President Irfaan Ali hosted the traditional annual media brunch at State House on Sunday, telling the assembled journalists that he was “open to constructive criticism”, to ideas, and the “sharing of responsibilities for the development and advancement of our country.” He went on to express the need for a common agenda with the media by building partnerships on national issues, the key ones being national unity, domestic violence, engagement of the diaspora and suicide. “These are all critical areas that we can work on, a common agenda on which we can build a national strategy, in which the government and the media can work together in helping a national cause,” he was quoted as saying.
While acknowledging that every view had a value and should be expressed freely, he said this should be done responsibly to ensure there was balance, fairness and a factual basis for the expression of those views, so the press was seen as unbiased. Like his predecessors he said the government would make available access to training in specific areas such as mass communications, journalism and marketing. He did concede that the administration should increase its accessibility to the media with regard to development projects but this was so that they could better understand the shift taking place in the country.
Finally he thanked the media for “securing democracy in Guyana” saying that it was to a large extent “the independence and balance in the media that allowed us as a country and as a people to ride out that period successfully.”
While the traditional media did play an important role in reporting the truth of what transpired following the March 2nd election last year, and on holding fast to a line of adherence to constitutionality and the rejection of fraud, in terms of relations with the government we are now back in a more traditional mode. Neither of our major parties has really adjusted itself over the years to a changing social context, the vastly different media landscape and the pressure for greater openness where governmental operations and decision-making are concerned. Both have been spoilt by the state media, which this government as much as the last one appears determined to cling on to.
Governments in general don’t like criticism, don’t like exposure and don’t like uncovering the basis of how they come to decisions. Our governments have been very sensitive about releasing documents for critical development projects and arguing an informative case in the public arena as to why they are adopting a particular programme. Even less have they been prepared to subject themselves to scrutiny. President Ali’s approach to the issue seems to be that the media can be incorporated into some overarching national project in which they can work together with the government.
Leaving aside the very special case of our borders where everyone in the society must speak with a single voice in relation to the principles involved, and from time to time specific social issues for the purposes of a campaign, the job of the independent media is not to be absorbed into some larger governmental project, however well meaning. The independent media are not a public relations unit for an administration on development projects or anything else, and cannot be conflated with the state media; their job is to ask questions on behalf of the public, and to probe decision-making. That means that often relations might be strained if not fractious, but if the media are asking at least some of the right questions they are fulfilling their role.
Training will certainly raise standards of professionalism, which are definitely needed, but it will not change the fundamental role of independent media houses.
When he came to office the head of state promised transparency with the media, but he certainly has not set in place the environment whereby they can fulfil their role. As we reported, after six months there has been no post-cabinet press briefing, and only inconsistent sessions with him and his ministers. The convenient excuse of course is the Covid-19 situation. When he was asked about the lack of post-cabinet briefings in December, the President was reported as responding that the lack of formal briefings had not affected the public’s access to information on his administration’s decision-making.
“I think the one thing we have doing is keeping in constant touch with the people. All aspects of all discussion from Cabinet has been communicated to the people,” he was quoted as saying. That is really not good enough. It is not just a question of what the government chooses to tell the people, it is also a matter of investigating that which they don’t want to tell the people, but which the people are entitled to know.
We have the egregious example of the Minister of Agriculture Zulfikar Mustapha and his scandalous issuance of seabob licences. In his case, it proved unbelievably difficult even to extract information on the identity of the licence holder, and much remains for him to account for. Unbelievably, he wouldn’t even answer a parliamentary question, so what exactly have citizens and stakeholders been told about discussions in Cabinet on this matter? Nothing that anyone knows about it must be said, unless Cabinet did not discuss the matter, and if they didn’t that would be something of a disgrace in its own right and a signal of how the government intends to proceed. If there was ever a case for a probing independent media, this is it.
We reported President of the Guyana Press Association Nazima Raghubir as observing that absence of briefings is the continuation of a precedent set by the previous administration responding or granting interviews to select media houses. “They are also engaging with social media commentators rather than media houses just as Mr Granger and others preferred to speak to some social media commentators,” we quoted her as saying. While her organisation had raised the matter with Minister Kwame McKoy in December, there had been no response. So much for transparency. Again it is evidence of an attempt to control the national conversation by avoiding formal settings and the sometimes hard questions which go with them. It is not conducive to a new, open era.
As an example of the unacceptable manipulation by the government, there was our report on Sunday about a scheduled ‘Address to the Nation’ by President Ali the previous day on Covid-19 and the case of the fishermen detained in Venezuela. This was transformed into a public briefing about which media houses were not informed and to which they were not invited. When announced, journalists were told it could be viewed on the Office of the President’s Facebook page and TV networks. Twenty minutes after it started the head of state said he would take questions, which they could submit through the comment section of the live feed, or through the DPI’s WhatsApp group.
This is really unacceptable, more particularly as the two topics for the address were so important. Was the government afraid of criticism on its handling of the Covid-19 situation? One has the feeling like previous governments in this country, the present one is still operating with the assumption that if it doesn’t put itself in a position where it has to answer questions in a formal setting, then criticism of its actions will be muted or avoided. President Ali says he is open to constructive criticism, although exactly what that means will no doubt be decided by him, certainly not in his view by the critic.
It is true that criticism can sometimes be off-centre, misplaced, irresponsible or just plain wrong, but avoiding it is not the way to confront it in this day and age; it has to be answered. Certainly Minister Charles Ramson as we pointed out in leaders last Sunday and Wednesday, clearly has no clue how to deal with justified criticism.
While it is still not adjusting itself to the growing push for openness which is being fuelled by social media and the web, the government will find that it still requires the formal independent media, no matter how testy relations may turn out to be at times. It needs to have a publicly recognised forum where it can communicate with the citizenry through the agency of the media and respond to their concerns and questions formally. People are entitled to no less. The independent media should certainly not be there to try and trip the government up; they are there as one element in the national dialogue and as participants in the discussion on how we make progress. And above all else, they are there to hold the government to account.
