilled this promise, again drawn from Desmond Hoyte in the run-up to the Herdmanston Agreement of 1998. So that President Bharrat Jagdeo agrees with Robert Corbin, Leader of the Opposition, ‘that fair access to State-Owned Media should be established immediately and an independent National Broadcasting Authority should be realized within three months.’
It took another decade of much distortion and delay for the Guyana National Broadcasting Authority, which oversees all television, cable and radio broadcasters, to be established in 2012. Among other things, the Authority promised that its efforts would reflect the the social, cultural, political and economic diversity of Guyanese society by providing various programs… [that] provides important news and public affairs programs that meet the highest standards of journalism, including fair and impartial coverage, impartiality and balance; and shall ensure compliance with Guyana’s constitution and laws and shall not encourage violence, ethnic, religious or cultural hostility. ‘
In Guyana, the distinction between existing political theory and practice and the existence of this Authority has made little difference: the state media has continued to be treated as the political handmaid of the PPP / C governments and the APNU + AFC followed. Indeed, just before he left office in 2015, the PPP / C government sought to use state advertising to exert pressure on that part of the media that was not under its control. Unsurprisingly, immediately after the APNU + AFC government took office, there was her prime minister, who had long been associated with the media and one of the more ardent fighters for freedom of the press and returning to democracy, is accused of trying to interfere with the editorial of the state newspaper and become an integral part of its day-to-day management. And here we have Kwayana’s observation and recommendation!
The first amendment to the US Constitution places freedom of media outside the remit of even the legislature. ‘Congress will not make any law curtailing freedom of opinion, or the press.’ And given the importance of the media and the historical behavior of the political elites, constitutional rights should be more strongly defended to ensure equitable access to the media and state media. However, in these types of cases stronger rules will make little difference if someone is not aware of the difficulty of overcoming them.
For example, the board of the Guyana National Broadcasting Authority (GNBA) consists of ‘not less than four nor more than seven members, one of whom shall be Chairman. (2) The President and all members of the Board must be appointed by the President. (3) A member of the Board shall be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition for appointment after meaningful consultation with the parliamentary opposition parties. (4) The Managing Director of the National Frequency Management Unit or his successor shall be an ex-officio member of the Board without the right to vote. ‘
The above arrangement can work in a majority system where public political opinion can change significantly to the detriment of the governors on any particular controversial issue. He may also work in a multiracial Suriname where no party has been able to win the 2/3 majority required for the election of the president and, unless the government has a political death wish, it must be unambiguous about how he behaves and how his appointees behave in relation to the other constituencies.
It will not work in Guyana where the ethnic division is essentially dualistic and history has produced far more intense ethnic ties. In the GNBA example, very marginalized ethnic majority presidents have free reign to do as they please, knowing full well that there is no significant public opinion to impede their rule, which may, if necessary, be supported by some very small political party. Where there is a lack of public opinion, the political representatives themselves must, by different types of veto rules, enforce public accountability.
What has happened in the media environment over the decades stems from an inability to understand and design a system that properly reflects Guyanese reality. It is ironic that those who organized the long delays in setting up the GNBA etc appeared to have not understood the futility of their effort because they only recognized the traditional theoretical possibilities of these arrangements without grasping their fundamental weakness in obtaining lock in the type of majority political. environment that is Guyana. Kwayana is whistling in the wind!