The Information We Deserve

by Peter Ramsaroop

Lately there has been much ado about the privatisation of Guyana 's government-owned media.

Politicians and commentators alike are saying it is time this democratic nation finally does away with one of the last vestiges of autocratic rule that remain from the years of dictatorship.

This past week we celebrated another year of fair and free elections. There are still many items that remain untouched in our progression toward a people-centred government – one of which is the privatisation of all media.

The primary thought behind a press that has no ties or obligations to the government is that of true transparency and accountability.

Democracy demands the government to be accountable to the people who put them in office. However, the only way this can happen is if the people know the truth about what the government is doing.

A press that is beholden to the government, especially for its very life through pay cheques for the staff and the ongoing production of the news, is far less likely to point out the flaws and errors of those who pay their bills.

It stands to reason that state-run media will always be slanted in favour of the government, whether that government is deserving of that favour or not.

There are other factors to consider in our march toward democracy, for example, the sitting government will always have an unfair advantage during election times because they have ready access to numerous media outlets to deliver their campaign platform.

This advantage affords them far more opportunities for promoting their own ideas and information while the other parties must scrounge around for such opportunities.

Ideally, in a true democracy, every potential candidate has equal access to various means of letting the people know how they plan to help the country. Whether by television, paper or radio, there should be a level playing field for all candidates when campaigning for public office, regardless of financial constraints or popularity. This makes it a fair election.

If the people do not consider an election to be fair, then the person who assumes that position will not be regarded as credible or capable of carrying out his/her role as a public servant.

This is the type of situation that creates a charged political climate – something that could easily be avoided if all media were truly free and operated outside of the constraints of obligation and bias.

Government-owned media outlets will always be regarded as untrustworthy by default. It is assumed that news is filtered through a predetermined set of expectations, such as the promotion of - and never the denigration of – the government.

Letters to the editor are always suspect, the credibility of the information being provided will always be severely downplayed, and the entity takes on a superficial aura that is often scoffed at instead of respected.

In other words, the people view government media as one big advertisement for the party in power. What they want is a citizen's media where information comes from people just like them who are not opposed to being critical of the government.

It is far easier to trust a press that is not relying on a government signature to eat next week.

One could argue that, since there are other media outlets in Guyana that are indeed free, it is then acceptable to allow the government to have its own outlets. We have already demonstrated the flaw in this thought through the unfair advantage the government has when campaigning and the unreliability factor.

In short, Guyana can never expect anything negative about the government from the government – even if we have a right to know.

Therefore, we can only hold all information provided by these obligated outlets as suspect and unreliable because the government will never turn on itself.

As an aside, it is interesting to note that television stations have been shut down for operating within the context of a free press that has the ability to critique the government. This was done under the previously mentioned dictatorship, but it is highly questionable behaviour in a democratic country.

Governments within truly democratic countries do not have the right to shut down any radio or television station. The governments in these nations are criticised just as much or more than Guyana 's government, yet no such action is taken. And if it were, that government would see protests in the tens of thousands and would never find its way back to the people's hearts.

This is yet one more reason why government-owned media is so risky. Through its own outlets, the government attempts to set an industry-wide standard of no true critique.

When this standard is not met in lieu of the democratic standards, that of being a watchdog for the people, then the country is made to think such private outlets are acting as criminals, when instead they are acting in the best interest of the people.

It is wise to reflect on our history, celebrate our victories and take pride in our accomplishments. However, it should never be said that Guyana has neglected its responsibility to examine our foundational freedoms and closely inspect those areas that may still be attributed to another time when we were yoked to the will of a single individual.

Indeed, Guyana is ready to take the next step in egalitarianism by privatising those outlets owned by the government.

Though our freedom is relatively new and our economic development is only crawling along, we are well positioned to take substantial steps in the advancement of our democratic state.

Do we dare step into the next phase of freedom by expecting all media to be free? Do we really want to be just a little free? Or do we want to be encompassed on all sides and totally enveloped by freedom?

Guyana, made rich by the sunshine and lush by the rains, awaits your reply.