Last week this publication carried a letter by Eusi Kwayana headlined, “Guyana is race-ridden in many aspects of our life.” It is not only the content of this letter that is weighty and requires attention from all Guyanese, across race, political and class spectrum, but it forces a reckoning amongst us.
Said letter laid bare the problems of the Guyanese society, going back decades as an independent nation. It does Guyana no good to pretend or ignore the seriousness of the content of the letter if Guyanese are desirous of living in unity or co-exist peacefully.
Guyanese cannot live in unity when it is being perceived that deliberate efforts are being made to rewrite history with misrepresentations, and to deny those accused of playing a part, the right to respond. The right to respond to any allegation made against the accused is as equal as the right to be heard. It is a right permitted in the Constitution and Laws of Guyana, valued in organisations, usual social interaction, and the media. But the enjoyment of this basic right is being queried in some sections of the media.
According to Mr. Kwayana, he felt he had “to find a way of responding to a misrepresentation of my activity in a newspaper that has refused to publish any letter from me.” And this was because another publication has carried stories about him pertaining to a period of his political life and him apparently being denied the right to respond and have his story told from his perspective. Said denial also means that any misrepresentation about Mr. Kwayana he would not be able to correct or give context to.
It means further that the readership will only have the benefit of one side of the story, depriving them of forming an informed, educated and independent opinion. This is not good, not only for those readers but for a society where media could be seen as exercising its power to further a narrative that is lopsided and possibly untrue. Silencing the voice of others not only intensifies divisions and tensions in society, or presents the media in an intolerant way to opposing or dissenting views, but is also a disrespect to advertisers who also benefit from the patronage of the muzzled.
To Mr. Kwayana, the situation is serious enough that “I have now decided to make myself available to any media, unit, or operator for the purpose of discussing my role in the ethnic politics of Guyana between the 1940s and the recent general elections….All I ask is equal treatment by the moderator for all who take part….” Mr. Kwayana cannot be faulted.
Guyana has to reach the stage where citizens, even as they enjoy the right to freedom of expression, also are aware such right carries responsibility to be truthful and consequence of the right to respond by those who are accused or misrepresented. The denial of the right of one to express and the protection of the right of another to be heard is not the making of a good society, or the place any serious media that sees itself as a national force should desire to be or be so accused. As a fellow member of the media fraternity such is not representative of media ideals.
