Maravi

‘Politicians are not angels’

‘Politicians are not angels’
By Editor
Thu 10 Dec. 2009, 04:00 CAT

IT is clear that statutory regulation of the media has failed the test of reason. It has been weighed and found wanting. The arguments against statutory regulation of the media are too strong for any sensible person, any reasonable politician to ignore.

Those who were championing statutory regulation of the media in Zambia have been shamed and are on the retreat, but in a disorderly way. And instead of accepting the fact that their agenda to regulate the media in Zambia has been found wanting on the scale of the judgment seat of reason, they are now resorting to lies.

But how else can they defend that evil and tyrannical agenda if not with lies, deception, manipulation, calumny and malice? They have been going round claiming they will be forced to regulate the media because The Post has refused to be part of the self-regulation alternative.

How possible is this? What type of nonsense is this? The Post has always been for voluntary self-regulation. Of course, in a country like ours with a myriad of laws that impinge on press freedom, it is not possible to talk about full voluntary self-regulation. We say this because the media in Zambia is already over-regulated by provisions of law scattered in many statutes.

But albeit all this we have never opposed any genuine efforts towards self-regulation. And there is a record to this. When The Post was a member of the Media Institute of Southern Africa, it played a key role in the establishment of an independent media council in this country and voluntarily subjected itself to it. And at no time did The Post oppose or repudiate that independent media council. So what are these characters talking about?

The truth is that they can now see that their scheme to regulate The Post through a statute or a media council dominated by their agents under the banner of self-regulation has failed. Probably that’s why now they have been peddling the silly idea that the media should come up with a bill for self-regulation which will be taken to Parliament as a private members bill. What nonsense is this?

Don’t they know that anything legislated is mandatory and can therefore not be self-regulation? What is mandatory cannot be voluntary. And without being voluntary, any regulation of the media cannot be said to be self-regulation. And for this reason we will never support a scheme of regulation of the media that is legislated in such a manner.

To be voluntary, self-regulation has to be by a body to which media organisations freely belong and whose decisions they accept – without any coercive mechanism – to bind them. This is only possible if those who adjudicate or sit on such bodies have been appointed on a basis of consensus, that is are acceptable to all.

They shouldn’t be selected on the basis of a majority vote because the minority who are opposed to them will have difficulties accepting their decisions. And in this way those who sit on such a body will not be agents of any single entity, and cannot be sponsored by the enemies of a free press. Similarly, all the decisions regarding the formation and operations of such a body should be by consensus and not by major vote.

And the financing of such a body should be 100 per cent by member organisations. This means that no money should come from the government or indeed donors. We say this because it is said that he who pays the piper calls the tune. And in self-regulation the tune should be called by those who have voluntarily decided to come together and collectively self-regulate themselves.

A mechanism can be worked out on how the contributions to the operations of this body should be made. And membership to such a body should be restricted to institutions that produce media products, that is those who publish newspapers or magazines; those who broadcast radio and television programmes.

This means that there will be no individual membership, no freelancers as these will be represented by the institutions that publish or broadcast their work. If their work is only published and broadcast abroad so will their responsibility lie. And complaints against institutions should only be restricted to what they have published or broadcast.

Even the media bodies that are today championing voluntary self-regulation in our country should not be automatically members of such a body. They are doing a commendable job for which all of them deserve a lot of credit. But that’s where their contributions begin and end. After they have finished that assignment, they will be represented on that body through the organisations that publish or broadcast their work.

In this way, there will be no gatecrashers, as only those who graft will be members and will be accountable. This is what voluntary self-regulation means and entails. Anything short of this is something else.

We don’t think the likes of George Kunda, Ronnie Shikapwasha will understand this. This is certainly not what they are looking for in any form of media regulation. But this is what they will get unless they opt to defy all reason, all decency and go for statutory regulation of the media. But if they opt to go for statutory regulation, they will certainly meet a lot of resistance and pressure in this country and abroad.

There will certainly be a very strong national and international campaign against them and their evil statutory regulation scheme which may even see them out of power. If they opt to go for statutory regulation, what are they going to do with the likes of Bweengwa member of parliament Highvie Hamududu who has made it very clear:

“For me, whether in this government or when we come into power I will never support statutory regulation of the media. It is a backward and dictatorial system that can only be embraced by a corrupt regime. I will always support a free media so that every leader’s conduct is kept in the public eye. Statutory regulation of the media is a draconian law that cannot be tolerated in our democracy. Let me put it straight that we politicians are not angels who should be left to run public offices without scrutiny. And because we are not angels, we need a free media to check our conduct all the time. I believe this can help us perform to people’s expectations and avoid inviting criminal suits upon ourselves when we leave office.”

This is as aptly as one can put this issue forward. This is clear thinking that is not jaundiced by self-interest and prejudice. And where does it leave George and his friends? To Highvie’s observations, we add those of Nelson Mandela: “None of our irritations with the perceived inadequacies of the media should ever allow us to even suggest faintly that the independence of the press could be compromised or coerced.”

And in our edition of yesterday, we carried observations made by Kenny Makungu, a senior mass communication lecturer at the University of Zambia, making it very clear that government regulation cannot make the press more professional and ethical and ethical journalism could only develop in an atmosphere of guaranteed freedom:

“True ethics, standards can be created only by independent media professionals, and can be obeyed by them only voluntarily. Whether passed in goodwill or not, any attempt to impose standards on journalists by law will result in arbitrary limitation of their legitimate freedoms, an restrictions of the free flow of information in society.

Quality and self-regulation must not be treated by government as preconditions to granting full freedom; on the contrary, ethical journalism can only develop in and atmosphere of guaranteed freedom. Journalists’ self-restraint must be preceded and accompanied by the governmental self-restraint in handling of the media.” This is what one of our leading media intellectuals is saying on this matter. Can George understand this? Can Ronnie appreciate this? Is this making sense to them? Is this acceptable to them?

Put simply, what we are being told here is that the exercise of power must be the constant practice of self-limitation, modesty and tolerance. And we are also being reminded, in some way, that journalism is not just a profession that can be regulated in the same way as the practice of law, medicine, accountancy or some other professions. Journalism is the exercise by occupation of the right to free expression available to every citizen. That right, being available to all, cannot in principle be withdrawn from a few by any form of legislation.

We have never understood the arguments of the likes of George who seems to suggest that the press will enjoy full rights when it is worth of them; when it becomes more “responsible”. Rights, especially constitutional ones, do not have to be earned. And as we have stated before, few would argue that the media always carry out their functions responsibly. But the solution is not to devise laws that set some arbitrary definition of responsibility or to come up with statutory regulation, but to broaden the level of public discourse so that citizens can better sift through the chaff of misinformation and rhetoric to find the kennels of truth.

Are these things difficult for anyone to understand? Why should these things be difficult for George and his friends to understand and appreciate? It is baffling that such simple and straightforward things cannot be understood by these characters.

Our own and only explanation is that a free press is threatening to those at the opposite end of the moral spectrum.

Labels: MEDIA, REGULATION

posted by MrK @ 6:15 AM