Maravi

Trying to justify the unjustifiable

Trying to justify the unjustifiable
By Editor
Tue 15 Dec. 2009, 04:00 CAT

Unjust laws have never brought order to any society. Instead, they have attracted contempt to themselves and those who try to enforce them.

Peace in any nation is the tranquility of order. And to guarantee peace, all are called to maturity, tolerance and responsibility. Peace is the fruit of the right ordering of things with which the divine founder has invested human society and which must be actualised by people thirsting after an ever-more perfect reign of justice.

To maintain peace in a nation, it is important to maintain and strengthen democratic structures. The foundation of good government must be established on the sound basis of laws. The pursuit of justice must be a fundamental norm of the state.

Many lies have been peddled to try and justify the government’s intention to control the media that is not currently directly under its supervision. This is not a new argument; it is an old argument that has been used to justify tyranny and dictatorship over many centuries and in many countries. We shouldn’t forget that the one-party dictatorship, tyranny in this country was introduced for similar reasons: to preserve peace. But we later saw that the one-party state was a recipe for tyranny.

We have learnt from our own experience and from the experience of other African nations that the concept of the party as a vanguard which has the right to rule by virtue of calling itself something and which is entrenched in our politics as a permanent godfather of this society, is a disaster.

A free media is threatening to those at the opposite end of the moral spectrum. But as United States Ambassador to Zambia Donald Booth has correctly observed, without access to information and media freedom, people are doomed to repeat their mistakes. Truly, “Some people may not want to know about the sometimes unpleasant realities of the world we live in”. But this ostrich-like behaviour will not help us solve any of our problems because problems don’t simply disappear by wishing them away.

And the habit of equating freedom of expression, of the media to anarchy is also not new. How the forces of democratic governance and the media interact is the challenge we face and have to work through as a continuing and dynamic process in our country. There is an old saying that freedom and order are constantly in tension with one another in society. Order without freedom leads to totalitarianism. Freedom without order leads to anarchy. It is also said that societies recover quicker and more healthily from too much freedom than they do from totalitarianism.

If all this sounds too abstract, let us then state it in simpler terms. We would hope that the media in Zambia develops a greater professional integrity and responsibility; be critical guardians of democracy and freedom, but respect its audience, the targets of its criticism and reporting, and above all else its own integrity as a social institution. In saying this, we are admitting that there are flaws, weaknesses, inadequacies in the operations of our media.

But as we have stated before, the solution to this does not lie along the route being suggested by this government, by the likes of Ronnie Shikapwasha. It does not lie in statutory regulation of the media. The solution is not to devise laws that set some arbitrary definition of responsibility or to license journalists, but to broaden the level of public discourse so that citizens can be better sift through the chaff of misinformation and rhetoric and find the kernels of truth. It is said that “The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market”.

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.

And 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 trade unions, organised interest groups, community associations, the news media, scholars and critics, religious leaders and writers and so on and so forth.

All of these groups are free to raise their voices and participate in the democratic 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 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.”

Clearly, to govern is to communicate. Without the ability to speak out, speak up, citizens will not be able to contribute meaningfully to the shaping of their country’s destiny. And unlike in a country where the media is totally under the control of the government, of those in power, in a democracy, the media can’t simply manipulate or disregard issues at will because their competitors, after all, as well as the government itself, are free to call attention to their own list of important issues.

But there is desperation on the part of this government to introduce statutory regulation of the media. Already, this government controls over 80 per cent of news media outlets but it is not satisfied with that. And for this reason, it wants to bring even the remaining balance totally under its control through statutory regulation or otherwise. The justification for what they want to do forms part of the old stories that tyrannical regimes all over the world have used over the years. There is no government or politician and openly proclaim that they are opposed to press freedom. They will always say they support press freedom but they are against media irresponsibility and abuses.

They will use this to curb press freedom without admitting that they are doing so. They will use examples from all over the world, sometimes in a twisted manner, to justify their infringements. They will even use the statutory regulation of some professional bodies and present it as self-regulation to justify their attempts or decisions to regulate the media. They will never acknowledge that journalism is not just a profession but an exercise by occupation of the right to free expression available to every citizen.

The example of self-regulation of the Law Association of Zambia that this government has continued to give is a wrong one. The Law Association of Zambia does not operate under self-regulation because it is subjected to the most rigorous statutory regulation. There is no voluntary self-regulation under the Law Association of Zambia because everything is mandatory, everything is decided by an Act of parliament.
It is sad that out of hatred for the media outside its control, this government is willing to tolerate and justify violence. This government has justified the violence of ruling party cadres against the independent media.

And today, Shikapwasha is justifying Kalusha Bwalya’s assault of a Post reporter for no other reason other than hatred for The Post. No doctrine, no principle or proclaimed political position and no hatred can justify atrocious acts such as the assault of journalists by anyone. No crime can be committed in the name of anger or displeasure with the media.

Violence against anyone can only do one thing, and that is to breed counter violence. There is nothing that can stop a journalist from retaliating. No section of the community has all the physical strength for violence, neither has any without physical strength.

People who assault others and those who defend and justify such violence are no better than animals. We hope that we will reach a stage when our politicians will realise that the use of violence against anyone is something that puts the perpetrators and their supporters or defenders next to animals. You can’t build a nation on the basis of violence and vengeance; you can’t do it with feelings of hatred and revenge.

Each human being has the right to moral and physical integrity. This basic freedom is non-derogable and cannot be suspended under any circumstances. A human being should not be subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. Such a treatment does not accord with the dignity of a human person. The theory to the effect that the end justifies the means is often at the root of the acts of violence. Each human person has a right to one’s physical and moral integrity.

Truly, if the justification of violence that Shikapwasha is using to justify attacks against our reporters was generalised, Shikapwasha himself would find it difficult to go anywhere in this country because there are so many citizens who are not happy with his careless utterances and lies that are sometimes very insulting to their intelligence. There are many careless statements, including lies, that come out of Parliament; that are made on the floor of the House by our members of parliament.

But no citizen has advocated the removal of their parliamentary immunity and privileges so that they can be made to account for their lies. There are so many members of parliament who have told lies about us on the floor of the House. But this irresponsibility on their part has never moved us to advocate the removal of their immunities and privileges. True, there are some who see “the splinter in another’s eye” and do not see “the plank in their own” (Mathew 7:31). Whatever their explanation, these practices ought to disappear.

We cannot accept the theory that ‘the end justifies the means’. We know the outrages which this principle caused in the countries where it was systematically applied. Even where it is successful, it cannot be tolerated. Every means used must itself be morally justifiable and evil means can only produce a morally evil end. The thirst for power is often at the root of this violence. The enjoyment of the freedom from violence therefore entails a critic of the blind thirst for political power.

As for Shikapwasha, a pastor or reverend, it is shocking for him to justify violence simply because it is against the people he hates. Shikapwasha cannot continue to masquerade as a reverend with such open satanic attitudes. As we have said before, the name Christian means: like Christ, follower of Christ. Now, Jesus Christ was humble, most pure, poor, meek: how can His disciple and imitator be proud, dishonest, hateful, vengeful, angry and greedy?

Alexander the Great once said to a soldier who also had the same name but was sluggish, mean and cowardly: “Either change your name or change your behaviour.”

So many things have been said about this media regulation that this government is pursuing without reason. Well, we can only say that you cannot know a man completely, his character, his principles, sense of judgement, not till he’s shown his colours, ruling the people, making laws. Experience, there‘s the test.

This government of Rupiah Banda deals with its opponents mercilessly. They will not listen to our voice of reason, neither do they listen to anyone but their own inner demons. Their inflexibility and blindness will soon prove to be very dangerous for the nation and for themselves because those who govern, those who lead must temper justice with compassion.

Calling Shikapwasha and members of Rupiah’s government to discuss media issues is a waste of time because they have made up their minds come what may. But soon, they will be made to realise that the exercise of power must be the constant practice of self-limitation and modesty. Being in government and having a majority in Parliament does not mean they can get away with anything they want; there are limits.

Labels: MEDIA, REGULATION, RONNIE SHIKAPWASHA, THE POST

posted by MrK @ 7:30 AM