Undoubtedly, the policies, practices and conduct of the Jagdeo administration will come under increasingly critical scrutiny and analysis as the end of its term nears, as its influence wanes and as the fear of its retributive capacity fades. It is in the development of these policies and practices and their execution over a decade that members of the public and analysts would be able to discern the quality and uprightness of the governance of successive Jagdeo administrations and to place it in perspective.

Given all that has passed, it is goes without saying that many of the administration’s policies will be found to have been grotesque and afoul of normative standards of good governance. Stewardship of law enforcement and the orchestrated commingling of regular forces with the narco terrorists and death squads will eclipse all others as the most serious failing of President Jagdeo’s government. But there have been others including one that the media and this newspaper in particular have been acutely aware of and at the receiving end: the allocation of government advertising.

Government advertising is funded by taxpayers’ money and the allocation should be done in a manner that is manifestly fair to all media and enables value for money

The public will recall that in 2006, following its win at the general elections, the PPP/C government engaged in the most pernicious abuse of press freedom post-1992 when it inexplicably cut off all state advertising to this newspaper. This ban persisted for 17 months and was fought every step of the way by the newspaper using all means at its disposal including the publishing of banners on the front page condemning the government’s violation of the press freedom Declaration of Chapultepec, the internationalizing of the case and the staging of a protest by employees of the newspaper against the government decision.

The explanation given by the government for the cut-off was contrived and disingenuous and was only provided after SN went public with its case. Having placed ads with SN for many years, the Jagdeo government said it had decided that ads would go to the state-owned Guyana Chronicle, the leading privately owned newspaper, which it arbitrarily identified to be the Kaieteur News and some papers published at the weekend – i.e. the PPP/C-aligned Mirror newspaper. There was no explication of the basis of this decision vis a vis a survey of the popularity of the newspapers or a determination of the segments of the market that they influenced. The government simply said that it was pursuing value for money for ads.

The ads cut-off lasted 17 months during which time it intensified as more and more agencies were brought to heel under the cover of the Government Information Agency (GINA). Then, out of the blue, President Jagdeo agreed to lift the ban in April 2008. Again, he did not explain his decision but it became crystal clear later why his government had acted against SN in 2006 and why it was finally lifting the ad ban. It transpired that a new newspaper was being set up by a friend of President Jagdeo. It therefore became reasonable to postulate that the motive for the original ban on SN was to so besiege the newspaper that it would fade from the scene and make way for the new newspaper on the bloc, the Guyana Times. Except that SN did not fade away. It made prudent decisions and mobilized resounding domestic and international support against the brutal attack by the Jagdeo administration which irreversibly sullied its previously good record on press freedom.

All the while, the pundits and analysts were reasoning that the motive behind the resumption of ads in SN was to pave the way for the placement of ads in the Guyana Times even though this would have been diametrically counter to the new policy so brazenly laid down by the Jagdeo administration and which was used to deprive SN of its legitimate share of government advertising.

A year later, the case was comprehensively proven. Government advertising via GINA began to appear in the Guyana Times even though the newspaper had no established base and could not be providing value for money as had been demanded by the government of SN. When pressed on this, the government finally intimated that it had reverted to the policy that prevailed prior to the cut-off of advertisements to SN but clearly the real motive was to patronize the Guyana Times.

This wasn’t the end of the depravity. State ads flowed in larger and larger amounts to the Guyana Times until its allocation began to rival that of the KN – hitherto the government’s favourite but which had publicly fallen out with the government.

Unabashedly, the government’s inexplicable favouring of the fledgling Guyana Times resulted in its ads tally  moving ahead of the ad quota for Kaieteur News and equalling that provided to Stabroek News. The ad contortions present a veritable case study on how not to govern and vividly define the excesses of this government.

That was still, however, not the end of the ads gymnastics. In July of this year, a bill was swiftly tabled in Parliament to enable the placement of all government advertising on the internet. There was no credible explanation by the government as to why this was only now being done and whether there were ramifications for other forms of advertising. But as had been warned there has been a severe backlash on newspaper advertising.

Despite the explanation from Presidential media liaison officer, Mr Kwame McKoy to Stabroek News that the procurement website could lead to a diminished amount of advertising all across the board, the evidence thus far shows that ads are now being withheld from the private media – the Guyana Times included.

Since August 9th there has been no booking of ads by GINA in Stabroek News or other private newspapers though some have been placed in the Guyana Chronicle. This is most unusual as GINA would place at least three or four ads on a daily basis with SN. In essence the government has once again violated its own policies on State advertising and it is left to be seen how it will mend its ways. Analysts have suggested that the real motive behind the setting up the website was to enable the administration to conserve on cash in the lead up to the general elections in what is likely to be a high-spending affair with no constraints on the incumbent from advancing the fortunes of the ruling party.

While the procurement website will undoubtedly have its benefits and advantages it can now reasonably be asked whether the placement of government ads on the web can be an adequate substitute or companion to ads placed in newspapers. First, the density of connectivity here with the internet is believed to be low and the generation of contractors being solicited by this government likely has little affinity for the world wide web. How will they be able to adequately monitor which procurement ads are being placed on the web and might not this method of advertising enable only certain contractors to be aware of certain ads?

If it is the case, as has been told to SN, that the website will be complemented by print ads in the Guyana Chronicle only, how will the government be able to defend this decision considering the low interest in the Chronicle and the patent unfairness of favouring the state media?

It is left to be seen if indeed this is just a hiatus in advertising with the print media or something more sinister and lasting. The omens are not good. A formal enquiry by letter from SN to GINA has not elicited any useful information on the placement of ads. It is exactly the same furtiveness, opaqueness and arrogance from the government that marked the original cessation of ads to SN in 2006. We shall see.

Suffice to say that responsibility for the insupportable decision making on ads from 2006 onwards leads back right up to the President and down to a coterie of officials under him. What is particularly unpalatable about this turn of events is that decisions are being made which have no relevance to the public interest or equity. It is an unmistakable sign of a government that has lost its moorings.

It behooves the government to explain to the public its present position on the placement of state advertising in the print and other media.