Political correctness
Editorial
Stabroek News
January 13, 2007
Last year, the Amerindian People's Association attempted to have the National Assembly alter the title of the Amerindian Act by using the term 'Indigenous' rather than 'Amerindian.' The African Cultural and Development Association similarly passed a resolution calling upon the authorities to use the term 'African' rather than 'negro' or 'black.'
To some, these demands might seem frivolous but language is powerful and ought not to be used to cause offence, particularly to ethnic and cultural communities, to denigrate and disparage disadvantaged groups or to undermine the dignity of persons. For example, even the youngest Guyanese knows that the use of words 'buck', 'coolie' and 'nigger' to refer to certain ethnic groups in this country is insulting and offensive.
Nowadays, politically correct speech does not refer exclusively to race; it includes the categorisation of persons by gender, generation, health and social status and to any others who might be targeted for undeserved and unjust criticism. The purpose of political correctness should be to define the boundaries of discrimination and refine the quality of everyday speech in order to eliminate favouritism and intolerance in public business.
Public officials have an obligation to set the standard for politically correct speech, particularly in the press and on public occasions. These days, words and images intended to elicit positive reactions in specific audiences can be transmitted at the speed of light around the country or the globe to destinations where the reactions might be quite the opposite.
It is in this regard that Mr Suresh Ramkellawan, in a letter to the editor of this newspaper published on Monday, January 1st 2007, complained about the appearance of an image on his television screen of "an angry head of state literally accusing, threatening and 'busing out people he thinks are the enemies." On this occasion, the President was speaking at a press conference held in December last year about the local banking sector in general and two well-known companies in particular - Le Meridien Pegasus hotel and the Stabroek News newspaper.
Mr Ramkellawan thought that the President's words would "send a bad signal for our fledgling tourist industry and investment climate" and that "the attack on the media is a threat to press freedom." Investors and visitors reading these reports, hearing these words and seeing these images, he thought, were bound to question the Administra-tion's commitment to foreign investment and the freedom of the press.
This is not the first occasion on which the President's public utterances have generated despondency. At Annandale Village in January 2004, he incorrectly accused the media, particularly the Stabroek News, Prime News, Channel 9 and Channel 28, of being "hell bent" on bringing his Administration down and of "playing the role of opposition parties."
During the great flood of January-February 2005, the President referred to statements from the Guyana Medical Association that consideration should be given to the evacuation of the population of flooded areas as "a lot of nonsense." And last October, at the opening of GUYEXPO at Sophia, the President described the Private Sector Commis-sion's apprehensions about the introduction of the value added tax as "irresponsible statements" intended to scare the population.
Nothing that the President says in public is likely to go unheeded and unrecorded. His words are bound to influence public perceptions. It must be realised, therefore, that it is insulting and offensive for him to describe the legitimate expressions of opinions by sections of the press, professional organisations, the private sector and other persons as 'nonsensical' or 'irresponsible' or worse. No one wants to be insulted publicly by the head of state.
The President needs to be a statesman who can sell Guyana's strategic mission abroad and reach out to all sections of society at home. His speech at all times must be the epitome of political correctness, avoiding discriminatory insinuations and devoid of intolerance for the views of others.