Why ban phone-in programmes on the Barotse Agreement?

Why ban phone-in programmes on the Barotse Agreement?
By The Post
Fri 14 Jan. 2011, 04:00 CAT

It was shocking to hear Dora Siliya announce that the government had with immediate effect banned the media in Zambia from airing phone-in programmes on the Barotse Agreement. She says the measure is aimed at maintaining peace in the country as dialogue continues on the issue.

What are things coming to? What has happened to the freedom of speech, the freedom of the media?

For Zambia to grow and prosper, ideas must be nourished through free discussion. A bad idea will find few takers. There is nothing in or about the Baroste Agreement that should not be discussed freely on radio or television phone-in programmes.

This is a clear case of violation of freedom of speech and of the media in one stroke. There is need for full and free discussion of the Barotse Agreement by all our people. We say this because 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 that is not told what to publish or broadcast by the government.

Is this the type of media freedom that this government wants to introduce in this country through legislation? A media regulation system under which those running government can wake up every morning and announce what they don’t want to be published or broadcast! The media is supposed to be independent.

And the media should not be there to protect the government from critics. It should be there to protect people from government, and not government from people. From what they are trying to do on the Barotse Agreement issue, it is clear why we need a free media which is capable of checking the arrogance of government and why such a media is essential to our democratisation process. Since informed public opinion is the most potent of all restraints upon misgovernment, what the government is doing cannot be regarded otherwise than with grave concern.

The whole point of a free media is not to make the policies and actions of the government exempt from public scrutiny, discussion and criticism but to expose them to it. And this right should not be taken away arbitrarily under the guise of maintaining peace in the country. Wrong or right, our people have the right to discuss the Barotse Agreement. This is not just a matter for those in government and those they have chosen to discuss with privately.

It is a matter that affects the destiny of our people, of our country. As such, every citizen has the right to take part in all issues that affect their lives. And in the exercise thereof, our people have an inviolable right to express their unbridled thoughts on all issues that affect their lives. And the freedom we are talking about is one that should protect unpopular and even inaccurate speech. Such freedom is a farce if it means merely freedom to talk about pleasant things.

It is often said that a free media – which often forces us to confront that which we may find unsettling – is the price of a democracy. We believe it is not costly to society, it is, in fact, a reward of democracy because it is basically for the protection of the public by making the widest possible flow of information a cornerstone of their democracy.

This naked censorship of the media that this government has embarked on is unacceptable. The tensions around the Barotse Agreement cannot in any way justify such repressive and tyrannical rule where those in government want to limit our freedom of expression as and when they so desire. But surely, the mere fact that speech is accompanied by conduct does not mean that speech should be suppressed under the guise of prohibiting the conduct. Moreover, ideas don’t generate crises; it is crises that generate ideas. The Barotse Agreement crisis is generating ideas. It is not the ideas this government is trying to ban that are generating the crisis surrounding the Barotse Agreement. But we who so staunchly espouse free media and then seek to edit it must be wary that from today’s decision might leach tomorrow’s hypocrisy.

As we have stated before, the suppression of the speech that we find offensive today is potentially a threat to our exercise of free speech tomorrow – which perhaps you or someone else might find offensive or threatening the peace. All our people are harmed by the government’s ban on the airing of all phone-in programmes about the Barotse Agreement. We say this because if the opinions that were to be expressed on these phone-in programmes were right, all our people will be deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth about the Barotse Agreement. And if wrong, our people will lose the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth about the Barotse Agreement produced by its collision with error.

Clearly, freedom of speech and expression is the lifeblood of any democracy. And this is why it is said that “democracy is communication”: people talking to one another about their common problems and forging a common destiny. Before people can govern themselves, they must be free to express themselves. Citizens of a democracy live with the conviction that through the open exchange of ideas and opinions, truth will eventually win out over falsehood, the values of others will be better understood, areas of compromise more clearly defined, and the path of progress opened. The greater the volume of such exchanges, the better.

In contrast to authoritarian states, democratic governments neither control, dictate nor judge the content of verbal or written speech. Democracy depends upon a knowledgeable citizenry, whose access to the broadest range of information enables him to participate as fully as possible in the public life of their society. Ignorance breeds apathy. Democracy thrives upon the energy of citizens who are sustained by an unimpeded flow of ideas, opinions and speculation.

Clearly, the cure for the speech that we don’t like is more speech. It may seem a paradox, but in the name of free speech, a democracy must sometimes defend the rights of individuals and groups who themselves advocate such non-democratic policies as repressing free speech. Citizens in a democratic society defend this right out of the conviction that, in the end, open debate will lead to greater truth and wiser public actions than if speech and dissent are stifled. Democracies rest upon the principle that government exists to serve the people; the people do not exist to serve the government. In other words, the people are citizens of the democratic state, not its subjects. While the state protects the rights of its citizens, in return, the citizens give the state their loyalty. Under an authoritarian system, on the other hand, the state, as an entity separate from society, demands loyalty and service from its people without any reciprocal obligation to secure their consent for its actions.

It is not difficult for anyone to see why freedom of expression is said to form the backbone of democracy. Demoracy will only become a reality in our country when there is freedom of speech, including the freedom, on the part of each individual and the media, to criticise the government and political parties and other authorities; the freedom of each individual to hold a political opinion that differs from that of the ruling party; the freedom of each individual to express a political opinion that is different from that of the ruling party; that is, the freedom to have a different line of political thinking and expression. And this freedom of thought and expression includes the freedom of the media. This freedom is realised when the media undertakes to restrain the excesses of the politicians and public officials by making the public aware of abuses, corruption and incompetence; promoting and animating public debate on policies and issues that are of public interest; and educating the public on matters of general interest.

The freedom of the media implies freedom from undue control and constraint, especially by the state. It implies the freedom to broadcast, publish and communicate information without undue constraint. The freedom of the media is violated when the government imposes restrictive controls over the media like what this government has done to ban the airing of all phone-in programmes on the Barotse Agreement.

Our people want to be heard, to take part in discussion and in the decisions which affect their own lives within the national community. Our people desire to take part. Our country is firm and united insofar as our people feel that they have a choice in its affairs. This requires that each citizen be allowed one’s own opinion and the right to act with full responsibility and without fear in matters that affect him or her intimately. We should not follow leaders blindly; we should critically examine their true intentions, and the direction in which they are leading us. Is it to a richer, more satisfying life? To a life in which we are masters of our own destiny? Or, is it to new forms of repression and tyranny?

And as we have stated before, no one person can claim to have monopoly of truth and wisdom. No individual – or group of individuals – can pretend to have all the resources needed to guarantee the progress of a nation. The contribution of the most humble members is often necessary for the good running of a group.

We all know that freedom of expression is a fundamental right of every human being. This right is also enshrined in our Constitution. While this right is not absolute, it is a matter of justice that it is given to all without discrimination and irrespective of the issue involved.