Dear Editor,
Kiskadee Watch’s July 12 editorial, entitled, “The President’s Response”[1], reads less like an editorial than the brief of a prosecutor who misplaced his evidence but decided to proceed with the charges anyway.
Its central conceit is that every answer supplied by the president, about his farm, is not an answer but an invitation to invent three more questions. Every disclosure becomes proof that another disclosure must exist. Every denial is recast as evidence of concealment.
The editorial begins with the seemingly reasonable proposition that public officials should be transparent. Few would quarrel with that. But almost immediately it abandons accountability for conjecture. The editorial’s favourite phrase—”for argument sake” deserves recognition as perhaps the most abused expression in contemporary Guyanese commentary.
“For argument sake,” perhaps the poultry supplier gave the president a discount.
“For argument sake,” perhaps agricultural policy was designed to enrich his farm.
“For argument sake,” perhaps Barbados’ sheep programme secretly benefited his livestock.
“For argument sake,” perhaps the extension of electricity became a presidential conspiracy.
One waits patiently for the evidence. None arrives. The conditional tense becomes the editorial’s principal source. “Could.” “Might.” “Perhaps.” “Imagine.” It is a remarkable innovation in journalism.
By this standard, every government official lives under a cloud of presumed corruption. If government repairs the road leading to his/her property, perhaps it is self-interest. If banks reduce lending rates, perhaps his/her mortgage benefits. If electricity reaches his/her village, perhaps it is because he desired air conditioning. The editorial inadvertently establishes a doctrine that would render private ownership almost impossible for anyone holding public office.
Its treatment of the integrity commission reveals the same intellectual sleight of hand. The president says he filed his declarations. The editorial dismisses this as “of no consequence at all” because, in its opinion, the commission serves no useful purpose. This is an extraordinary proposition. Compliance with the law is declared meaningless because the commentator has little confidence in the institution administering it.
One wonders whether this logic extends elsewhere. If the courts disappoint us, are court orders meaningless? If parliament disappoints us, are acts of parliament void? Institutions cannot simultaneously be dismissed as irrelevant while their alleged failures are cited as evidence against those who complied with them.
This is not watchdog journalism. A watchdog barks because it detects an intruder. Kiskadee Watch has instead perfected the art of barking at shadows and then congratulating itself for exposing the darkness.