Dear Editor,
Thank you for that brilliantly written editorial, `The fear of retribution’ (SN Dec 21). It is factual and is line internationally with findings of research conducted by scholars.
Retribution is retaliatory actions taken against individuals or organizations who critique those in power or express disagreements with policies. Punitive measures include job or contract loss, attacks, social ostracism or exclusion from in group activities, disinviting from government or party programmes. Coded or direct messages are sent by leaders to supporters that the critic is an enemy not to be trusted. Such attacks drive fear into critics, causing them to be silent. Retribution is in contravention to the functioning principles of a democracy and the UN Charter.
A true democracy guarantees the right to speak freely without fear of retribution. In USA, one can speak freely about any issue relating to the government or a politician. There is hardly likely to be a retribution. The US constitution and the court protects free speech including the right to criticize the government and your employer.
Unfortunately, in third world settings like Guyana, if you speak out against any government or even an opposition party, there will be retribution. Such punishment has existed under all governments going back to the colonial period, as the editorial noted. Even supporters of a ruling or opposition party may harass or threaten you if you critique their party. Parties are known to send their troll after you. Writers critical of a party or government have experienced it repeatedly under all governments post-Jagan.
As research revealed, the nature of government or party response to criticism has a chilling effect on public discourse, discouraging people from voicing opinions. Silence on poor governance would ultimately lead to authoritarian rule as happened in Guyana immediate post independence.
A growing number of critics of all past governments claimed they were or have been intimidated and expressed concerns regarding retribution that included loss of jobs and business and obtaining contracts. Some claimed they were denied contracts because of complaints against authorities or failure to grease palms. It is not forgotten that police were sent to SN’s office when the newspaper exposed a wrongdoing. Fortunately, SN was not cowed into fear and continues with its critique of government and opposition.
As a report on the subject pointed out, retribution “undermines ethics, public trust, accountability, good governance, and the overall state of democracy”. Democracy is undermined when critics no longer speak out against bad governance for fear of losing income. Soon, they withdraw from politics. Apathy rises.
Government should not punish free speech. Genuine public engagement serves the interests of government and opposition as it may offer ideas to on policymaking or how to improve delivery of services. Free speech should be welcomed, not punished.
It is essential for governments “to foster an environment that encourages open dialogue” among people and with the government. Government should advise the public there will not be any backlash for their opinions.
The media must continue its role as guardian of democracy and of offering a voice to critics of government. The leaders of civil society organizations should not cower into fear. They must continue to speak out on issues and condemn retribution from politicians. They must engage diplomats who would gladly help to ensure that voices of dissent are not silenced.
Speaking out is paramount to maintaining a functioning democracy. Retribution must be condemned.
Yours truly,
Vishnu Bisram
