Maravi

Media, diplomacy and citizens – what else?

Media, diplomacy and citizens – what else?
By Prof Fackson Banda
Thu 15 Oct. 2009, 16:15 CAT

It is interesting how politics has a way of getting mixed up in all sorts of things. Take, for example, what the ruling MMD is confronted with - on nearly all fronts. It appears to be a party under siege. It is perhaps for a good reason - an uncanny inability to deal with political complexity.

A private media fraternity that is up in arms against the MMD’s plans to statutorily regulate them. We know what the party functionaries think - such a law will fix any erring media organisation.

Because the party is apparently happy with the state-owned media’s reportage of political issues and events, we can assume that such legislation is likely to be tailored for the private media. Because we know that there aren’t that many private newspapers, it is The Post that is likely to feel any negative effect of such legislation.

It would be easy to understand The Post’s fears. And political - or, more accurately, legislative - sensitivity would entail understanding those fears. Now, this is, of course, more than The Post. Our veteran media mogul - the venerable Errol Hickey -has had enough of perpetual harassment by the government of the day. I have had the opportunity to speak to Errol on several occasions, mostly whenever I am conducting media research in the country. I have always got the impression that he is a man who is passionate about what he is doing – he doesn’t appear to have any hidden agenda against the government of the day.

In fact, in my interview with him in July 2009, he was eloquent about the fact that his desire was to provide a point of contact between the people and the government. He told me he had offered the government airtime - free airtime - to converse with the governed.

And now here we are, witnessing a man who has had enough of something that he loves so much. And all because the government won’t set up an Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA). If such an authority was set up, many government officials would sleep a lot more peacefully, knowing that they wouldn’t have to become directly embroiled in broadcasting issues.

Also, the MMD parliamentarians wouldn’t have to lose sleep over statutory media regulation if they accepted the concept of self-regulation and the sometimes chaotic processes leading up to its attainment.

And perhaps, even our beloved Hon Vernon Mwaanga’s lessons in diplomacy would have been appropriately reserved for our own career diplomats, and not the British High Commissioner to Zambia.

For the diplomatic wrangle seems to be locked up in the media question, as well as in all the other affairs of State that the MMD seems to have entangled itself into. What a web of complications! We all know that foreign diplomats are entitled to comment on matters pertaining to the administration of foreign aid. The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness clearly places responsibility for transparency and accountability both on the donor and recipient countries, suggesting that irresponsible expenditure of donor money - and the related politics surrounding it - can be questioned.

But this is what happens when the government of the day always seeks to be everywhere at one and the same time. There does not appear to be trust in the institutions of State set up to carry on the day-to-day running of the country’s affairs - and in the citizens entrusted with the management of those institutions. Which explains why there is constant meddling in the affairs of many of our constitutional and other State offices. Too much government can be suffocating – and stifling!

The dithering in setting up an IBA is precisely because of government never wanting to let go of the business of regulating broadcasters. It might be important for ministers to begin to define ministerial power and authority differently. Sometimes – and I can be forgiven for this – I suspect that the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting Services (MIBS) is deliberately not pushing the issue of independent media regulation because it has no idea about what else it will do in the presence of an IBA. Are these personal agendas, then? Forgive me, but I am beginning to think so - and it’s getting on my nerves.

I think a wise approach to many of these issues is to decongest the government’s nostrils congested with too much political mucus! Say, their nostrils are about to burst because of over-involvement in the life of the nation, even in little things. There are reasons why many developed countries opt to have independent regulatory regimes for a variety of issues. In part, it’s good politics, because the party in power can delegate regulatory authority to independent agencies.

So - here is the first solution - get out of the business of media and let the media govern themselves. They may stumble at first, but in time, they will find a formula for self-regulation. Trust your citizens as adults! And yes - let’s be clear - the media do need to get their house in order, but it’s politically unwise to give them political ultimatums that simply escalate the political tension in the country.

As politicians, your role is to keep talking about the need for social responsibility on the part of the media and NGOs, not to set out to regulate them in a heavy-handed fashion. Set out broad or general principles within which they can operate and let them organise themselves as the responsible adults that they are. Naïve - I hear you sniffing. No, I would rather err on the side of naivety than escalate political tension in the country, and possibly lose an election as a result.

The second solution: leave diplomats alone. Here is the logic: given the global financial and economic crisis, bilateral donors may be eager to save every ngwee. Don’t give them a reason to withhold financial support from vital sectors, such as health. The tough talk consuming the likes of Hon Vernon Mwaanga can be “diplomatically” reserved for behind closed-door meetings between the government and donors. It is diplomatically unwise - methinks - to attack the diplomats the way our government officials have done.

A history lesson: in 1995, just before the 1996 general elections, an embattled Frederick Chiluba had so antagonised donors that some, including the British, withheld their assistance. The usual writing of “national sovereignty” was on the wall, but does that help a party’s socio-political cause? In the absence of electoral malpractice or maladministration, it could lose the party concerned an election.

The third lesson: empower and entrust citizens with responsibility. Too much government can be such that it muffles and stifles individuality. In Zambia, individuals excel only when they are in good books with the government of the day. What kind of life is that? It can be so stressful to be constantly thinking about how to please the government of the day. There are many Zambians who simply want to serve their country in their different stations, without feeling the weight of government power.

For example, do we really have career diplomats, who do not need to be in good books with some government minister or other? What about businesspeople, who do not have to go to bed with government in order to get those lucrative contracts? What about top civil servants, who do not have to defer to political authority in order to keep their jobs? What about judges? And all those hard-working Zambians in the supposedly “independent” regulatory agencies? All these - and there are so many of them - would like to be left alone to discharge their responsibilities as professionally as possible.

But no, the government is everywhere. The government wants to be in the media through statutory regulation; it wants to tamper with the diplomatic corps through threats; and it wants to over-regulate citizens through the NGO Act, 2009. What else will the government think of next? Consider my solutions above. It’s always the seemingly simple solutions that work best!

Labels: FACKSON BANDA, MEDIA

posted by MrK @ 6:02 PM