POLITICS will forever continue to produce its particular brand of hypocrisy and, this is because of the peculiar nature of the conduct and practice of this institution inherent of all that it entails.
Of course, its centrepiece and driving force, is the quest for political power– its powerful motivator. The historic May 2015 national elections that resulted in the ground-breaking A Party for National Unity + Alliance For Change(APNU+AFC) assuming the reins of office, has since witnessed the emergence of this kind of politician, compliments of the People’s Progresssive Party(PPP). Not that this situation has been altogether unexpected, since it is traditional for representatives of a defeated political party to suddenly remember all the principled causes that they ought to have supported, during the period of holding power.
But it has been the scale of this effrontery and impudence, which takes one aback. The so-called correctors have miraculously become overnight voices of liberty. This great contradiction of every sort, surfaced, again, during the recent parliamentary debate on the Broadcasting (Amendment) Act. Leading this clique, as usual, has been the Leader of the Opposition People’s Progressive Party (PPP), Bharrat Jagdeo, who presided over one of the darkest periods of media oppression in this country.

Beginning with the state media: the Guyana Chronicle dared not publish any view that criticised the Jagdeo regime, nor the PPP. Even constructive criticisms were not kindly received. In fact, its columns were extensively used for personal attacks and vilification of persons who opposed his government’s policies. The policy was clear–only pieces that glorified the then government and reflected its line.
A popular television station that illustrated the other side of life in a supposedly prosperous Guyana, and hosted then opposition spokespersons on its programmes, saw its proprietor suffering daily persecution in the form of verbal abuse, and targeted physical attacks during this period. Ironically, this very channel is at the moment, hosting the very PPP personalities.

Then there was the incident of punishing a private print media house, by withdrawing government advertisements; an action that had been a clear violation of the Chapultepec Agreement to which Guyana became a signatory via Jagdeo. But there were other examples of this brutal assault on press freedom perpetrated by the Jagdeo government: A popular columnist and critic was doused with faeces; another was barred from covering post-cabinet press conferences; journalists were described as vultures and carrion crows; opposition politicians were mostly prevented from use of the state television channel; private television channels applications were denied permission for the extension of their signals, while the state-owned NCN had unlimited range of telecasting.

Then there was the infamous granting of multiple television and broadcasting licences to close friends of the PPP. This was in contrast to credible entities that were not allowed because of their anti-PPP government views. Contrast this all-out assault on press freedom, during his stewardship then, with the fact of a new government and a new dispensation since May, 2015: the state media is no longer a conduit for abusing anyone. Instead, analysts, known supporters, and friends of the coalition government, have been freely expressing their criticisms, through columns, and letters in the Guyana Chronicle. The letter pages are an example of this new-found freedom of the State media, with letters written by even some former PPP ministers, and supporters, being published. During the Jagdeo regime this was unheard of, much less allowed.

And neither is the state media used by the government to retaliate in a spiteful manner, against any of these critics, whether their views are in the state media, or private. The hallmark of the Fourth Estate in Guyana today is its function in a democratic environment, in which Guyanese are voicing their opinions on critical matters of national importance without fear of suffering any act of vindictiveness. Even those with a political agenda, and clearly unfair, are also published.
But most important is the recognition that the media has an important role to play in political discourse, especially with regard to the socio–economic development of the nation. This can only occur with a free media, as it is today in Guyana.