Defeat for Wednesday’s parliamentary motion seeking wider TV access for Lindeners confirmed that the PPP/C government is in lockstep with authoritarian and undemocratic measures that it once inveighed so militantly against.
When its members of parliament voted en masse to thwart the motion in the name of the AFC MP Sheila Holder, the PPP/C set down another marker that history will judge it by rather harshly.
Linden is currently restricted to the anodyne news and programmes offered by state TV NCN. It must gnaw painfully at the sanity of the residents of that region and those in other parts of the country to be limited to this fare. Yet several senior government spokesmen had the gall to say that Linden was not cut off; it has cable and satellite TV providers. So, presumably all that the hard-pressed Lindeners living in these tough times have to do is fork out handsome sums to access the latest HBO or Showtime offerings.
But the cry of Lindeners has nothing to do with access to DirecTV or BET; it is a cry for a diversity of views on what is transpiring all over Guyana – in Wismar, Kwakwani, Victory Valley, Georgetown, Siparuni, Wakenaam and Fyrish. They want to hear what’s happening in these places but not only from the shaped medium of NCN but also from other broadcasters right where they are located and those who service Georgetown and other parts of the country. They want to hear news that is not stripped of the essence or not fluffed up to make the government look good. This is what the PPP/C is denying each and every citizen of Linden and other parts of Region 10.
Is this the government that champions the cause of the working class and the downtrodden? Is this the government which in its opposition incarnation was forced to suffer the indignities of the Burnham dictatorship as it harassed and harried the Mirror newspaper? Is this the government that has committed in the constitution and elsewhere to honouring fundamental human rights? It is extremely difficult to tell if it is the one and the same.
The iron-fisted approach on licensing could be considered a flagrant violation of Article 146 (1) of the Constitution which reads `Except with his own consent, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of expression, that is to say, freedom to hold opinions without interference, freedom to receive ideas and information without interference, freedom to communicate ideas and information without interference and freedom from interference with his correspondence’. This article reflects what is enshrined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Given its posture on the Holder motion, it may have suited the PPP/C government to feed the citizens of Georgetown only the signals of state TV. Of course, that wasn’t possible as when it won power in 1992 there were already a number of television stations. The PPP/C’s response thereafter was to install its own favoured ones on the broadcast spectrum to balance out the Sharmas, Vieiras etc.
Elsewhere the PPP/C remains paranoid about releasing the levers on the broadcast spectrum as evidenced by its shocking stranglehold on radio licences. Can it be rationalized that 16 years after it rose to power that the PPP/C has yet to permit other licensees to access the radio spectrum, the only exception being the community-oriented Radio Paiwomak? Can it be rationalized that in the year 2008 – deep in the era of the internet, internet radio, podcasts and live streaming that there is only one radio station – the same NCN that also provides the state TV signal. This scene has more in common with Pyongyang and Yangon than it has with West Indian and Commonwealth standards.
Moreover, the excuses proffered by the government are so flimsy and without credibility that they devalue the hallowed chambers of Parliament where they were uttered. The Presidential Advisor on Governance Ms Teixeira cited a 2003 agreement that had been reached with the PNCR to withhold the granting of broadcast licences until a broadcasting authority was in place and also blamed the PNCR for holding back movement on progressive broadcast legislation. That agreement referred to by Ms Teixeira was intended to ensure that there wasn’t a hasty rush to grant licences to favoured applicants just prior to the installation of the authority. It was certainly not intended to be there forever. The real problem was that neither the PPP/C nor the PNCR could get their act together and as a result consensus on a broadcast authority could not be clinched.
Nothing however stopped the PPP/C from acting on reasonable broadcasting legislation. As a matter of fact, unilateralism has been a constant feature of the PPP/C’s lawmaking as exemplified by dozens of controversial pieces of legislation in the last 16 years – the wiretapping law being a prime example of this. Why the PPP/C has not proceeded with broadcast legislation that would regularize the sector and provide a fair basis for the extending of licences is that it fears that radio and TV signals that are not friendly to it would shake the foundations of its support in its major constituencies and other places.
In other words, the PPP/C is subjugating the people’s right to a broad array of viewpoints to its ultimate goal of preserving its rule.
This stance has been seen in related areas. Opposition access to the state media is virtually non-existent and there is no reason why an equitable arrangement could not be worked out.
The government’s lukewarm position on the Freedom of Information bill – a staple for any government properly committed to transparency and openness – is another example of this obtuseness. It is clearly unwilling to open up so that citizens can discharge their civic duty and monitor their government.
Wednesday’s defeat of the motion was sugar coated by Ms Teixeira’s indication of the government’s willingness to grant new licences and re-examine the long-delayed broadcast legislation. The country has been waiting for 16 years already. It won’t hold its breath.
