Guyana is a secular state. It has to be, because this is a multi-faith society whose constitution guarantees freedom of worship for all religions and where the state cannot be seen to be favouring any one of them. It is a matter for concern, therefore, when the state seeks to involve itself at any level in a religious TV channel.
The idea for such a channel originated with the Inter-Religious Organization (IRO) some three years ago, when President Jagdeo indicated that it would be given a licence, and that some level of funding for it would be made available. That assurance was repeated at a meeting the President had with the organization this year, which is why it is receiving some renewed publicity now. Exactly to what extent this religious venture would be bankrolled by the government has not yet been made clear, although any level of financial or other input involving taxpayers’ money or national resources would be problematical.
This is not to say that the IRO is not entitled to set up a TV channel of its own and to apply for a licence like anyone else, or that the President should not give it favourable consideration in principle. It is merely to reiterate that the state should have no input, monetary or otherwise in it. Presumably the originators of the proposal – and by implication, the President – do not see a problem, because it is not one faith which is involved, but all of them. Even then, on principle, the government should eschew any association; it should not be seen to be promoting religion, any more than it should be seen to be suppressing it. The state and the Church (in its broadest sense) should be separate.
The issue of principle aside, there are some practical considerations which should give the government pause for thought. The administration, one can safely assume, will have no control over content; that will come under the auspices of the IRO itself. Neverthe-less, disagreements in the larger religious community – although not necessarily within the IRO – about the programming on offer, or not on offer as the case may be, could arise. Whatever the criticisms, these might have a spin-off effect on the government, and in a fractious society such as this one, it would not help it to insist that it is has no say in what kind of material is screened or not screened; there is too much distrust of government among some segments of the citizenry for it to be believed. One would have thought that the administration would have enough on its plate without opening itself to becoming unwittingly embroiled in possible disputes which would not be of its own making and over which it would exercise no control.
The question of air-time share too could possibly be a ticklish one, given that the Christians in particular, who comprise the largest segment of believers overall, are splintered into various denominations, many of whom simply do not have the resources to mount programming of any significance – if at all. If some faiths (or denominations, for that matter) are better organized than others to fill the slots available, and as a consequence appear to be securing a larger segment of programme time than their numbers in the population are thought to warrant, then there could be friction. There are those who would not show reticence about making allegations of a political cast in circumstances where religious and ethnic boundaries, if not exactly coterminous, have a significant degree of correspondence in the case of the major faiths.
While all of that might be something that the IRO left to its own devices could negotiate, the problem would take on some wider significance if the state were financially committed to the project. The last thing in the world the government should want, would be accusations, no matter how unfounded, that it is using the channel for political ends – or that it is allowing some other entity to take advantage of it for political ends.
Of course, what is not clear at the moment is when this channel is likely to get under way. Constitutionally, there has to be an election by the end of August, and there is no sign at the moment that a broadcasting bill which is broadly acceptable to the various interest groups is in the offing. There has been a freeze on the granting of licences both for radio and television for years on the grounds that there is no broadcasting authority in place, and that authority cannot be set up until there is a broadcasting act on the statute books. A similar reason has been given for the refusal to allow existing private stations to extend their signals. Of course, where radio is concerned the PPP administration has doggedly maintained the monopoly which it promised it would sweep away when it came to office in 1992. We have had three elections since then, but no sweeping away has manifested itself, and unless the administration moves with uncommon dispatch, we might go into a fourth with the chokehold on the radio spectrum still in place.
The government to its great discredit has ignored court decisions in relation to the issue. In December 2008, in a matter where two Lindeners had brought a constitutional case, and where one of them had applied for a radio and TV network licence and had been ignored, Chief Justice (ag) Ian Chang found that “excessive delay” by the state in considering applications for broadcast licences constituted a violation of their right to freedom of expression under the constitution.
At that time the state had indicated it would appeal, but in a different case brought by Anthony Vieira who had applied for a radio licence since 1993, the Appeal Court in October 2009 ruled that the government had an unlawful monopoly on the airwaves. It also said that the National Frequency Management Unit was not doing its job with respect to considering radio licence applications. Even that decision, it seems, has had no impact on the government. So much for the rule of law and the supremacy of the constitution.
The story of the agreement between President Jagdeo and the late Mr Hoyte, and the establishment of a joint committee to consider broadcasting legislation is well known. What is also well known is that the general parameters produced by that committee were not reflected in the draft bill which the AG’s chambers drew up; the PNCR complained (among many other things) that it placed too much power in the hands of the Minister of Information. The President then acceded to the appointment of a government-opposition team to try and reconcile the differences, but this failed, and it has apparently suited the administration to allow this impasse to continue indefinitely.
There is an Advisory Committee on Broadcasting (ACB) in place, that was intended to be of very temporary duration, but a decade following its inauguration, it appears to be marching stoically on towards immortality. The portfolio of the Minister of Information is held by President Jagdeo himself. There is, technically speaking, no reason why the President could not grant broadcast licences even although there is no broadcasting authority in existence; however, as said above, the government has made the absence of one the sole reason for not considering applications over the years. If, therefore, President Jagdeo, with or without the advice of the ACB, decides to grant the IRO a TV licence now or in the immediate future without legislation being passed, it would cause a storm of protest, and sully the reputation of the religious organization concerned in the process.
In addition, if Mr Jagdeo decided to grant a few licences along with the IRO licence – but only to those perceived to be sympathetic to the administration, it would still cause a storm of protest. There would also be protest if the government now rushes through legislation which still does not encompass the recommendations of the joint committee almost a decade ago, and still places too much power in the hands of the Minister of Information rather than in autonomous bodies. The nation awaits to see how the government will proceed.
