Dear Editor,
There is an unsurprising phenomenon in Guyana that goes almost unnoticed, and on which very few have commented. This phenomenon is encapsulated in certain protective actions taken, and words uttered.
At one level, there are pushers trumpeting press freedom, pointing to the record of opinions published, and the President’s own commitment to this sacrosanct right. Yet, at another level, there are individual contributors, who ask editors to afford them the protection of “Name and address provided” – a protective invisibility generated by fear. A fear and need for protection that emanates, not from perceived retaliation for publicizing individual social or criminal misconduct, but from things governmental in general, and the ruling party more specifically. Thus, some citizens will raise voice in dissent, but only under the cloak of anonymity. I think this is sensible, given the tenor of the times, and the additional substantiation that now follows.
Continuing along these same lines, other contributors have retreated entirely from the letter columns. Some had gone on record to relate in very guarded, but unambiguous terms, that they had been “warned” or “threatened.” Just a few days ago, one man re-echoed in unmistakable phrases, that he was the beneficiary of such frighteningly pointed courtesies. I, for one, seem to have attracted some curiosity, if not ire. Or as a friend stated several years back, I had “ruffled some feathers.” At the current rate, there must be a flock of plucked and angry chickens ready to attack.
In view of the foregoing, several questions arise. How ‘free’ is this freedom of speech? How does one reconcile the loud public pronouncements with the quiet behind-the-scenes warnings and messages? Why is there need for this unofficial, back-channel Miranda caution? What is the nature of the fear experienced by conscientious citizens that they opt for the shelter of “Name and address provided”? How many occasional contributors – and first time ones – have been prompted by fear into a state of total withdrawal? And, last, to what foul extents will the government through its cyber police and media bullyboys proceed to reconfigure the course and ambience of public opinion with their warnings and threats?
To answer the very last question, the public saw the exhumation of a library book incident last year; and a friend shared an incident involving a cyber smear by party hacks of a concocted alternative lifestyle. Both were intended to undermine individual dissenting opinions, to silence critics. At the corporate level, SN had to endure a boot on its neck; KN hears footsteps louder and coming closer; the Chronicle steps on those who challenge official myths; and Sharma lost first his footing, and then his way.
The party bully boys, like all such preening cowards, target vulnerable prey, while giving wide berth to those who use press freedom as both sword and shield.
It is undeniable that there is a fierce determination to crush and to grind into the dust those who stand up. Tolerance is limited for independent thinking, no matter how measured or constructive. When taken together, individual vilification, warnings and threats, and corporate encirclement, there is an established stealth force at work, which celebrates freedom of speech on the one hand, even as it tries to stifle challenge on the other. It is sinister, and it has a presence in every channel, while using any disguise.
In the meantime, the bromides about democracy abound; a democracy that is one way; that refuses to listen; that takes comfort in demonizing; that seeks only serfs; and that houses Masters of the Universe who resort to warnings and threats to browbeat into withdrawal and silence.
Yours faithfully,
GHK Lall
