IF civility is a pillar of democracy, its hallmark must be a civil tongue. Without civility, politics will crumble. The debate will give way to hate, disagreements will be used to whip up ethnic strife, and dialogue will be a cloak to incite hostility, cruelty and even brutality.

In the early days of my journalism career, I’ve reported on the 1994 genocide in Rwanda that left nearly one million ethnic Tutsi and moderate Hutu dead. The scars and trauma still haunt the lives of those who survived the nightmare. Thirty years later the healing hasn’t even begun.

I’ve also covered the genocide that unfolded following the breakup of the former Yugoslavia in the early 1990s. When Bosnia and Herzegovina, following Croatia and Slovenia, declared independence in 1992, it led to the siege of Sarajevo and a programme of ethnic cleansing of the Bosniak population. The international community declared Srebrenica a Safe Area but even that failed to prevent the massacre of nearly 10,000 Bosniaks. Modern-day genocides such as those in Rwanda and Bosnia have inspired genocide studies programmes at Ivy League colleges such as Yale.

A common factor behind genocides is the absence of civility – the irreducible respect we owe to others by virtue of our shared humanity. Without civility, there is no common good and what rises to the top is the fear, loathing and even deep-seated hate of the “other.” Needless to say, a polity cannot survive without civility.

When taught at an early age, the Classics serve to instruct us on the Homeric ideals of xenia – hospitality, even towards strangers, kindness, decency, friendship, courtesy – and the lofty virtues that are embedded in both the Western and Eastern traditions. That we don’t teach much of it leaves a gaping void in the knowledge pool of our citizens that can easily unravel the fabric of our polity. It’s the lesson of both Homer’s Iliad and The Odyssey.

There has been a recent spike in the number of fake news posts on social media targeting President Irfaan Ali. They are designed to disparage, ridicule and undermine his position and the policies of his government. It is a distraction from real policies and a refusal by those who peddle fake news to engage in fair and open debate. At its core, fake news is barefaced cowardice.

Based on the comments these fake news stories garner, it appears that many Guyanese at home and abroad are misled into believing the false headlines. It is difficult to say for sure without the right social media tools to assess the nature of the uptick a fake news story gets. In other words, even the uptick can be fake.

Peddling fake news is a modern-day manifestation of disseminating lies in the public sphere for political, social and economic gain. I anticipate fake news will soon become even more frequent in the months to come as we inch closer to national and regional elections.

Fake news items are fairly easy to identify and I’ve conducted seminars on how to recognise and dismiss them in the blink of an eye. However, I fear that with an increasing number of publicly available AI apps, a clever person with a smartphone can now create a sophisticated fake news story that might fool a seasoned journalist.

These are all thoughts that crossed my mind as I watched President Irfaan Ali’s recent interview with Neil Marks. Marks asked President Ali for his response to criticisms by some Toshaos. It was a fair question and the president’s response leaned heavily on the “civic” component of the PPP.

President Ali responded by stating he was aware of the general debate among the Toshaos about the development of their villages. He acknowledged that they are democratically elected leaders of their villages and are exercising their rights and judgement.
“We give the Toshaos the opportunity and the respect, very importantly, the respect as leaders, to interrogate the government,” the President told Marks.

Marks fired back with a question about whether the PPP/C government was too harsh when it came to dissenting views voiced by some Toshaos. He singled out Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo who said that Toshaos are free to opt in or out of LCDS.

“That is a fundamental right of the Toshaos. That is not the Vice President speaking loosely. That is part of the governing structure; part of the international standard of the villages; they have the option to opt in or opt out. He is not manufacturing something. That is a statement and a position of fact and respect for the governing structure of these villages.

Marks pressed the president, asking “What space is there if someone doesn’t agree with you?” The President’s response is a clear illustration of a civil tongue in action.

“Their disagreements are welcome. That’s what a democracy is about. When you disagree, we also have a democratic right to explain our policy, to defend ourselves. Every time the PPP/C exercises the democratic right to defend itself, some people find it offensive. We must question that,” said President Ali.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Guyana National Newspapers Limited.