Equal media access should be prominent in GECOM’s code of conduct

Oct 24, 2011 Letters

Dear Editor,
I have noticed that the Guyana Election Commission is pushing for opposition parties to sign the Code of Conduct. As a citizen of Guyana, I find it very strange and worrying that the formulation of the code did not attract wider participation. After all, this is not only about the parties but also the people they represent it is about every citizen in Guyana.  Elections should always be about the people.
This is exactly why there are so many perceived weaknesses in the Code and widespread dissatisfaction about it among political parties contesting the elections in Guyana.
Public consultation by itself has great utility to the credibility of GECOM, a sense of ownership on the part of citizens, and the democratic process. How does the code of conduct reflect the views of critical stakeholders?
One such weakness is the lack of equal access to the media. Any effective and efficient code of conduct for elections must address this issue in a direct way; it should not be an after thought. The media and communication infrastructure are vital to the dissemination of information about presidential candidates, party plans and policies and for feedbacks from citizens. If access to this infrastructure is lop-sided, as the case is in Guyana, then citizens would be placed at a serious disadvantage to obtain information. This information is critical to knowledge, and empowerment. These are all important to allow citizens to make the best decision for their country.
There can be no denying that the ruling party- PPP/C has been using the state- owned media as its personal fiefdom.  In fact, the Guyana Chronicle and NCN Radio and Television have become public relations arms of the PPP/C.
These media are funding by the public purse- taxes- but the PPP/C, one political party, has almost unlimited access to these facilities for partisan purposes. This is happening in the face of the fact that the government has not granted any license for other radio stations.  A few says ago, GECOM promised to make representation for more air time for opposition parties.  With just about six weeks remaining for the campaign GECOM will now make representation for those parties.
In any case, the opposition needs to watch the coverage because negative coverage is also coverage and playing footage in the middle of the nights or when people are busy doing other things is also coverage.  Therefore, access to the state- owned media must also take into account the times opposition advertisements and messages will be aired.
The acceptable international standard is non- discrimination. In the case of privately owned media, they should charge the same rates for all political parties and candidates without discrimination.  This may need to be regulated.  Paid political advertisements should be identified as such and should not be disguised as news or editorial coverage. The process for establishing a formula or schedule for access and equitable treatment in the media for elections should be unambiguous and capable of objective application. GECOM should ensure political parties and candidates are allowed equitable access on state- owned radio and television during the election campaign period by providing that all parties are guaranteed a certain amount of broadcasting time according to a defined formula.
Therefore, it is difficult to understand, why this issue of equal access to the media did not find a prominent place in the Code of Conduct for these elections. Is it deliberate or just an oversight, on the part of GECOM?
Either way it constitutes a very serious concern for democracy in Guyana because this unequal access to the media by opposition parties violates international human rights laws on the right to information.  People do not have access to information on all the plans and policies of all the political parties and candidates competing in the elections to manage their country. They have a right to know.  Further, it undermines democracy and put at risk the proper development of our country.
GECOM could not just decide to formulate a code of conduct and request of parties to sign. No wonder they are having difficulties for all parties to sign on to the document.
It should be clear to all that GECOM does not exist in a vacuum it is part of network of other facilities, institutions and agencies that must ensure the widening and deepening of democracy in Guyana. GECOM has made a serious mistake by not consulting with the people and civil society.
Finally, the Code of Conduct should be published. This will give the public an opportunity to see exactly what it entails and how it will benefit their local communities.  It will also help citizens to monitor the conduct of those who have signed on to it and report them to the Commission.
Winston Seres