Those entrusted with state power in Guyana have always reacted with hostility towards criticism by the press

Dear Editor, While there have been several responses to the Honourable Winston Jordan’s letter regarding the coalition government’s stewardship of the economy (SN, 9/10/2018), there has been less emphasis on assessing the Minister’s tone whilst responding to the editorial published in one of our nation’s leading media houses.

Applying the term Fourth Estate to the press has derived from the European monarchial tradition of the three estates which formed Parliament, the clergy, nobility and commoners. The 19th century British statesman Edmund Burke regarded the fourth power seated in Parliament as those in the press gallery. My disconcertion lies with the tone of the Minister’s letter extending beyond a refutation of the Sunday Stabroek editorial and attempting to delegitimise the work of the newspapers in holding the government accountable. The letter is the latest ‘broadside’ (as some sections have termed it), by a sitting government of Guyana against the institution of the press.

Historically, our state has been no stranger to attempts in stifling dissent and attempting to control the political narrative within Guyana via the co-optation, criticism and intimidation of the press. It should, therefore, be of no surprise to Minister Jordan, our incumbent government, or its supporters, that state reproach of the press in any form would be reacted to viscerally by cross sections of society. Several newspapers in our history have demonstrated this co-optation or criticism by the government, for not toeing the government line. The British Guiana Colonist and Argosy, both oft-cited in our literature by academics and politicians from all walks, were newspapers during the colonial era where the Governor, plantation owners and operators, and upper class could rely upon a kind word, usually at the expense of the disenfranchised working class. In this early period of the Guyanese national consciousness, these forebears of our contemporary media, sowed the seeds of ethnic distrust between the colony’s peoples; a part of the now-exposed metropolitan scheme to divide and rule.

In the post-independence era, the press has not been spared of government’s attempt at absolute authority among our national institutions. This incident serves to remind us of the excesses of state power in our history, and its efforts to minimise dissent in the press. While the letter of the Finance Minister is incomparable to the curtailing of political freedoms in post-independence Guyana during the 1964-1985 period, we must recall that the press has been on the receiving end of such ‘broadsides’ before.

It was during this period that the PPP Daily Mirror and the Catholic Church’s Catholic Standard faced systemic barriers in conducting their affairs by a state apparatus that was incapable of handling criticism. Additionally, it was during this time that the latter publication’s photographer and staunch government critic Fr Bernard Darke was murdered, while the WPA’s Dayclean was entirely prohibited on the grounds that it was subversive, (the 2007 book Dangerous Times, The Assassination of Dr. Walter Rodney by Gabriehu is of immense value in contextualising these actions during this period of our history).

More recently, during the 19992011 and 2011-2015 national administrations, there were times where the independently owned press was condemned as being ‘Opposition newspapers’ for their work in bringing light to government actions. State advertisements were pulled as reprisal for unflattering coverage and radio licenses were granted along partisan lines. Not long ago, agents of the political party of these recent administrations were found to be responsible for the assault of Frederick Kissoon; or that a grenade was hurled in the direction of the vehicle of Mr Kissoon’s publisher.

Furthermore, we must note redundantly that no administration entrusted to form government within our Republic, has been able to make balanced coverage a reality for the Chronicle, much less ending partisan government control of this particular state agency. This is in spite of that particular media house’s colonial legacy and persistence as a symbol of the winner-takes-all system of politics that continues to make national unity elusive.

My letter seeks to demonstrate that those entrusted with state power in Guyana have always reacted with hostility towards criticism by the press, despite the vital role of the Fourth Estate in incubating, disseminating and strengthening our national discourse. In turn, the press is obliged to exercise its authority in measure and fairness always, with the interest of Guyana’s people and the integrity of her institutions as paramount.

Press freedoms have come a long way from colonial era political discourse to present, yet this incident is a reminder that we have much further to go in ending this trend. Indeed, the Finance Minister has done something that the fourth estate and citizenry have yearned to see from their government – he has publicly initiated a dialogue on the performance of the incumbent administration in running the state from the perspective of the portfolio with which he has been entrusted. This should serve as a template for all members of the Cabinet, the leaders of the coalition parties, as well as the official Opposition: What do we have to show our constituents of our time in office? What are we most proud of having achieved?

To paraphrase Thomas Carlyle who attributes the term Fourth Estate to Burke:

Whomsoever can speak to the whole nation becomes a power, a branch of government, with inalienable weight in law-making, in all acts of authority. It matters not what rank they have; the only requisite is that they have a tongue which others will listen to. The nation is governed by all that have voice in the nation. Democracy lies with them. Yours faithfully, Brandon Francis Cheong