Dictators have long thrived on the ignorance of the people. That is why the quality of a democracy can always be judged from the access to information that it allows. In periods when there is little or no democracy, there is little or no access to information and demands for such access can be violently suppressed. Journalists are an endangered species in dictatorships. In extreme cases, accurate information is replaced by lies. Recent examples are the aftermath of the elections in Guyana and the US. Lies in West Coast Berbice resulted in ethnic violence. Lies by Trump and QAnon in the US fuelled the violent assault on the US Capitol. Lies sustained enslavement and the holocaust, both genocidal.
Guyana experienced the suppression of information during the years of authoritarian rule. In the 1970s the widely circulated daily, the Mirror, which reflected the views of the Opposition, was attacked legally and violently and eventually succumbed. Then the Dayclean and eventually Open Word emerged, reflecting the sentiments of the Working People’s Alliance. By that time, they could only be circulated by hand as any attempt at public distribution was met with violence.
It is not known why the Catholic Standard was allowed to survive as the sole remaining critical voice because the Government was not bashful in its criticisms. Father Bernard Darke, with camera in hand, as photographer for the Catholic Standard, was assassinated in 1979 by a member of the House of Israel, during a street demonstration by opponents of the government. He was mistaken for Father Andrew Morrison, the editor of the Catholic Standard. In a private meeting in the early 1990s at the offices of the late Miles Fitzpatrick between Rabbi Washington, the Head of the House of Israel, having been released from prison after serving part of a sentence for manslaughter, and Father Morrison, Rabbi Washington revealed to Father Morrison the name of the person who had instructed that he be killed. Father Morrison had been previously described by then Prime Minister Desmond Hoyte in the National Assembly as a “cassocked obscenity.”
The suppression of information took a different form from the late 1980s. By then the Stabroek News was established and the grip on information was slightly relaxed. But it began to creep into legislation. The Public Corporations Act passed in 1988 makes it a criminal offence for information to be released. There was a huge public outcry by the Opposition, such as it was at that time, with its eight seats in the National Assembly. However, this trend in legislation continued.
With large scale, foreign, investment starting under the Hoyte administration in the late 1980s under agreements which were not made public, demands grew for publication of these agreements. It was believed that Guyana was at the losing end because of the concessions that were being granted. These demands were ignored until the Omai Gold Mines Limited investment which was negotiated under the Hoyte administration but not yet signed when the new PPP government took office. Jagan made the agreement public but the record thereafter was not consistent. One of the reasons for the much-publicized opposition to the Amaila Falls Hydropower Project and later, the Marriott Hotel, was the failure to release information in a timely manner or at all. The failure to release information causes suspicion, creates opportunities for corruption and hinders the development of democracy.
As in many instances, developments do not run in a straight line. While governments all over the world, to varying degrees, are always reluctant to release information, it was the Jagdeo administration in 2011 that passed the Access to Information Act. The objective of the Act is “to extend the right or members of the public for access of information in the possession of public authorities.” Public authorities include ministries and statutory bodies. The Act further provides that “it shall be the right of every Guyanese citizen or person domiciled in Guyana to obtain access to an official document.” The definition of “information” and “official document” in the Act would include licences issued by a Ministry or statutory authority. If an official request is made to the Commissioner of Information and he/she refuses such request, the decision of the Commissioner can be challenged in a court of law.
The passage of the Access to Information was as a result of increasing public clamour for easier access to information and, in particular, information to which the public is entitled and which governments refuse to divulge. Also, the developing world is and was moving in the direction of more freedom of information after freedom of information laws were passed in the developed world and was enhancing democracy. It is now difficult to conceive the United States without a Freedom of Information Act which was passed in the 1960s. Like in Guyana, it took many years before US citizens seized the opportunities provided by the legislation to obtain information. Now, millions of requests are made every year. The value and opportunities afforded to Guyanese to access information through the Access of Information Act needs to be fully utilized.
This column is reproduced, with permission, from Ralph Ramkarran’s blog: www.conversationtree.gy
