Dear Editor,
When I read your Monday, February 12 editorial, ‘Private ads versus state ads,’ I thought it was helpful in getting fence sitters in the ongoing ads brouhaha to get a clearer picture of the Jagdeo administration’s stunning lapse in judgment and come to the defence of Stabroek News.
Even Mrs Janet Jagan, despite trying to wear two caps – one as a journalist and the other as a practising politician – ventured an opinion calling on the government to reverse its unsound decision.
But instead of heeding his party’s matriarch, President Bharrat Jagdeo demonstrated he has begun walking in the footsteps of the late Forbes Burnham when he casually dismissed Mrs Jagan as just another private citizen with an opinion. He is so full of himself he is above sound advice! Not only does he not get it, but this shocking put down of Mrs Jagan’s opinion literally came from the mouth of the man who owes his very ascendancy to his current position as President of Guyana, in large measure, to the same Mrs Jagan.
Equally oblivious to what the mounting overseas criticisms of his regime’s decision means as it tries to financially hurt Stabroek News in a bid to affect its viability, President Jagdeo failed to see the import of the opinion expressed by Mrs Jagan, the journalist. She was simply speaking from a position of experience, having lived through the darks days of Burnham’s rule when private media outlets were either forced out of business or had their voices muffled.
Now, even if some feel Mrs Jagan was just playing mind games with Stabroek News’ management and a concerned public, by publicly saying one thing, but actually being politically supportive of the government’s lop-sided decision, at least she seems to be the only one from the ruling party to have publicly gone against the grain of the powers that be.
It was interesting to note, meanwhile, that there were some other points Mrs Jagan reportedly raised in her column that would be purely academic if one were to publicly engage her. But her point – reflecting the politician in her – that the PPP was responsible for the return of press freedom in Guyana in 1992 was patently false, or she was suffering from selective amnesia.
As the head honcho of the Mirror, she ought to remember when Stabroek News got launched in 1986 that the PPP often depended on this newspaper to help carry its views across the country because the Mirror, with its dingy print material and poor quality ink made reading it a tedious exercise.
And although to me, it’s impact was negligible, I still sought out the Mirror every weekend or whenever it got printed, just like I did the Catholic Standard, Dayclean, and Open Word, to get views and news I couldn’t get from the Guyana Chronicle and New Nation. Then when Stabroek News hit the newsstands – thanks to the Desmond Hoyte administration – I was excited to learn that the long-awaited days of the free press had returned. It was one small step for the free media in Guyana but one giant step for all Guyanese. But don’t remind the PPP ingrates of this fact!
Truth be told, the PPP regime had no choice back in 1992 and the immediate ensuing years but to go along with the democratic flow that the return of free and fair elections ushered in back in 1992, especially after its own 28-year banishment to the political wilderness where it had no real voice in a state-controlled environment.
For it to have done otherwise back in 1992 would have made it look hypocritical. Sadly for Guyanese and overseas observers, the ruling party is already looking hypocritical by showing glimpses of the dark days under Burnham’s rule.
A couple of private newspapers and a few TV outlets being allowed to operate do not define the PPP regime as being democratic. This regime is a beneficiary of free and fair elections, but it has a long way to go to now show it is different from the Burnham PNC regime by completely de-politicizing the police, army, judiciary and public service.
It also has to broaden its vision of democracy to allow for genuine representation of the people in Parliament, whereby voters can recall Parliamentarians for failing to deliver. It has to end both its monopoly on radio broadcasting, and its despicable tendency to be dictatorial, petty and vindictive. Stop viewing all criticisms as destructive rather than constructive.
Yours faithfully,
Emile Mervin
