While the government was inevitably aggravated by Transparency International’s recent Corruption Perceptions Index, it has to be observed that that report has been published in an entirely different international context from when the one last year was produced. Previously the ruling party would have been most concerned about how such a report affected its image on the world stage, and the fact its findings by implication reinforced the credibility of some of its critics.
However, the world has changed since January 20th and Transparency International may have limited impact on the US. At least, that will apply in circumstances where Washington regards a nation as economically beneficial to it and which falls in the category of a ‘friend.’ And the Guyana government has been working hard to assuage the new power in the north.
Since this is an oil-producing nation and an American company, ExxonMobil, is firmly entrenched here, it may be that the Corruption Perceptions Index Report’s comments about state capture by economic and political elites, and the fact that transparency and the enforcement of anti-corruption institutions and laws were very low, will slide by the White House unremarked.
This also applies to the report’s reference to “attacks on dissenting voices, activists and journalists” being “increasingly common” in Guyana. Since this is an election year it is to be expected that such attacks will only intensify, although it must be said that where offensive speech per se is concerned it will not be confined to the government side.
The new administration in Washington has a bizarre notion of free speech, in addition to which President Donald Trump appears to harbour a predilection for autocrats, for whom free speech is anathema. Yet Vice President J D Vance turned up at the Munich Security Conference last week and said, “in Britain and across Europe, free speech, I fear, is in retreat.” That was not all; he claimed the real threat to Europe did not come from Russia or China, but from within, and its retreat from some of its “most fundamental values.” Needless to say that produced anger from European leaders.
While Mr Musk and company may trumpet free speech on social media, which on his platform particularly, includes unregulated extreme and toxic content, President Trump and his associates have targeted what is called the legacy media, i.e. traditional media, as was described in the SN editorial of February 5th. What was mentioned there in relation to the US has either applied to Guyana in the past, or still applies. This newspaper has been the victim of the withholding of government advertising on three separate occasions, for example, while the lambasting of critics or the vehicles which give them space continue unabated. One of the standard accusations against NGOs and other critics is that they are associated with the opposition, as if in a democracy that is a criticism.
In 2023, after a group of 26 signatories in Guyana wrote condemning the verbal attacks, erroneous accusations, name-calling and even threats from various sources including the government and paid or unpaid personalities, a senior government advisor accused them of trying to grab the attention of the diplomatic corps, their main audience. This was revealing. It may be, however, as indicated earlier, that the government now hopes that under the new dispensation in Washington, they can breathe a little easier on that score – albeit not with the Europeans or for that matter, with the UN.
And in the case of the latter, the Human Rights Committee had put allegations to the administration last year which included some relating to media and press freedom. It denied these, saying “the government respects and promotes Freedom of Expression …” President Trump has little regard for the UN, however, and so anything which is brought out by any of its agencies is not likely to have any impact on him. However, the UN is far more than just the US, and the government would no doubt still like to maintain its reputation as a true democracy in that forum, and in others of which it is a member.
In the US media experts are saying that the legacy media are caving into Washington, ABC having settled a lawsuit with Mr Trump it should have pursued, and CBS looking as if it might settle a suit about its editing of a 60 Minutes programme. Local media with limited financial resources are particularly at risk apparently. But danger for the US media lurks from another direction. A casino owner has asked the Supreme Court to hear an appeal against the 1964 ruling New York Times v Sullivan.
That decision meant that in order to win a libel suit a public figure had to demonstrate it was made with “actual malice”, in other words that there was knowledge it was false, or had been made with reckless disregard as to whether it was false. This applied even although there were inaccuracies in the piece concerned. If the decision is overturned, it would make it easier for public officials to intimidate the media by their ability to secure huge defamation awards.
While a few Commonwealth jurisdictions have followed the decision, it has only once been tested in this country, and that was when the late Miles Fitzpatrick argued it in the Court of Appeal in 1987 on behalf of the Catholic Standard. It was thrown out by Justice Keith Massiah who asked what the New York Times had to do with Guyana. The late Editor-in-Chief of this newspaper always hoped the kind of case would crop up which would allow it to be pleaded here again.
As things stand, therefore, the current libel laws function as an inhibiting factor where the press is concerned, added to which we still have seditious libel and criminal libel on the statute books – which Mr Trump no doubt would love to have in his portion of the continental patch, but which he doesn’t. If the government here wants to argue that this is a serious democracy, then it is about time both crimes ‒ the first of which is mediaeval in origin ‒ were abolished.
Ultimately we must not follow in America’s direction, nor should the government be lulled into complacency by what is going on in Washington. The United States is no longer the lodestar for democracy, and our standards must withstand a much higher level of scrutiny. That applies particularly to how critics and the media which give them exposure are dealt with. This is not to say that hate speech or violent expressions or the like should be tolerated; freedom of expression has limitations, or there could be no society at all. But that is another story. In this election year it is worth quoting again US Judge Murray Gurfein’s oft cited statement in 1971:
“The security of the Nation is not at the ramparts alone. Security also lies in the value of our free institutions. A cantankerous press, an obstinate press, a ubiquitous press must be suffered by those in authority in order to preserve the even greater values of freedom of expression and the right of the people to know.”
