THERE HAS BEEN NO DIVISIVE RHETORIC

May 9, 2015 | By KNews | Filed Under Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom, Source

The Carter Center has found itself parroting the views of the western diplomatic community who feel that divisive language has been used in the election campaign.

I am not of the opinion that any divisive language was used in the election campaign. What were divisive were the interpretations of statements made on the political platforms.

It is the elections that create divisions in Guyana. This has always been the case. The 2015 campaign has been no different from any other campaign in terms of the divisions it creates. No one needs language for this to happen. It happens because of the way our society is organized. In other words, divisiveness at election time is symptomatic of the country’s political system. Even if all of the political parties agree to not utter a single word in their campaigns, the process will still be divisive.

Obviously a great deal has been said on the political platforms. But what is being said is part of the tactics of the parties.

The electoral tactics of both of the main contesting groups, the People’s Progressive Party (PPPC) and the APNU+AFC coalition were predictable. The PPPC was always going to adopt a strategy that warned their supporters of the dangers of returning to the days of the past. This is not the first time that the PPPC has used this campaign.

Neither is it the first time that the opposition camp has tried to deflect it by arguing that it is the PPPC record that is being questioned and not the twenty-eight years of PNC rule.

The strategies of both of the main groupings were therefore quite predictable. What was surprising was that the opposition coalition continued to harp on themes that did not secure victory for them in the past two elections. For example, corruption was a big issue in the 2011 elections with most of the major contracts signed under the Jagdeo administration being assailed.  Except for that one controversial ICT contract that was signed recently, not many major contracts were signed under the Donald Ramotar administration. As such the corruption bogey is likely to be less effective this time around. Yet the opposition has made it a major plank of their platform.

Equally disturbing during this campaign season were the attacks were launched against the Prime Ministerial candidate of the People’s Progressive Party Civic. I was surprised that our usually very militant women’s organizations did not speak about against the torrent of abuse that was heaped against this woman.

It was sad to see someone being attacked simply because she opted to join the PPPC slate. The treatment meted out to Elisabeth Harper was cruel and inhumane. She received a baptism of ridicule and insults especially on social media with some extremely insensitive things being said of her choice. Politics is not considered a vocation for the faint-hearted but I never knew that people could be so unkind to a fellow human being.

This sends a real negative message to the young people of this country. It says to them that they either adhere to traditional loyalties or be subject to similar abuse and ostracism. Many of the young people are going to become apathetic towards politics. They will not want to be subject to such abuse and therefore they stay away from politics.

The next thing that was sad about the election campaign was the viciousness inherent in the language of certain political ads. For example, the opposition has always said that if they win the elections there will be no recrimination and victimization. But the language of some opposition ads told another story. The ads spoke about “firing them all”. This has been echoed in the streets by supporters who were making comment about kicking people out of office.

Another disturbing feature of the campaign was the refusal of the opposition to take responsibility for the conduct of their supporters. When there was the incident with Bheri Ramsaran and a female, a demand was made for him to be fired. The opposition brooked no excuses to the effect that he was provoked and reacted to provocation. But when some of their female activists were caught in vulgar conduct at PPPC meetings, the opposition’s excuse was that these supporters were provoked.

The opposition cannot want to boast about taking the moral high ground, cannot boast about being capable of better, when in the face of indecency and raucous behaviour by its supporters, it refuses to condemn these supporters, and in fact provides a justification for such conduct.

On the PPPC’s part it stuck to its script. Some people described it as fear-mongering. But all election campaigns are about creating a certain level of discomfort and uncertainty in the minds of your supporters about what is likely to happen if the other party gets in.

The PPPC has for years been warning of a return to the hard times if the opposition gets in. And the opposition has always told their supporters that five more years of the PPPC will be intolerable.

This idiot must be blind or have cataract like you DG

MMU cites

NCN, Chronicle

for disproportionate coverage

in PPP/C’s favour

The Media Monitoring Unit (MMU)

of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM),

in its most recent report,

reflected a conclusion that the incumbent

People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C)

has gained the most political mileage

from state-owned media houses.

According to the report,

the National Communication Network’s (NCN)

positive coverage of the PPP/C

overwhelmed positive coverage of

A Partnership for National Unity

and Alliance For Chance (APNU+AFC)

by a margin of approximately 6:1.

And on the negative side,

APNU+AFC gained considerably more negative coverage

than the PPP/C to the tune of over 47:1.

Specifically, the MMU found tha

t a huge amount of positive coverage

given by NCN’s news team to the PPP/C,

resulted in a positive to negative ratio of coverage

in excess of 97:1.

In the Talk Shows/Interviews category,

only the PPP/C and APNU+AFC attracted measurable coverage

while the other parties did not.

In this aspect, the MMU reported that

the PPP/C gained a large allotment of positive coverage,

while APNU+AFC came in for a “sprinkle.”

The disparity in positive coverage

that the two political parties received

reflected a ratio of 17:1, in favor of the PPP/C.

While, APNU+AFC came in for a large disbursement

of negative publicity

but the PPP/C gained a scant amount.

The difference in negative coverage

between the two political parties

was reflected in a ratio exceeding 17:1,

in APNU+AFC’s favor.

Also, the report stated that

with regard to the Channel’s programming,

PPP/C-friendly programmes dominated,

particularly the programme, Political Scope.

The MMU said that unfortunately,

it seems as if

“they (APNU+AFC and the smaller political parties

competing in the elections)

are not likely to receive much,

if any, positive publicity,

anytime soon from the programmes produced

and presented for public viewing by the Channel itself,

the PPP/C or GINA.”

The report stated that from the General Programmes category,

the PPP/C gained a substantial amount of positive publicity,

while APNU+AFC came in for a relatively puny disbursement.

Further, MMU said that PPP/C’s positive coverage

overwhelmed APNU+AFC’s positive coverage

by a margin of approximately 55:1.

In the negative columns,

the PPP/C gained a microscopic amount of negative coverage,

while it was the total opposite for APNU+AFC.

The disparity in negative coverage

between APNU+AFC and the PPP/C

was seen in a ratio of 71:1 in favour of APNU+AFC.

CHRONICLE The MMU said

that a review of editorials of the Chronicle Newspaper

proved that the PPP/C gained a large appropriation

of favorable coverage,

while APNU+AFC

did not come in for any measureable positive coverage.

On the other hand,

the PPP/C was the recipient of

a relatively tiny amount of negative publicity,

while APNU+AFC attracted

a substantial amount of negative coverage.

It was also noted that the PPP/C

was the beneficiary of a positive to negative

distribution of coverage that was reflected

in a ratio of over 26:1,

while APNU+AFC,

devoid of any positive publicity,

suffered net negative coverage.

From the letters published in the newspaper,

the MMU pointed out

that the PPP/C gained a considerable amount of positive coverage,

while APNU+AFC failed to attract any favorable opinions

of measurable proportions.

Also, the PPP/C was dusted with

a small amount of negative publicity.

“In fact, APNU+AFC’s negative portrayal

was approximately 173 times

the negative publicity calculated for the PPP/C.”

“The newspaper’s Columns were the source of coverage

for the PPP/C and APNU+AFC in the following way:

Both the PPP/C and APNU+AFC

received large amounts of positive publicity

from the sentiments penned by the newspaper’s columnists.

However, the PPP/C was portrayed

extremely more favorable,

attracting positive coverage that was almost 6 times

the positive coverage calculated for APNU+AFC.”

It was noted explicitly that in the General News category,

the PPP/C scored the highest amount of positive coverage.

There is a reason Jimmy Carter is in Guyana after so many long years.

It is to ensure a smooth transition from a dictatorship back to democracy again.

Why is he not staying at the Barriot Hotel?

Mits, Americans dont plan like PNC. PNC does build toilet when shit hold them. Carter Center made arrangements a year ago, before Marriot was functioning.