Maravi

Let’s emulate Rwanda on media regulation

Let’s emulate Rwanda on media regulation
By The Post
Wed 06 Apr. 2011, 04:00 CAT

Statutory regulation of the media is a recipe for tyranny. The unregulated voice isn’t as dangerous to the public as is the voice regulated by the government.

The decision by the Rwandan government to abandon statutory regulation of the media and embrace self-regulation is in line with what is happening or what is expected to broaden and not restrict democracy. This is the way every progressive government is moving. And it is difficult to understand why George Kunda and his boss thought they could push the country towards statutory regulation of the media.

Are they so convinced that they are the few chosen ones who should be going where others are coming from to fulfil God’s secret plan to serve us? The fact is, statutory regulation of the media is always linked with tyranny and dictatorship. Any honestly genuine person who still thinks clearly can see that there is a serious problem with George’s attempt to impose statutory regulation of the media on our people.

There is need for all of us to realise that freedom of the press is not just important to our democracy, it is democracy itself.

We hope George and his boss will learn something from the Rwandan experience and totally abandon their ill-conceived idea of introducing statutory regulation of the media in this country. Of course, we know that for now, they have retreated on this issue. But as George himself put it, they have not abandoned the idea, they are ready to come back to it should need be – to put it in George’s words, should the media start insulting them again. But as we have said before, the weaknesses of our media can never be the basis or justification for introducing statutory regulation. George insults others more than the combined media of this country does; George tells more lies than the sum total of the lies told by the Zambian media. In fact, most of the lies that the Zambian media carries are his own lies. George defames more people every day than our media does. And he does this with impunity, sometimes abusing the parliamentary privileges he enjoys to malign and defame others. If it was a question of irresponsibility, George wouldn’t be the Vice-President of our Republic today, he wouldn’t even qualify to be a member of parliament. George has been very irresponsible when it comes to respecting the dignity of others, especially those he considers to be his enemies. George has insulted us; he has told many lies about us. And he knows this very well but he doesn’t care because he considers it politically beneficial to him to insult us and defame us.

As we have stated before, we will never claim that the media in this country always carries out its functions responsibly. And right now, the most irresponsible media in this country is the state- owned and government-controlled media. And this can be seen from the number of successful libel cases against them. The state-owned media in this country is highly regulated and controlled by those in power. But look at the way it conducts its affairs! Is this the route the rest of the Zambian media should take? Should The Post and other media become like the Daily Mail and Times of Zambia which the government controls and directs on a daily basis? The effect of the statutory controls that George and his boss had been trying to impose on the Zambian media would be devastating for good governance and democracy in this country.
But what should the government do in cases where the news media abuse press freedom by publishing stories that in the opinion of those in government and others, are false, insulting, repugnant, irresponsible or simply in bad taste? The answer, by and large, is simple: nothing. It is simply not the business of government to judge such matters. In general, the cure for abused press freedom is more press freedom. It may seem a paradox, but in the name of press freedom, a democracy must sometimes defend the rights of the news media with irresponsible practices. 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, dissent and press freedom are stifled.

Furthermore, the suppression of the media we find offensive today will be used as an authority to suppress other liberties or freedoms tomorrow – which we or someone else might find offensive. All people are harmed when the news media is regulated by the government. If the media being suppressed through statutory regulation is right in what it is doing, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth. On the other hand, if it is wrong, they lose the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth produced by its collision with error.

And as we have stated before, press freedom is a right or liberty that cannot be earned by conduct. As such, it is difficult for us to understand George’s reasoning when he says that they have for now backed off from statutory regulation because the media has stopped insulting and they will introduce statutory regulation if it starts insulting. This is tantamount to saying the news media will enjoy press freedom and self-regulation when it is worth of it; when it is more “responsible”. Press freedom is a right that does not need to be earned. If the conduct that accompanies it is unacceptable and wanting at law or otherwise, those responsible should be liable to the extent of their abuses of that right. A mere fact that press freedom is accompanied by conduct should not mean that it should be suppressed under the guise of prohibiting the conduct. And at the risk of being boring and monotonous to our readers, we conclude with a quote from Nelson Mandela on this score: “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.”

Labels: GEORGE KUNDA, PRESS FREEDOM, REGULATION

posted by MrK @ 4:14 PM