Dear Editor,
The four months suspension of NCN Channel Six by the President of Guyana, Mr. Bharrat Jagdeo, demonstrates the president’s lack of understanding of the basic sociological, and psychological impact Sharma’s programmes have had in contributing towards the stability of a largely depressed and demoralized Guyanese society.
While, politically, the move can be clearly described as an act consistent with a repressive and undemocratic regime, I believe that the social and psychological impact of the president’s action is equally important when examining this unfortunate decision by the Head of State.
Some of us may not profess to be “sold out fans” of Sharma’s Voice of the People’s programme, but that is beyond the point. What is important is that the programme is serving a basic social and psychological value to the ordinary Guyanese. So for the president and the government not to recognize these two basic functions of Sharma’s “Voice of the People”, again, demonstrates a clear disregard for the suffering of the people and/or the importance of a stable society. Or the president might not comprehend or appreciate how various social and psychological underpinnings contribute towards maintaining social order.
The programme from which Sharma’s suspension stemmed, “Voice of the People”, generally, served as a means for Guyanese to vent their frustrations. These frustrations are largely derived from the many social ills, dire economic constraints and dissatisfaction with the government and the overall political stagnation in the country. What is worse is that while the government’s NCN (GTV) has daily programmes, none of these programmes is designed to serve as a conduit or forum for taxpayers to vent their discontent or to relieve their stress. Instead, Sharma has provided for more than fifteen years that most basic opportunity, in this our fragile, emerging, or pseudo democracy (whatever it is branded) for citizens to relieve their frustration. The programme may be therapeutic in many ways, but it is unfortunate that our president does not or cannot see it this way. For him it might just be a programme that exposes the government, and bad mouths the president, supposedly dangerous crimes. One would have thought that the government’s attitude towards CNS 6 should have been an enhancing one rather than one that is rooted in a spirit of alienation and “powerism”. To refuse to acknowledge that Sharma’s CNS 6 is providing a great service to the Guyanese people is an indictment on the people. I do not think that any of us is so naïve as to think that at times Sharma, himself, did not “mis-speak” but how many times has the President himself, and others on the government’s GTV, whether through direct programming or otherwise, not made disparaging, suspicious and divisive comments that might be legally challenging, and blatantly unethical. I agree that every right has an equal and corresponding responsibility, I however, feel that at times situations should be judged according to what is best for the nation, having regard to a full, and reasonable understanding of the total situation which includes an understanding of the social, psychological, economic and political impact of the decision. Even judges are advised that they should be mindful of applying the law strictly, and without regard to larger social ramifications in instances where such a decision may have a tendency to disrupt social order.
For this reason I do not believe that the offensive comment, which led to the four-month closure, could be isolated from some basic prevailing facts. Firstly, it is a fact that as a result of a rapidly eroding security situation mired by “wholesale” slaughter of innocent citizens, massive drug running and money laundering, coupled with economic hardship, corruption in government, overwhelming evidence of bad governance, and the government’s lack of a “solution plan” have heightened the level of frustration on the part of many Guyanese. So disparaging remarks from callers on Sharma’s live call in programme is not unimaginable nor should it shock the conscience of the President, nor the society. The president remarked that his decision, whether or not consistent with requisite laws, to drop the axe on Sharma was because of Sharma’s repeat of the disdain comment, which took aim at the Head of State.
This I agree might be seen as unacceptable but the question remains whether the penalty is equally unthinkable, having regard to the social and psychological values of the programme. The critics will continue to argue as to what might have been the best response by the president and government but I will only reiterate that the president should have been mindful and sensible enough to recognize that the nation needs more stability and fewer disputes in these moments of obvious trials.
From the facts of the situation all kinds of possible motives for “cutting” Sharma can be advanced.
So what can result when people’s frustration and pain are suppressed? I do not wish to preempt a particular outcome but I wish only to say to the president that examples of these results are recorded throughout history. Even today as the concept of democracy continues to be seriously doubted in Guyana, as the president took this most repressive action on CN Sharma the current situation with China and the Tibetans is a most relevant example. But this situation in the president’s obscured view has provided him an opportunity to be seen as Godfather, so he said he will provide employment to Sharma’s 30 plus employees who are put on the bread line. What a shame! Is this not a new form of dictatorship, when a president has unashamedly closed down a legitimate private entity to take its employees? I wondered why he did not make the same offer to Stabroek News when the government withdrew advertisements from that entity. And why did the government decide to return to Stabroek News? Have the papers now become more popular, since that was the stated basis for removing same?
Or did the president calculate that it might have been good political tactics to return advertising there before dropping the axe on Sharma, in order not to look like he is on a mission to crack down on press freedom. The president’s action raises so many questions, it’s unbelievable?
I trust that the same effort and ability is exerted to capture those who continue to create havoc in the society, and “take out” innocent citizens. But it seems like the president might not have the same urge to meet this real threat to a civilized society as the criminals parade in the country. The people will continue to judge the president and government on these and other matters.
Yours faithfully,
Lurlene Nestor
