In Guyana, free speech has assumed near sacred proportions. Everyone expounds loudly on this right of citizens. That is, until someone crosses their path. From that point forward, it is interesting to observe the naked reality when this costume is discarded. It is an exposure that lays bare the official and the individual.
Start with the Climatologist-in-Chief. Asking a pointed question can result in diatribes; asking too many pointed (or hard) questions can see the wayward get sent to Coventry – right in the middle of a briefing. And those who persist are subject to the blunt and sweeping arc of the axe, as in banned. Perhaps, in this practice of free speech, it is that the recalcitrant should be seen and not heard, and eventually, not even the former.
Next, there are government spokesmen who wave around the newest rabbit fresh from their stable of tricks. They remind literary insurgents that it is because of this government’s willingness to allow free speech that they can do so, and do so publicly. The message is this: do not get too comfortable (or obstreperous), as ways can be found to disrupt and undermine that very freedom granted in benevolence and magnanimity. It is that the government can get at you, should it so desire, through cheap shots, smears, innuendo, and the arsenal at its disposal. Stated differently, this freedom is discretionary, so be careful and toe the line, or else….
After the examples of leader and spokesmen, it is the turn of the individual. An example would be helpful. Several years ago, the state paper carried a contribution from a citizen who opined that this government was almost as bad as its predecessor. In response, another man wrote to castigate the editor for allowing space for such filth and garbage. He actually called for the banning (there is that word, again) of the contributor. Here was free speech in practice, and in full cry. Today, such a political comparison is normal, but the easy solution to dissent is banning, calls for banning, and threats of banning.
Today, many arrogate the freedom to speak and to be renamed ‘Balgobin’ or ‘Radika,’ or ‘Smith’ and ‘Jones,’ but they will deny others the same right to speak, even when they use their own names. They resort to adumbrating silencing, and especially so when it runs counter to a favoured posture.
Along the same lines, there are those who lie low quietly until the dominant direction of the wind is established, at which time they hop on that jet stream, and call for suppression. Just another step towards the low centre of gravity which everyone claims is a sacred right.
From my perspective, I believe that the right to free speech is due to private publications, as much as state organs, and in all of its aspects. Though I disagree seriously with the latter, it must be heard. I believe in the right of individuals to dissent, and even at hostility; but I say that the latter must be well founded and tasteful. It is important to know what others think, how they do so, and the extent to which they will go to deny. If there is an interest in learning and growing, then anything less would be anathema.
In all of this, I find that Mafia saw meaningful: hold friends close, hold enemies closer. In this way, everything is on the table. There are no surprises, and no need to speculate.
Yours faithfully,
GHK Lall
