The battle has already been manifestly enjoined with the PPP finding itself trying to fend off a continually (virtually daily) unfolding tirade of official accusations of corrupt practices during its tenure in office against which it has – up until now – mounted weak responses. For the time being, at least, its propaganda machine simply lacks the ammunition to fight back. As one political analyst told this newspaper recently, its only option would appear to be to “give the government time to make mistakes” so that it can secure some “political currency” of its own.
Under different circumstances it might have been able to seize upon the government’s ill-timed announcement of a salary increase for Cabinet ministers. It tried, but failed, its weakness having to do with its scarcity of sufficient moral currency to wrest any political advantage from the ‘topping up’ of the ministers. Any attempt to ‘go hard’ on the ministers’ salary increase issue would have probably been met with a fair measure of public derision on the grounds that its response was rooted in double standards and hypocrisy.
The incumbents, meanwhile, have been busy creating their own breathing space by affording the media a steady diet of reportage on its predecessor’s indiscretions in a carefully measured way. This approach, it appears, is designed with the twofold intention of first, continually ‘back-footing’ the now political opposition and, secondly, as far as possible, keeping public opinion on its side. The PPP must still wait for the balance between the rawness of public perceptions regarding its ‘misdeeds in office’ and the still prevailing give-the-new-government-a-chance public attitude to shift.
It is of course no secret that the foundation of such moral credibility and goodwill that the political administration enjoys has to do largely with public perceptions of President David Granger as ‘a man of integrity,’ that is to say, a leader who is not only above corruption but will also not hesitate to frown on corrupt practices within his administration, wherever and whenever those were to surface. That circumstance is as much a virtue as it is a burden since whilst, on the one hand, public trust and confidence in a political administration invariably derives from perceptions of the character of its leader (s) that trust is sustained only in circumstances where the image and the character of that leader continues to occupy a place of prominence or high visibility in the political administration.
Such critical comments as have been made about the ‘management style’ of President Granger have had to do with what is believed to be his disinclination to throw himself headlong into every major public affray, to pronounce definitively on every occurrence, to pass final and definitive judgment in every instance. That, indeed is the kind of leadership to which we had grown accustomed, the kind of leadership which, over the years, had caused us to see the President not so much as the first among equals, but the ‘be all, and end all’ as far as leadership and decision-making are concerned. Both Presidents Burnham and Jagdeo were perceived in that light. President Ramotar was not. It seemed that no occurrence, no incident of national significance was ever fully and finally settled unless Burnham or Jagdeo pronounced upon it. The two men’s personalities tended to dominate the public space in a manner that dwarfed the importance of their other officials, whatever positions they might have held. The little that we have seen of President Granger so far does not allow us, as yet, to make up our minds, even though he clearly cannot be accused of taking centre stage on every issue.
Those who have embraced what one analyst has described as the President’s “lower profile” style of leadership contend that it allows for the members of his Cabinet to assume a more ‘take charge’ posture in pursuit of their responsibilities where presumably every decision does not require a presidential imprimatur.
There is, as we well know, another school of thought that advocates a preference for highly visible leadership so that while the President cannot justifiably be accused of neglecting the affairs of state, some measure of regret continues to be expressed over what is seen as a deficit as far as “grounding” with the people and the communities is concerned.
An argument can be made for the enhanced role of the media in sustaining a line of communication between the government and the governed. The political agenda might often appear somewhat trite…still, it generates a greater measure of interest. Some issues – like the ongoing investigations into alleged corruption and more recently the ministers’ pay increase – have generated a considerable measure of public discourse and the outcome of what has been a more energetic flow of information from state agencies has spawned a media response that reflects an enhanced sense of curiosity. The major political opposition, too, through the frequency of its public statements and media conferences continues to send signals that it too has an interest in the media.
There is a challenge for the media here. It must reflect on its reportage in the context of the political environment in which it operates. A collective commitment to being responsible cannot be taken for granted; not in circumstances where we come from a far from ideal media culture, where – say what you will – some of our media houses still have partisan interests to advocate and to defend. The internet age, too, has redefined the media culture. It has fashioned altogether different yardsticks for measuring freedom. Irresponsible ‘journalism’ is now a far more accessible option. The continually changing political landscape has saddled the media with an ever-weightier ‘burden’ of responsibility. How well we carry that ‘burden’ will impact on the society more significantly and in more ways than we might imagine.
