Sunday May 3, 2009It also acknowledges the sacrifices made in the struggle for freedom of the Press and puts pressure on governments that continue to deny their citizens this basic human right; the right to know.
A look at the past year shows that several governments especially in Africa have made various attempts to restrict Press freedom.
In some cases, governments have sought to impose laws geared towards undermining media freedom. Countries such as Niger, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Zimbabwe and Somalia have routinely jailed journalists for practising their trade and several have paid with their lives.
UNFORTUNATELY, KENYAN JOURNalists have not been spared this onslaught. The Kenya Communications (Amendment) Bill 2008 which drew widespread condemnation for the retrogressive clauses it contained was perhaps the best illustration of the government's determination to control media freedom.
The attempt to introduce statutory control of content in broadcast media was particularly worrying.
Although the State eventually backed down and removed the contentious clauses, the change of heart came on the back of spirited and sustained protests by journalists, the civil society, private media and international press watchdogs.
Indeed since then, the relationship between the Kenya government and the media has largely been characterised by mutual suspicion, brought about by a forced ceasefire.
But this need not be the case. If this country is to take its rightful place among the community of progressive nations, it is important that both the media and the government recognise that they have important roles to play in society and that each will be poorer without the other.
The media's watchdog role offers an important shield against the excesses of the State, particularly by providing a platform for citizens to express their views on governance and spotlight cases of corruption.
YET IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT THE media can have a negative effect on society. Only a few weeks ago, several radio stations were put off air in Sierra Leone for inciting violence in the run-up to by-elections there.
Closer home, the role played by vernacular FM stations in fanning hatred between ethnic communities in the run up to the 2007 election has been well documented.
Most players in the media industry recognise these shortcomings and have seen the need for a voluntary system of self-regulation.
International precedent vindicates this as the best way of regulating behaviour within the media. State-driven regulation necessarily leads to a conflict of interest because the instinctive approach of those in power is to limit rather than expand the reach of a free media.
We urge the government to embrace this reality. It is essential for the development of the nation's young democracy that freedom of expression is encouraged rather than curtailed. Indeed a free, independent and pluralistic media is essential to the existence of democracy and is a fundamental human goal.
At a time when a new constitution is being drafted, it is essential that the media and other progressive forces in society articulate their views to the constitutional review team. Entrenchment of the right to free speech and expression in the constitution will be a major step forward.
In Zambia, for example, the country's new draft constitution bars legislation that would undermine media freedom and prohibits administrative behaviour that would hinder development of the sector.
Kenya should borrow a leaf from the Zambian example so that the right to freedom of expression in this country is anchored in the law. Relying on goodwill of the executive to guarantee press freedom is clearly a less than desirable route.
No comments:
Post a Comment