The Scare of Mother’s Day Cheer: Media, Politics, and Hegemony in Belize
Introduction
In
recent news, the People’s United Party (PUP) held a press conference in which
they critiqued what has been called the ‘Mother’s Day Cheer’ program. The
‘cheer’ involves the distribution of about $800,000 to $1,000,000 to United
Democratic Party (UDP) representatives for redistribution to mothers in their respective
constituencies. No funds were given to the fourteen PUP representatives in
parliament. The PUP referred to the program as an act of “blatant
political corruption”.
In
this reflection, I focus on the media’s coverage of the press conference. I analyze what is included and excluded in
the various media reports. I also examine the comments of politicians in the
media. I contend that the media as well as politicians are explicitly and
implicitly contributing to the ‘normalization of party politics’ in Belize.
By
way of this reflection, I am also attempting to improvise and develop a
theoretical framework towards understanding and challenging the current
political regimes in Belize. I hope to elaborate on this framework in future
posts.
Hegemony of the PUDP
The
hegemony of the PUP and the UDP, or the ‘hegemony of the PUDP’ for short,
refers to the way in which party-politics dominates our society and positions
our actions/inactions.
It is the result of several factors linked to economic, social, historical, cultural, and political discourses and practices. It is a historical outcome as well as an active on-going process (also see Iyo and Rosberg elaboration of ‘stasis’ in Belize).
To maintain this hegemony, social agents (politicians, party fanatics, etc.) aim to contain any form of resistance through institutional and social structures such as the media.
The
discourses and practices which contribute to this hegemony are generally taken
for granted. It is sustained by an array of ‘common sense’ ideas. For instance,
there seems to be a common opinion that both major parties are undermining us but
that this is ‘just the way it is.’ We are subjected to settle for one of the ‘lesser
of the two evils’.
In
this light, I contend that the ‘cheer’ program was able to have come to pass
precisely because of this hegemony. The ‘cheer’
program is an articulation (expression and linkage) of various discourses (sets
of ideas) and practices. For instance, there is a dominant discourse that
‘mother’s day’ is about giving gifts to mothers. There is also the discourse
that decisions from the Government or specifically the Cabinet (such as to
disburse the funds) are legitimate ‘no mata what’.
In
terms of practice, the mother’s day ‘cheer’ bears the traces of similar
programs of the past. In December 2013, “it was reported that the Government
had approved $2.23 million for the second annual X-Mas Cheer Program” (Amandala). Secondly, it is not only practiced by the UDP.
The PUP is equally known to distribute funds based on partisan lines. Indeed, the
PUP had participated in the 2013 ‘X-Mas Cheer’.
Thus,
the ‘cheer’ program is an outcome of PUDP hegemonic practices. It depended on
an articulation (linkage) of various discourses and practices which are ‘common-sense’
and normal.
Media and politics
The
media is a major site of the hegemonic struggle. This is where PUDP scandals
and resistances to the PUDP are brought to the forefront. They struggle over the meanings and linkages
of the ‘cheer program’. They do so in ways which are sensational and tied into
the ‘common-sense’ discourse of the PUDP.
It
also seems that most of the media houses in Belize seek to deliver news in a
sensational but ‘neutral’ manner. Presenting the news in a ‘neutral’ manner is
a strategy that allows the media to be interpreted as a credible source (and sustain
an audience to generate revenue).
The
exceptions to this observation of ‘neutrality’ are in the cases of respective PUP
and UDP controlled radio stations (Positive
Vibes and Wave Radio) and
newspapers (The Belize Times and The Guardian). These outlets are influential
mediums which contribute to the ‘common-sense’ of the PUDP hegemony.
The Belize Times and The Guardian
The
political alliances of The Belize Times and The Guardian newspapers are very obvious. Each newspaper claims
that it is the Other political party that is exploiting the Belizean people.
In The Guardian, the ‘cheer’ program is construed as something
logical and noble of the Government. “Nothing is wrong” with the ‘cheer’
program was the opinion of The Guardian:
“Dean Barrow took the decision to assist mothers
across the length and breadth of this country to ensure that that they got some
appreciation during this year’s mother’s day - absolutely nothing wrong with that!”
In The Belize Times, there was no analysis of the cheer program. They
simply reprinted the speeches given by the PUP members at the press conference.
Channel 5 News
Channel 5 delivered three segments on
the ‘cheer’ program. The first report presented the PUP press conference. The other
three segments were interviews with UDP ministers.
In
their segment entitled “Opposition bashes
Government’s cash giveaway”, we were basically given the footage of the PUP officials who criticized the ‘cheer’ program.
Yet,
it is note examining the way in which they introduced the segment. They stated:
“The gesture, which has been described as a party
political promotion, has been condemned by the opposition.” With the use of the phrase
“has been described” a degree of ‘neutrality’ is suggested. In other words, Channel 5 does not state categorically
that it is a ‘political promotion’ but rather that it ‘has been described’ as
such.
The
segment continued with a clipping of the conference in which Dolores
Balderamos-Garcia, a PUP representative, dubbed the initiative as a “…blatantly
political move… partisan,
patronizing and political.”
Channel 7 News
In Channel 7 News, the story included a significant addition. The headline was:
“PUP Says UDP Mother’s Day Gift Programme Demeans Democracy”.
As
was the case with Channel 5, the title
of their story also suggests ‘neutrality’ in the reporting. It explicitly
states that it is not 7 News who is stating
that the program demeans democracy. This is to say: ‘we at 7 News are not sure if it does demean democracy’.
In their introduction to the story stated, they stated no PUP representatives
were included in the mother’s day ‘cheer’ program. However, they also stated that
PUP representatives did receive funds in the past Christmas Cheer and that this
time around only UDP representatives were included. According to 7news: “That's politics as usual, but today the Opposition
cried foul.”
At
the end of the conference, Jules Vasquez, from 7News questioned whether or not the PUP had the ‘moral authority’ to
call upon civil society organizations (CSOs) to condemn the cheer-program. Jules
argument was that if the PUP is guilty of the same, why are they ‘crying foul’?.
As
the segment continued, 7 News
suggested that there would be no resistance over this:
“But civil society, or the churches for that matter
are not likely to be roused by the pots
and kettles of the P-UDP. After all,
they didn't say anything either when the PUP representatives and standard bearers
divided up 15.3 million Belize dollars in the one month before the 2008 general
elections. It was shared out in so called housing loans ranging from 400
dollars to eight thousand dollars. A disproportionate
number of those loans were distributed in the Freetown Division where Francis Fonseca was and still is
representative” (Emphasis added, 7News).
The
‘cheer’ program which perpetuates political dependency is considered as a
‘regrettably’ normal practice.
7News also seems to have been undermining
the PUP by stating that Francis Fonseca (the party leader of the PUP) had
equally participated in a similar program in 2008.
This
style of reporting is commonly used by Jules, especially at PUP press
conferences. His line of questioning conjures the idea that the PUP is as guilty
or perhaps more guilty of partisan practices than the UDP. (One can validate
this by reviewing interviews on the Penner passport scandal and the issue of
naturalizing citizens before elections.)
Whereas
I agree with Jules (7News) that it is
hypocritical of the PUP to challenge the ‘cheer’ program, this line of
questioning is beneficial to the PUDP hegemony.
This leads to the opinion that the UDP is the ‘lesser of the two evils’.
It validates the view by a blogger on Channel
5 who said: “The PUP’s need to shut up because they did the same
thing in their time period.”
This
is unfortunate because Jules is an astute journalist. It appears that Jules is
not allowed to or does not desire to shake the boat too hard. Nevertheless, I would admit that he remains
one of the most critical and brilliant journalists at the moment.
Additionally,
7News did not include Fonseca’s full
response to Jules question on the ‘moral authority’ of the PUP to condemn the
‘cheer’. I suspect that this exclusion was strategic when one listens to the
rest of Fonseca’s response. It indicates a power-interest of 7News to not give a ‘black eye’ to the
UDP.
(I am unaware of the explicit political ties
of 7News to the UDP. However, Jules father,
Nestor Vasques is a prominent UDP supporter [founder?]. Moreover, The Belize
Times (PUP affiliated) is of the opinion that News 7 is pro-UDP. Click here for a statement by
Belize Times against 7News).
Plus TV News
Plus TV is one of the most
recent additions to the various media houses with nation-wide television
coverage.
For some persons, Plus TV and Love FM are considered to be non-partisan media houses. I remain pragmatic of such opinions.
In the segment from Plus
TV, it was reported that PUP
were only complaining about the ‘cheer’ because no funds were given to them.
In their perspective, this
is ‘typical political rhetoric’; they stated:
Hon. Balderamos Garcia
called on other members of civil society to condemn what she called the
irresponsible misuse of taxpayers’ funds to curry political favor and added
that it showed the desperation of a Government about to fall. Typical political rhetoric, but whether it
will rally the majority is anyone’s guess. (Plus TV, transcript)
Plus TV also included Francis
Fonseca’s reply to the question by Jules Vasquez (which was omitted from 7News):
“The point is that as many
have said because that is the UDP propaganda; that is their line. It was done by the People’s United Party, so
we can do it as well. As I recall, that was not the mandate given to Mr. Barrow
in 2008. As I recall, he came into
office with your support saying to the Belizean people that he would blaze a
new trail, that he would do things differently; that he would be an accountable
leader.” (Plus TV, transcript)
The PUP party leader,
Francis Fonseca, did not totally reject the idea that the PUP has not executed
similar programs. However, Fonseca said that the practices of the PUP were not comparable
to the UDP.
Fonseca claimed that the UDP
mandate was to be different from the PUP, as reflected in this paraphrase by Plus TV:
“Fonseca earlier insisted
that any similar PUP programs were done more equitably and justly than those of
the UDP, condemning as “propaganda” suggestions that because the PUP did it,
the UDP can too.”
Fonseca also claimed that:
“We [the PUP] are here to place on the record that under the United Democratic
Party, the corruption and abuse of public funds has become institutionalized” (Plus TV).
Fonseca sought to secure a
positive perception of the PUP by claiming that things will be different when
the PUP administrates the government: “when we become the government of Belize,
it will not be business as usual; there will be accountability” (Plus TV).
(I was not able locate the
online news coverage from Love FM;
therefore, they are excluded from this reflection. In general, Love Fm does not make sustain critiques
against the PUDP hegemony with a preference to promote ‘national unity’.)
The opinions of UDP
Ministers
Additionally,
on the day of the press conference, two UDP ministers were asked for their
opinions on the ‘Cheer Program’.
Godwin
Hulse, current UDP Minister of Immigration, was asked for his opinion on the matter.
He claimed that because he is a member of ‘a team’ he would not complain about
how his team members made their ‘goals’.
His
comments were:
“We will take the criticism of course that it’s not
given to everybody, but that is the nature of the political beast… But you know
there is a thing in Belize, has always been and will continue to be…however you
want to do it or say it otherwise, that political parties stay in power by
maintaining their majority…”. (Channel 5)
By
way of these comments and metaphors, the ideology of party politics and clientelism is re-established.
This
also speaks volume to emerging politicians who say they want to join the PUDP
in order to change the system. Hulse’s experience and remarks shows that the
‘political beast’ is very powerful.
Anthony
Boots Martinez, UDP
Minister of Human Development, also sought to bring a closure to the debate by accusing
Channel 5 of ‘infiltrating
miss-information’ to the Belizean public. He claimed that the media must be
‘objective’:
“Unu deh try mek wah whole political thing, especially
Channel Five. Everything Weh dey run da nothing positive…they try fu even
infiltrate all kinda misinformation… I have problem with Channel Five weh no
report objectively yu know” (Channel 5 transcript).
Three
days after, Channel 5 interviewed
Santiago ‘Santi’ Castillo, another UDP minister, asking for his opinion on the
‘cheer’. When he was asked why only UDP ministers received funds for the
mother’s day ‘cheer’, he used the same argument put forth by Hulse:
“That they were not included this time, as Minister
Hulse said in a previous interview, we are part of a team and whatever the team
decides to do, we do that. We are team players.” (Channel 5).
Politicians
tend to be very cognizant over what terms and meanings are associated with
their political practices. Meanings and terms are fought over to silence the
contradictions and criticisms which may undermine their authority. They seek to
bring a closure to the debates in ways which will secure their hegemony.
Conclusion
This
reflection was an attempt to highlight the normalization of party-politics in
Belize and the role of the media therein. I discussed the ‘cheer’ program as an example
of a discursive and dividing practice of PUDP hegemony.
It
was observed that the media houses have attempted to appear ‘neutral’. However,
on the basis of what was said/not said and included/excluded in the respective
news segments, there are signs of power-interests. The media commentaries as
well as politicians all sought to bring a ‘closure’ to the set of meanings and
values associated with the ‘cheer’ program.
Some
of the major observations are as follows:
- Channel 5 was accused of being pro-PUP. They did not include the question and response segment that challenged the PUP ‘moral authority’.
- News7 sought to ‘balance’ the perspective by stating that the PUP is guilty of similar practices. However, they did not include Francis Fonseca’s full response to the interview question posed.
- Plus TV was of the opinion that the both political parties are expressing “typical political rhetoric”.
- The Guardian and Belize Times are openly polemical newspapers. Each claims that it is the Other political party that is disenfranchising the Belizean people. They are powerful enunciators of the ‘common-sense’ rhetoric.
- The UDP politicians sought to maintain a positive image of themselves and of the UDP. They claimed that it was a ‘decision by cabinet’ which should make the ‘cheer’ program legitimate and silence criticisms.
Citizens
must be weary of how the media construct our socio-political realities. I think
each of the media sources provided partial but also valuable insights. It is important
that we do not become heavily reliant on one media source.
Given
the premise that hegemony depends on the linkages of specific
discursive-practices, it also means that we can develop a counter-hegemonic
struggle to the PUDP. The media as a site and participant of this
power-struggle must be seriously interrogated. We must question the
(re)presentation and practices of party politics which form part of the ‘common-sense’
reality in Belize. The goal is to un-link discourses and practices of
party-politics for a better and more democratic Belize.
For my commentators: Am I Pro-PUP?
Any
critique against the UDP gets one branded as being pro PUP (or vice-versa,
depending on which is power). This epitomizes the precise ‘common-sense’ notions
that need to be deconstructed. The below comments were posted on Channel 5, which are likely to be leveled against me:
“So
why dem bex fa? PUP get wa chance fi give back money to deh people but noooo
dem neva do it, dem thief it and now dem di cry fowl?...”
“The
PUP’s need to shut up because they did the same thing in their time period.”
Areas for further inquiry
-A
more serious analysis must seek to examine the containment of the many other historical
and contemporary resistances. The contemporary ones include: the SATIM vs. the
State/U.S. Capital; Third Party vs. the PUDP; citizens vs. the State/Bz-Guat
Discourse; PUP vs. UDP; Teachers vs. the State; Religions vs. the State (gender
issue).
-An understanding of the ‘common-sense’ of party
politics in the media also requires further analysis of the politically
controlled radio stations (WAVE Radio and Positive Vibes). The hosts of these
shows are significant contributors to the divisive rhetoric of party politics.
-There
is also a need for an analysis on how ‘cheer’ programs contributes to the
emotions and perceptions of people towards the party (both PUP and UDP). People
should not be simply viewed as ‘dopes’ - people fooled by politicians. What is
the short term versus long term benefit? What are some of the perceptions? (Also see the work of Dylan Vernon and Iyo and Rosberg).
hmm...and I have always been of the belief that each media was partial to a specific party...
ReplyDeleteYeah, I think they contribute positively at times, but there are underlining interests which can be detected in specific news reports
DeleteMark King, a current UDP minister was far from being cognizant when he recently said: “We as a government, we as a U.D.P. government we are a mass party, we have a lot of supporters, we look after all Belizeans in general. But, of course with any mass political party, you look after U.D.P. first, you look after Belizeans second and you look after P.U.P. last. I straight up like that, I noh got nothing fi hide from di media" - Mark King.
ReplyDeleteIt’s ridiculous but it substantiates the level of hegemonic power of the PUDP. This minister felt it was normal to say this. It also suggests that this is what they (politicians) say among themselves as he kept using 'WE'. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGgp4y-iJ5.