Maravi

If you can’t listen to us, listen to Gjos

If you can’t listen to us, listen to Gjos
Written by Editor

Norwegian Ambassador to Zambia Tore Gjos’ advice to the Zambian government to respect freedom of expression deserves very serious consideration. Ambassador Gjos has made some observations that deserve serious meditation from all our leaders, and indeed all our people.

Ambassador Gjos says democratic rule is not possible without a free and independent press that could spread alternative information and provide a platform where people could express their views. To what extent can we truly say we have such a free and independent press in Zambia?

Ambassador Gjos goes on to say that in most countries, the direct contact between the electorate and politicians is fairly limited, thus the media becomes an important arena where all participants can express themselves freely. Truly, we are no longer living in the days of the Greek agora where all citizens can gather in the city hall and make governance decisions. Moreover, our societies are today much bigger and more complex than those of old Greece. Actually, even that example of democracy is not a very good one. People used to cite Greek democracy as an example, democracy from the classical age of Greece. Athens, which was the prototype of democracy, had 40,000 citizens – men, women and children – and 90,000 slaves. Around 35,000 of the slaves worked in shops and in agriculture, 20,000 were women who were house slaves, 10,000 were children who provided various services and 25,000 worked in mining. For every free man, woman and child in Athens, there were more than two slaves. Even the great historians and philosophers had slaves – we are not criticising them, because they were products of their society. A slave wasn’t anything; they were human beings who could be bought and sold, or even killed. Therefore we can’t say democracy arose in Athens because for democracy to exist, there has to be meaningful participation by all citizens. And meaningful participation should not be limited to just a small privileged group.

It is said that to govern is to communicate. As modern societies grow in size and complexity, the arena for communication and public debate is increasingly dominated by the news media: radio and television, newspapers, magazines, books, even websites.



Clearly, the news media in a democracy have a number of overlapping but distinctive functions. One is to inform and educate. To make intelligent decisions about public policy, people need accurate, timely, unbiased information. And because opinions are diverse, they also need access to a wide range of viewpoints. This role is especially important during election campaigns, when few voters will have the opportunity to see, much less talk with, candidates in person. Instead, they must rely on newspapers, radio and television to explain the issues and characterise the respective positions of candidates and their political parties.



A second function of the media is to serve as a watchdog over government and other powerful institutions in society. By holding to a standard of independence and objectivity, however imperfectly, the news media can expose the truth behind the claims of government and hold public officials accountable for their actions.

If they choose, the media can also take a more active role in public debate. Through editorials or investigative reporting, the media can campaign for specific policies or reforms that they feel should be enacted. They can also serve as a forum for organisations and individuals to express their opinions through letters to the editor and the printing of articles with divergent points of view. It is also possible to point to another increasingly important role of the media: setting the agenda. Since they can’t report everything, the news media must choose which issues to report and which ones to ignore. In short, they decide what is news and what isn’t. These decisions, in turn, influence the public’s perception of what issues are most important. Unlike countries where the news media are government-controlled, however, in a democracy, they can’t simply manipulate or disregard issues at will. Their competitors, after all, as well as the government itself, are free to call attention to their own list of important issues.

Few would argue that the news media always carry out these functions responsibly. They can be sensational, superficial, intrusive, inaccurate and inflammatory. The solution is not to devise laws that set some arbitrary definition of responsibility or to licence journalists, but to broaden the level of public discourse so that citizens can better sift through the chaff of misinformation and rhetoric to find the kernels of truth.

What we should realise is that democracies make several assumptions about human nature. One is that, given the chance, people are generally capable of governing themselves in a manner that is fair and free. Another is that any society comprises a great diversity of interests and individuals who deserve to have their voices heard and their views respected. As a result, one thing is true of all healthy democracies: they are noisy.

The voices of democracy include those of the government, its political supporters and opposition, of course. But they are joined by the voices of the labour movement – trade unions, organised interest groups, community associations, the news media, scholars and critics, religious leaders and writers, small businesses and large corporations, churches and schools.

All these groups should be free to raise their voices and participate in the democratic political process. In this way, democratic politics acts as a filter through which the vocal demands of a diverse populace pass on the way to becoming public policy. As former United States president Jimmy Carter once said, “The experience of democracy is like the experience of life itself – always changing, infinity in its variety, sometimes turbulent and all the more valuable for having been tested by adversity.”

And returning to the issue raised by Ambassador Gjos that “democratic rule is not possible without a free and independent press that could spread alternative information and provide a platform where people could express their views”, to what extent can we honestly say we have such a press in Zambia? There are three daily newspapers in Zambia, and two of them are owned by the state and controlled by the government. Only one of them is under independent private ownership and control. Given this situation, to what extent can we say the press in Zambia is free and independent? No one can deny the fact that in Zambia, the two state-owned and government-controlled newspapers are used, without inhibition, as propaganda tools for those in power and their political party.

There is only one national television station. And that station is owned by the state and controlled by the government; it is the government that sets the agenda or the mandate for that national television station. The same applies to national radio. The appearance of two or so localised television stations has not changed things much because in addition to their limited coverage, they always fear to stray very far from the wishes or agenda of those in power because their licences can easily be withdrawn. And the prospects of them being granted licences to broadcast to the whole country depend on their ‘good behaviour’, on how much they co-operate with those in power. The same applies to the privately-owned and highly localised radio stations.

Given this situation, it is clear that when they talk about regulation of the media, they are primarily talking about one media organisation that they don’t have meaningful control over. And that is The Post. The government doesn’t need any more laws, rules or other controls to ensure that the two state-owned newspapers do what the government and the ruling party wants. These are highly regulated news media organisations. The Minister of Information and his permanent secretary direct what line these newspapers should take. Even State House issues orders, directives or guidance on what these media organisations should do. The only news media organisation they can’t do that to in this country is The Post. And this is the news media organisation they are seeking a media council and other controls for. Given this situation, can this country really have a meaningful media council? It is not possible to have a meaningful media council under these circumstances because its role will be nothing but to police and harass The Post. Until all key media institutions are free of government and ruling party control and manipulation, efforts in this direction will not yield anything of value to our people.

Clearly, Zambia is not a country where a free and independent media is dominant. Sometimes it is difficult to see this because of the great efforts The Post has exerted in carving some space for itself; its ability to take on a myriad of state-owned news media organisations and eclipse them. What we are saying would be very easy to see if tomorrow we woke up and found The Post closed. What free and independent media are we going to remain with and talk about, or try to regulate or set a media council for if The Post is gone? We are not in any way trying to exaggerate the importance or the prominence of The Post. We are merely trying to state a fact that is not difficult to verify.

In trying to respond to the issues raised by Ambassador Gjos, we cannot ignore this fact about Zambia’s media landscape.

From this, it is clear that our government is not serious when it talks about a free and independent press because there is very little of it in our country. This is a country that is dominated by government-controlled media.

A free press is not meant to protect government from critics. That’s why they don’t like it. It is meant to protect the people from government, not government from the people. A free press which is capable of checking the arrogance of government is essential to our democratisation process. Since informed public opinion is the most potent of all restraints upon misgovernment, continued government domination of the press cannot be regarded otherwise than with grave concern.

We agree with Ambassador Gjos that democracy and a free and independent press are inseparable. You cannot have one without the other. No nation ever has, and none will. We believe a free, independent and plural press will help promote full and free discussion in our country. Full and free discussion keeps a society from becoming stagnant and unprepared for the stresses and strains that work to tear all its achievements to pieces. However, for full and free discussion, one needs a vigorous, flourishing, pluralistic press and for this, there is need to regard the press not merely as an extension of the government’s public relations machinery with a mission to educate the ‘uninformed masses’ about development programmes and what their government claims to be doing to help them, but as a vital independent institution.

The free and pluralistic press we are campaigning for is not primarily designed to advance press freedom or our own business interests. It is basically for the protection of the public by making the widest possible flow of information the cornerstone of the governance of their country.

It is often said that a free press – which often forces us to confront that which we may find unsettling – is the price of democracy. We believe a free press is not costly to society, it is, in fact, a reward of democracy. Moreover, we have been told that “every man [or woman] should have an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he [or she] pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press; but if he [or she] publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he [or she] must take the consequences of his [or her] own temerity”. Of course, there is need to appreciate the fact that the right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously.

Everything we have been saying on this score is consistent with what Ambassador Gjos is saying. If you can’t listen to us, at least try to listen to him.

Labels: PRESS FREEDOM, THE POST, TORE GJOS

posted by MrK @ 2:34 PM