PAMBAZUKA NEWS: 100 ISSUES OLD

1.EDITORIAL

PUBLIC BROADCASTING - ELECTIONS, DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN AFRICA
Rotimi Sankore

The history of public broadcasting in Africa in relation to elections,
democracy and human rights can be mostly summarised in six words,  
"abuse of power by incumbent governments". This may seem harsh, but 
this is the  truth.

From Egypt to Zimbabwe, Gambia to Ethiopia and in almost every country  
between the four points of and centre of Africa - North, South, West, 
East and Central Africa - most governments have converted the power of 
public broadcasting to the abysmally selfish motive of sustaining 
themselves in power - indefinitely if possible.

Were this to be of no consequence to the social, political and economic
development of African countries and the continent as a whole, this  
observation could be considered an exercise in intellectual ball 
juggling. However given the unrivalled power of the broadcast media to 
shape public opinion, its continued abuse by numerous African 
governments can be likened to the use of a dis-information nuclear 
option by governments against their own people.

How has the abuse of the broadcast media by these governments been used  
to damage the development of Africa and what can be done to end it? The  
first and most blatant indicator of the abuse of public broadcasting in 
Africa is its now infamous description as 'state broadcasting'. 'State' 
radio and television are often seen as one of the prizes of capturing 
power.

The dangerous consequence of this is that public radio and television  
are seen as a means to propagate the opinion and agenda of governments 
or the state to the exclusion of the rest of society. In the 'state' 
controlled media, the interests of the state are merged with that of 
the ruling regime, and its leadership. The interests of the leadership 
in turn become the 'public interest.' The 'state' media is therefore 
used to, and sees its role as that of promoting the interest of the 
state, the ruling party or regime and its leadership - all of which have 
become indistinguishable from each other and the 'public interest'. 
Going by this, any opinions or events that may be opposed to or embarrass 
the 'state' are often not transmitted by the state broadcaster since 
this is assumed not to be in the interest of the public, i.e. state, i.e. 
leadership of the ruling regime.

The clearest manifestation of this can be seen in the role of the  
'state' media during most elections in Africa. The ruling party and its 
candidates are given wall-to-wall coverage, and everything good that 
happens is attributed to them with the possible exception of sunrise. 
The opposition on the other hand are excluded from or allocated the 
minimum coverage possible, which is almost always bad news. In the present 
world context of the "war against terrorism", legitimate activity of the 
democratic opposition could even be portrayed as "terrorist activity". 
Even paid or sponsored election campaign advertisements are not 
guaranteed airtime and have been considered subversive. We saw this happen 
in Zimbabwe and again to a lesser extent during the recent Kenyan 
elections in December 2002.

Most opposition parties complain bitterly only because they are victims  
of such abuse. However, their philosophical perception of public 
broadcasting is no different from that of incumbent governments.

The primary implication of denying the legitimate and democratic  
opposition appropriate visibility to the public via equitable access 
to the public broadcast media is the lack of a level playing field for 
competing political ideas. This applies not only to elections, but also 
to in-between elections when the 'state' media bombards the public with 
a constant stream of subtle and overt propaganda.

The secondary implication of this is that anything that is perceived as  
being of possible help to the opposition is censored by the state 
controlled broadcast media. Censorship as we know, leads to lack of  
accountability, and lack of accountability reinforces dictatorship. In 
countries where the private or independent print media is located mainly 
in the cities, or where income and illiteracy limit their scope, the 
broadcast media becomes the eyes and ears of most of society. Since 
government with the exception of FM stations with limited reach largely 
controls the broadcast media, state control and abuse of the public media 
is bound to give governments an unhealthy capacity to control the flow of 
news and information. Such control lends itself easily to the manipulation 
of public opinion and thus society.

For instance, where there is an impending famine and tens or even 
hundreds of thousands are facing mass starvation, as is presently the 
case in southern Africa and the Horn of Africa, news of this is censored. 
In other words, the public is denied the benefit of advance warning, 
knowing the causes of this, and debating potential short and long-term 
solutions in the public broadcast media. The lack of a collective sense 
of impending disaster and the opportunity of collective preparation for 
it means the first that the public knows of a famine is when it has 
actually hit them.

But state censorship is only fully effective when backed with the full  
force of the levers of power. This means the subversion of democracy and 
in particular freedom of expression and opinion by means of manipulating 
public broadcasting is necessarily followed by the suppression of human 
rights in general, and media freedom in particular. This highlights the 
fact that media freedom cannot be secured in isolation from other pillars 
of democracy such as the right to freedoms of association, assembly, 
political participation and rights to be free from discrimination and 
persecution.

It is therefore not out of place to posit that an open and accountable  
public media, which is guaranteed its editorial independence and 
facilitates equitable access to all shades of opinion in society is 
vital alongside other factors, to the sustenance of democracy.

In order to achieve this several specific steps must be taken.

Firstly, civil society must campaign unrelentlessly for the appointment  
process of boards and senior editorial and management staff of the 
public broadcast media to be removed from the control of executive arms 
of government. This campaign must involve all sectors of society, the 
professional associations, trade unions, NGO's and so forth. The body 
overseeing these appointments together with parliament must also 
reflect this diversity.

Secondly, principles of editorial independence and the protection of
journalists from political persecution for refusing overtures from  
political interests must guide parliamentary oversight. This editorial  
independence must go along with the media's obligation to promote 
accountability in both the public and other sectors of society.

Thirdly, media freedom must be guaranteed for both the print and  
electronic, private or independent media.

Fourthly, freedom of expression must be a constitutionally protected  
right that cannot be curtailed arbitrarily. Civil society must also 
make it clear, that for the political opposition to be accepted as 
legitimate, it should also sign up to these principles and not just 
oppose the government opportunistically.

With specific regard to elections, certain principles are essential 
and must be institutionalised in respect of the public broadcast media:

- Guaranteed equitable access to publicly owned broadcast media for all
political parties.

- A commitment to voter education with respect to the voting process,  
venues, times, political parties and candidates.

- A limited number of brief and free slots for electoral campaign  
broadcasts be given to all political parties to outline their programme 
and candidates at relevant levels of government. This will ensure that 
at least all parties and candidates are given the equitable visibility 
necessary for genuine democracy.

- A ceiling on the fees to be charged by all broadcast media for any  
additional election campaign broadcasts.

- A ceiling on the total number of election campaign broadcasts that  
any one political party and its candidates can run over the period of 
the campaigns. This will prevent the outright buying of the elections 
by parties backed by richer members of society.

- No discounts to any one political party for paid election campaign  
broadcasts.

- A code of conduct and ethics regarding what is appropriate to run in  
an election advert or campaign. This will also cover incitement, hate  
speech, defamation and other standards agreed in advance by all parties.

- No turning away of campaign adverts of any party to the advantage of  
other parties.

- The rights of reply and correction for candidates that may have been  
defamed.

- That the publicly owned media must not to be used by incumbent  
political parties to attack other political parties, and that ruling 
parties in particular not undermine the editorial independence of the 
broadcast media.

- Guarantee of the safety and security of journalists, editorial and  
management staff, and media houses that exercise the right to editorial  
independence.

- Fair, balanced and equitable news coverage of political party campaign
activities especially during news broadcasts. This should include
distinguishing between government activities and campaigning.

- An agreement on fair, balanced and equitable coverage of election  
debates.

- No broadcasting of speculative results that may truncate the will of  
the electorate and lead to conflict or violence based on electoral  
disputes. Any results broadcast should be based on results obtained 
from polling stations and agreed by agents of all parties present. 
Also, that coverage of disputed results not be broadcast in such a 
manner that is inflammatory and could lead to violent conflict.

Significantly, these requirements for the public broadcast media to 
be able to play its role in facilitating democracy are not unique to 
Africa. Some of these and more are currently applicable in many 
countries around the world including in Africa. However, many countries 
around the world including the majority of African ones are yet to 
institutionalise these and other principles not outlined here. The 
institutionalisation of these principles is one of the urgent tasks 
facing African civil society and there must be no delay.

But this is not a task for African civil society alone. The African  
Union must prove its relevance by not only adopting these principles, 
but also Ensuring that its member states implement them.

* Sankore is Coordinator of CREDO for Freedom of Expression and  
Associated Rights an international organisation focussing on rights 
issues in Africa.

· Send comments on this editorial to editor@pambazuka.org

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: 100 ISSUES OLD

We hope readers will join us in celebrating the 100th issue of  
Pambazuka News. We thank you for the support you have given. Many 
have said they find this newsletter a powerful tool for social justice: 
share that tool. Encourage others to subscribe!