Governments that are as unaccountable as this one and insulated from scrutiny because of the absence of vibrant watchdog institutions tend to become even bolder in their indiscretions as their terms draw to an end. And so it is with this government.
At his press conference on Thursday, Head of the Presidential Secretariat, Dr Luncheon, felt no inhibitions on speaking boldly about the planned 24-hour education TV. What may have emboldened Dr Luncheon is his calculation that no one would object to the government’s promulgation of an all-day education TV channel or more importantly no critic of such an initiative would attract a sympathetic hearing from the public.
All-day education notwithstanding, there is an important principle that is at stake and being ripped to shreds by this government. As the Sunday Stabroek editorial of February 20 pointed out in relation to the proposed religious TV channel, the planning for this controversial venture is being done in the absence of a broadcast law and authority which were to have been in place a long time ago. Any move then to favour a particular sector with a frequency and a green light would quite properly attract dismay and concerns about the discriminatory behaviour of the government.
But this is exactly what Dr Luncheon appeared to be unmoved by. He happily spoke about contracts being inked for infrastructure, a presentation by the Ministry of Education about the channel and more crucially the assignment of a part of the spectrum for the transmission of the channel’s signal. The latter, together with the same intention for the religious channel, represent a fundamental dishonouring of the terms of the political dialogue that had been started between President Jagdeo and the late Mr Hoyte and which continued between the President and Mr Corbin.
The President and his senior officials have offered a bevy of reasons why the dialogue has not succeeded but each has been as credible as Gaddafi declaring that all of his people love him. Following Mr Hoyte’s passing the government decided that it faced no jeopardy from backtracking on the promise of comprehensive, ongoing dialogue on areas such as broadcasting and it has simply done as it wants. It is to the discredit of the political opposition and civil society that the government has been allowed to escape with this vulgar repudiation of a commitment it solemnly gave.
Aside from its breach of promise, the pursuit of the educational and religious channels by the government represents an unvarnished attempt to define by itself and for itself what the public interest is. It believes that the unsophisticated observer will be duped into believing that it only wants to well-educate the children of the land and to minister to the spiritual needs of a landscape that is dotted with so many places of worship that observers often muse about why this density has not reduced the ever increasing iniquity and criminality. The real rub however is that this government likely views both channels as means to promote its legend and to campaign for it in the year of general elections. So it is galloping shamelessly into this new venture.
By virtue of its control of the spectrum, the government is signalling to the opposition and civil society that their voices don’t count and their concept of the public interest does not intersect with the government’s. This is shameful and indefensible. It presents the government in the grotesque light that it has come to comfortably inhabit. It has absolutely no intention before the expiration of its term to permit other sections of society, whose fealty it could not be sure of, to occupy the airwaves. This is undemocratic governance.
Whatever its didactic skills and appeal, from the utterances of Dr Luncheon it has become clear that there are going to be periods on this TV channel when education will be less than 24 hours and there may be a place for the private sector to advertise. Said Dr Luncheon: “Conceivably, those unused hours should/could be made available to advertisers, (the) private sector to provide a revenue stream for the educational TV hosts and planners”. Undoubtedly such spaces would be populated by the known supporters of the government and the coterie of cronies and sycophants it now attracts with subliminal messages playing up the attributes of the government.
If indeed the government intends to forge ahead with this channel no matter the breach of promise that it entails then it should at least democratize the input into this feed and entrust it completely to professional educators who would ensure that is doesn’t become a vehicle to promote the government in an election year.
