While the title, Man of Letters could be easily used to describe the late Editor-in-Chief of the Stabroek News, Mr David de Caires, he would undoubtedly be better pleased by the sobriquet `Letters man’.
For it was in the multitudes of letters that poured into Stabroek News during his 22 years at the helm of this newspaper that Mr de Caires found his labour of love and refined in many ways his journalistic mission of giving a voice to all: rich and poor, left and right, PPP and PNC, lettered and unlettered, the privileged and the downtrodden, those here and in the diaspora.
Like every other editor-in-chief, he was intrigued by the news itself; the insider politics, the backroom deals, the fight for free and fair elections, the travails of the economy and the techniques of what made a newspaper and its reporting good, balanced and fearless but these paled in comparison to his special attachment to the letters. One of his primary goals when he inaugurated the newspaper in 1986 was to stimulate the broadest possible discussion among all who found themselves embedded in this quilt called Guyana. But first he and the newspaper had to encourage Guyanese to begin believing that it was alright to express their views in public without fear of retribution or ostracism. That was not an easy task given that the Burnham years were not far removed and there were residual pockets of thuggery and menace in the then administration which still invoked unease in the populace.
Gradually, however, people began to feel more comfortable in expressing their views and though halting at the start the letters began to flow. From part of one page once per week, the letters burgeoned to their golden period a few years ago when pages 6, 7 and 8 and a fourth or `turn page’ would be devoted to letters. Mr de Caires was well known to ply his editors with entreaties for more and more space for his letters.
Unparalleled locally in their breadth, depth and (often exasperating) length, the letters covered everything under the sun on any given day as the titles for the letters suggested. On August 12, 2005 for instance they were as follows: `Beenie Man and his promoters profited from hatred’, `Eccles-Ramsburg streets and drains in need of attention’, `People should not take cell-calls while driving’, `The PSRP must address poverty reduction from the perspective of all stakeholders’, `Youth Challenge experience was `eye-opening’’, `A coalition of the two main political parties is the best way to create a sense of inclusiveness’, `Sub-treasury at Mahdia does not function’, `The state media are showing the rapid progress of the government’, `Change is what the PPP should have given Guyana not business as usual’, `How can a utility be owed $2B?’ and `The acceptance of Rastafarians is a measure of cultural pluralism in Guyana’.
The letter columns were a very well-read and integral part of the newspaper, prompting other journals to follow suit and in one case going the other way by fabricating letters.
Mr de Caires devoted endless hours to deciphering letters that came on scruffy pieces of paper, by post and much later by email. Each and very correspondence was just as important as the other once it raised a real issue or had a different perspective from ones previously published. The letters would be typed and he would try his utmost to redeem those that would ordinarily be irredeemable or were so poorly written and expressed that they would virtually have to be rewritten. He would indicate corrections by hand as he was not of the era of the computer and didn’t take to editing on a keyboard. The corrected letters would then be reviewed by him for further changes before being placed in a stack for that day’s letters.
Much of his time in his later years would be spent on this. On leaving for the day he would take a sheaf of his prized letters and ruminate and agonise over them at home in readiness for the next day’s work. The letters were the paper’s vox populi and one that decision-makers and those in the authority could not readily ignore. He was always trying to improve the effectiveness of the pages and would try – without much success – to curtail the exuberance of writers who wrote letters that were much too long. So many letters flooded the newspaper’s office that he stopped taking calls enquiring about the fate of this or that letter as it was impossible.
He also pioneered an innovation to the letter pages which mirrored what has underpinned the newspaper throughout its existence: balance and fairness. He began sending letters that dealt with controversial matters to those who were responsible for these areas. In some cases the letters would not be published until a comment was received and if not an edited version would be published with a note that no response had been forthcoming.
The letters and his stewardship of them reflected the essence of his newspapering at its best: letting all positions contend and doing so in the fairest manner possible. He maintained that the newspaper must permit the most trenchant criticism of its work – even if some of this was misplaced – and this was often reflected in the letter columns and sometimes with a lengthy editor’s note robustly defending the newspaper’s coverage or where necessary an apology.
In the last few years of his tenure he would have been disappointed that the public space that the newspaper had fought so strenuously to carve out beginning in 1986 had perceptibly begun to close in many ways. Many who had previously spoken out against abuses by the state and others fell silent. Pressures that might have inhibited people from writing to the newspaper or speaking out in 1986 are now being applied here in different forms. Retinues of sycophants and opportunity seekers have attached themselves to centres of power, stultifying the checks and balances that a democratic society is accustomed to.
Mr de Caires was a man who did what he thought was right and committed himself totally to it without seeking recognition as in the case of the Camp Street Avenue rehabilitation project where he was mortified at suggestions that a part of the famed street be renamed for him. He would have none of that.
The best way to keep his memory alive would be for each of us to make sure that the open society principles that he stood for are preserved and that we never let ourselves slump into the easy comfort of roaming with the sheep and the opportunists even as injustice abounds.
The letter pages that Mr de Caires so cherished and painstakingly tended will continue even if they have to again restart the process of encouraging people to speak out regardless of the pressures applied.
