All societies need men and women of vision; people who can lift their eyes to the horizon and assimilate the larger contours of a landscape rather than studying only the earth beneath their feet. Such a man was David de Caires, who died exactly a year ago today. He was not an idealist in the sense that he viewed the problems of Guyana as easily soluble, but to the end of his days he was completely committed to his homeland, and regarded it as part of his duty to play a part in helping to establish the foundation which is necessary for true democracy to thrive.
One element in that foundation is free speech, and while a great believer in this regard, he nevertheless emphasised the necessity for rational discussion of the issues, and for considered debate about our divisions and the avenues which might be open to facilitate stability and development, among other things. He used to remark that most things could be said if you knew how to say them, but he would not defend inflammatory or inciteful speech or writing. He was only too conscious of the damage which such speech could do and had done in some countries, Rwanda being the most notorious example. He saw the newspaper therefore as hopefully providing a forum for reasoned exchange about our difficulties, and one of the means by which the ‘national conversation’ (to use Arthur Miller’s term which he was fond of quoting) could be advanced.
The late editor-in-chief set high standards for the newspaper from the beginning. It was not that he expected to fulfil them all, it was that he recognised that ideals were important to enable one to measure one’s progress and serve as a reminder that there was “always room for improvement.” Where the craft of journalism specifically was concerned, he would cite LF Stone as bringing to his writing “a quality of research, analysis and scholarship that has rarely been matched.” This was the standard, he wrote in 2006, which “we should aim at; nothing less.” Having set the standard, he regarded the evolution of the newspaper as a learning experience, and was always prepared to listen to reasoned criticism of its shortcomings. Complacency and self-satisfaction simply did not exist as concepts for de Caires.
In an essay for the Anthony N. Sabga Awards in 2006, the late editor-in-chief explained briefly what he saw as the larger approach which newspapers had to adopt. They had to take the long view, he believed, and not be confined in their outlook by the exigencies of the short-term. “There are times,” he wrote, “when the future looks grim, when political instability and crime seem overwhelming, and all seems to be lost.” Nevertheless, he considered that a paper had to be patient and see such disturbing events within the context “of the powerful process of building a democratic nation cast adrift from the old relations with Europe, and facing multiple challenges, including our own regional experiment.”
As he often used to tell audiences he was invited to address, qua editor or journalist there were no friends or enemies – only reliable sources. To do the job of editing a newspaper properly, one had to be prepared to be unpopular, and he never shrank from saying what he considered needed to be said, although he thought that whatever critical position a paper might adopt in its editorial columns, it should nevertheless still aim for civility. Above all else, however, he was concerned that this newspaper should not become captive to any interest group, whether private or state. He was only too conscious in a divided society of the pressures which could be brought to bear (and sometimes were) on a small paper like this one – pressures which had to be resisted if the vision was to be viable. Independence from vested interest groups was one of the pillars on which a newspaper’s credibility rested.
There were others, of course, in particular accurate and balanced reporting, on which de Caires set great store. Editorials, he said, reflected opinions which readers might or might not be in agreement with, but they had to believe that one was trying to report the news fairly and that one had no private agenda. It was one of his mantras that news reports should be balanced. Credibility was built up with hard work, dedication and a demonstrable adherence to the principles of good reporting; it was earned over time and could easily be undermined by straying from first principles.
As was said at the time of de Caires’s death, it is not everyone who is in a position to make a significant difference in the country in which he lives. But the late editor-in-chief created a space in this society which he hoped would be a “voice for sanity, moderation and tolerance” and which by the time he died had undoubtedly become an institution. It is a testimony to his far-sightedness, idealism, hard work and commitment – sometimes in situations of considerable challenge – that rational people could not now imagine Guyana without the newspaper born of his vision.
