Dear Editor,
It is very clear that the deck is stacked against the government on two controversial issues – withdrawal of ads from Stabroek News and casino gambling.
Neither one is going well for the government. It is unfortunate that the government is losing popularity coming on the heels of a resounding victory at the polls. The government’s course of action begs answers for the following basic questions – How did the government get itself into this mess? Who ill-advised it on this set of policies? And what can be done for the government to save face or redeem itself in the eyes of the public?
Both issues were poorly handled from a public relations standpoint. No respected political scientist or activist would have advised the government to go down the road it is travelling. In the eyes of people I spoke with, it smacks of the arrogance of power. It is shocking that the President was not shielded from this set of controversies.
Those of us who study political science know that presidents or leaders of governments don’t usually get themselves involved into these kinds of controversies. Good public relations (PR) people usually present a President above the fray and when a major controversy erupts over a bill, the President appears on the horizon to save the day. He becomes the hero and everybody loves him. That has not happened in the P.R handling of either controversy.
President Jagdeo met religious representatives on the casino issue but has not won over their hearts. And they express disappointment that the government has not withdrawn the bill on casino gambling. It seems that the President’s Office is missing the talent of Robert Persaud in its PR campaign. Perhaps the government should seek the input of Moses Nagamootoo who is among Guyana’s leading experts on PR.
On the gambling issue, it appears that the government feels it can raise revenues (which are in short supply) by introducing casino gambling. With thousands of visitors coming for World Cup cricket, it only makes sense that gambling be legalized now and not after the world cup. Guyana could obtain a windfall from gambling.
What the government should have done was to start early in its campaign first to educate the public about the benefits of casino gambling and what would be done to protect Guyanese from the fall out of casino gambling. The government could have met key community and religious leaders to discuss the issue.
Then the government could have presented a bill for the introduction of gambling on a trial basis for a short period restricting gambling only to tourists.
Licensing would have been for a specific period to be renewed at regular intervals. It could have established a casino commission with some representation coming from religious leaders. This may have helped to appease opponents. Now large segments of society are opposed to the bill.
With regard to the withdrawal of advertisements to SN, the government should have known that it would not go down well locally and internationally.
The perception is not good for the government and in politics perception is reality. An equitable formula for distribution of ads to all media outlets would have been a better approach. A gradual reduction of ads, if the government cannot afford them, would have been a better policy.
It is not too late for the government to say it was misled in withdrawing ads from SN and fire one of its advisors for offering poor advice. In PR parlance, someone has to take the bullet for the government for an ill-conceived policy.
In fact, in NY, few people back the stance taken by the government to withdraw ads from SN. SN has developed a niche among Guyanese abroad. People view the withdrawal of ads as a punitive measure.
Clearly, the handling of both issues shows the President is in need of better PR He is enormously liked by the population. He would want to leave a brilliant legacy. I don’t understand how his PR people would allow him to compromise his popularity on the two issues.
Yours faithfully,
Vishnu Bisram
