Yesterday we reported that the Guyana Broad-casting Corporation (GBC) had pulled reigning Calypso Monarch Vivian Jordan's 2004 entry from the airwaves. This is not the first time, of course, that a calypsonian has felt the hand of censorship, either that of the GBC or of the Ministry of Culture, which reserves the right to vet the entries before they are aired. GBC General Manager Mazrul Bacchus told this newspaper that the song had been pulled after it had been learned that the lyrics had not been reviewed by the Ministry. However, Mr Winston Benn of the Mash Secretariat said that VJ had submitted his lyrics at the same time as the other calypsonians, although as the reigning monarch he was not required to audition. No concerns were raised about the words of his calypso at that stage, it seems.

All of this raises various questions, the major one being whether calypsos should be subject to censorship at all, and if so, by whom. Secondly, if we were to accept that vetting is necessary, what guidelines should apply. The first thing that should be said is that by tradition calypsonians are given wide licence, because it is recognized that routine censorship would simply kill the art form of which they are the exponents. In neighbouring Trinidad, where the art of the calypsonian has reached its apotheosis, it is considered a bad year if there are no controversial calypsos; the whole point about them is that they should unsettle people.

Having said that, however, one would have to recognize that there will be cases, particularly in unstable societies like this one, where limits might have to be applied, although censorship should only be invoked in the most egregious cases. It is very difficult to give principles, although clearly where lyrics breach the law of the land in relation to matters like race, or constitute serious incitement to violence or crime, they should be banned, or the offending portions excised.

The problem is that individual cases will not usually be clear-cut, and there is bound to be disagreement as to how dangerous lyrics really are. The current controversy surrounding Cro Cro's calypso in Trinidad, for example, which advocates that corrupt politicians and businessmen be kidnapped and made to repatriate the money they have in foreign banks, is a case in point. On the face of it, it clearly constitutes incitement to commit a felony; however, at a practical level it might be asked how likely it is that people who normally would never consider kidnapping anyone are going to be persuaded to do so after having heard the calypso. In addition, given the publicity which the lyrics have received on account of their subject matter, would it really make any difference to the safety of citizens in the twin-island republic if Cro Cro's composition were to be banned at this stage?

Politicians, of course - particularly those in office - are the usual targets of calypsonians, and down the decades in T&T there have been some very angry politicians indeed around Carnival time. The sensitivity of the political establishment is understandable, given the fact that songs, unlike spoken words which are usually ephemeral, can be picked up by the wider population and sung repeatedly. On the other hand, the good news for them is that calypsos are seasonal, with a limited life-span, and that this year's will be overtaken by another set next year.

Given that politicians are the usual targets of calypsonians, even if we were to agree in principle that there are limits to what is acceptable where lyrics are concerned, Ministers of Government and their staff are absolutely the last people who should be allowed to vet entries. In other words, Minister Teixeira and those associated with her, should have no authority at all to ban or censor a calypso; that task should fall to an entirely independent committee, which should use its power with the utmost of discretion.

Which brings us to the matter of VJ's calypso entitled 'I will resign,' which as we reported yesterday takes a dig at President Jagdeo and Minister Gajraj without naming them. If it is that GBC, taking its cue from governmental authorities, has made this the reason for pulling the composition from the air, then it is certainly guilty of gross misjudgement. Whether VJ's commentary is right or wrong is neither here nor there; it certainly comes well within the definition of acceptable political comment. If we start censoring this kind of stuff, we will kill calypso altogether.

The lyrics also go on to make a reference to the Mark Benschop case, a matter which is sub judice. However, even this the authorities would be best advised to ignore, since it is not a central issue in the composition, is not likely to do any great damage given what is said routinely on TV, and also because, as stated above, calypsonians have to be accorded greater latitude than others.

There is also a practical issue to be considered. It is a total waste of time for GBC to be excluding a calypso from their airwaves, when it will be given plenty exposure on the independent television stations. Further-more, there is nothing like a banning or censorship to draw attention to a song. Very soon, people who might never bother about calypsos, will be going out of their way to listen to this one. Furthermore, why are the authorities getting worked up about lyrics which are mild in comparison with what some of the talk-show hosts have been saying - and the powers-that-be have not seen fit to move against them.

Finally, it says nothing for GBC, state entity though it is, that it is following the Ministry of Culture in this matter. It simply gives ammunition to its critics that really it is just there to promote a government line - even when the vehicle is cultural.