The Guyana Government has shot itself in the foot with a very bad political move that smacks of the old, discredited 'Burnhamist doctrine' of the late President Forbes Burnham which had reached into all aspects of governance, including crude interferences and worse, in the functioning of the country's media.
That long 'Burnhamist' dispensation finally ended in October 1992 with the return of electoral democracy which guarantees the independently-supervised verdict of legitimate voters with their expectations for democratic governance and observance of established human rights norms, including freedom of the press.
Today's governing People's Progressive Party (PPP), currently in its fourth successive term, and with a proud record of significant recognisable economic, social and cultural achievements, has now tarnished its reputation with a most inept political decision.
That decision by President Bharrat Jagdeo's administration, is to cease placing government's advertisements in the privately-owned Stabroek News with which there has long been an uneasy relationship. The situation appeared to have worsened during last year's general election campaign when verbal scalpels were routinely employed by both sides.
"Economics and impact maximization" was the official reason given through the Government Information Agency (GINA) for withdrawing advertisements from Stabroek News while continuing to place them in the two other daily newspapers - the public sector-owned Guyana Chronicle and the privately-owned Kaieteur News. The latter is reputed to have the largest circulation.
Not unexpectedly, the newspaper's editor-in-chief David de Caires, rejected what he called a "contrived and fictitious" explanation for what he considers to be really a "politically motivated" move in the reduction of government advertisements as of late last year that has culminated with total withdrawal.
As one of the journalists who had been dislocated by the "party paramountcy" doctrine of the Burnhamist era to leave Guyana in 1974 to continue my profession, I am distressed by this 'advertisement politics' by the Jagdeo administration. I most strongly disagree with it. This should never have happened. Good judgement must lead to its speedy reversal.
To start with, as Jagdeo's advisers should know, there is a difference in reducing the amount of advertisements to any section of the print or electronic media by a government and withdrawing such advertisements altogether. There is an economic argument in placements of advertisements by either a government or private-sector enterprise.
Advertising agencies usually provide marketing guidance to clients, using circulation and other relevant data. Regional newspapers for which I work, including The Nation, know a lot about this.
The Guyana government's decision seems to have resulted from unrestrained emotionalism grounded in claims of "sustained anti-government politics" by the affected newspaper. This approach cannot be justified in a functioning democracy like Guyana.
I hope that on reflection, the Jagdeo administration, having made a point against the Stabroek News - rather clumsily, and by which it has also inflicted self-hurt - will take the mature step of reversing its decision.
The right of dissent is very much at the core of freedom of expression.
And however strongly the government feels about the role of the Stabroek News, in my judgement, while at times we may reflect differing perspectives on the governance politics of Guyana, I feel that under de Caires' professional guidance and commitment, his newspaper has evolved as a vital social partner in the development of Guyana, and a symbol of press freedom.