IN the 1980s Guyana under the leadership of President Hugh Desmond Hoyte began transitioning from a closed society to an open one. This shift moved the country from socialism, whereby the government controlled the commanding heights of the economy, to what was considered as a process of liberalisation, whereby the role of government in the economy was scaled back and the private sector was able to flourish. It should be said that the economic shift was influenced in large part by the end of the Cold War and dominant Western neo-liberalism, which influenced the policy direction of international financial institutions such as the World Bank,the International Monetary Fund and the Inter-American Development Bank, from which Guyana borrowed.
This shift also impacted the media and telecommunications landscapes. Non-political media such as Stabroek News (1986) newspapers and, CN Sharma, Anthony Vieira and Rex McKay televisions appeared on the scene. The Guyana Telecommunication Corporation was privatised with government retaining a 20 percent share. The landscape has expanded to the point where today we have more than one telecommunication provider, several newspapers, broadcasting channels and online media.
This approach allowed information, ideas and knowledge to become more accessible and be had from multiple sources. No longer persons solely depended on government or politically aligned media for information. This is not to say that though the society was considered closed, consistent with socialism/communism or brutish, that such hindered access. As a social being, man seeks out the sharing and receiving of ideas, winning over/influencing others. This was evident during slavery as it is today in the most closed/semi-closed societies such as Cuba and China.
The advancement of information communication technologies has broken borders and reduced the world to a small village. This brings with it many factors such as the reduction/inability to contain information within a specific area or among a decided group, increases the possibility of getting to the truth and/or exposing myths, retrieval capacity to hold government, organisations and persons accountable in real time, makes trade easier, galvanises activism and support unhindered by borders as seen in the 2015 elections, where the diaspora and locals interfaced.
At a governmental level, while the Freedom of Information Act strengthens an open society, such law in itself will not contain/hinder the flow of information, though it may to some extent curtail who sees what. It should be said that every person possessing a cell phone, tablet and social media software can impart and receive information in nanoseconds to and from multi-persons/sources. And though the focus of this editorial is not to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of an open society, it should be said in such a society nothing is hidden for long, equally as the desire to hold persons to account will be left unpursued.
Leaders in their public and private lives need to take note of the changes that took place in this landscape and not only be cautious, but be aware that anything they may say or do can be questioned or challenged any and every time. As the demand for good governance cuts across both public and private institutions, citizens will be more alert to their responsibility of holding leaders accountable, and it requires of leaders not to seek to shut citizens out, but to respond positively to this environment. It is only by doing that,that the respect leaders expect will be given. The revolutionising of the information industry brings with it new experiences, through which societies learn from each other across continents and countries, and vivid day-to-day experiences are being witnessed. Consequently, it should be noted that since this change, modern and progressive leaders are responding in positive ways which give assurances to and build confidence with the masses.