Democracy and free press

Professor Dilara Choudhury

Recently Australian journalist Julian Assange and his internet website WikiLeaks have raised an issue that has been a bone of contention between the never ending demand for the freedom of the press vis-à-vis by society's -- more precisely the states' endeavors to control it. Press in the authoritarian states is not free. Those who control such states are secretive about their activities and do not allow the citizens to participate in the actual state of governmental affairs. The rulers in these states are self-proclaimed 'philosopher kings' and run the show without communicating with the people. As such, press in these countries is controlled to an extent that it works as the mouth piece of the government.

In liberal democratic countries, the picture is totally different. Here the press that is free from government control, enjoys no restrictions regarding politics and ideology, free from all institutions including the political parties as well as any interest groups, play a multifarious role. The press in liberal democracies maintains democratic environment and culture, fosters commerce and industry, acts as a source of information, imparts political education, influences public opinion (the enormous power of the press in shaping public opinion in favor of Bangladesh war was discerned aptly during the liberation war of 1971), helps conduct the elections, scrutinizes the government and acts as its watchdog. It also serves as a vital communication link between the rulers and the ruled. It is this vital link that allows a two-way channel of communications between the people and the government.

Photo: Timothy Hughes

Of all the functions of the free press, scrutinization of the government and acting as its watchdog has special significance. It is significant due to the fact that by and large governments have a tendency to be secretive. Even democratic governments are unwilling to expose their mistakes, mismanagements, practices of corruption to the people whose power to deny support, because of such exposures, may culminate into electoral fiasco for the party in power. By criticizing and exposing governments' errors to the public press limits and regulates the governments, makes sure that state power is not overarching or arbitrary, that their activities are transparent and they are accountable to the people. In this regard, press does more than reporting. Through a wonderful mechanism like investigative journalism the press digs out government's coverups of vital events which are detrimental to the interest of the people and the state. During Watergate Scandal, US President Nixon's attempt to obstruct justice, which is a criminal offence in the United States, was exposed to the public through investigative journalism that resulted in President's resignation, only one year after his landslide victory in 1972. Primacy of law, thus, got invigorated in the American political system. Similar activity highlighting the shipment of arms and ammunitions, which were in the so-called pipeline, to Pakistan during the liberation war of Bangladesh in 1971, created such hue and cry among the American people that US government had to abandon its endeavor to help it ally.

But the irony is that despite the importance of freedom of press in liberal democracies there exists a paradox between the governments and the press. This especially discerned in the developing democracies. The states feel that unfettered freedom of the press has many drawbacks. If they get unlimited power they may become irresponsible and disclose news that are against the vital interests of the nation. Press, on the other hand, wants to report freely to ensure transparency that is crucially linked with good governance and protection of human rights, and resists government's control and monitoring. It feels that in the name of the protection of national interests the governments may try to gag the press in order to protect their owan interests rather than the interests of the nation.

As mentioned earlier, challenges to solve this paradox are even more daunting in fledging democracies like Bangladesh. Governments in these countries are besieged with numerous state-building and nation-building problems including the crisis of legitimacy. Here states/governments hardly make any difference between self-aggrandizement and national interest. Governments, in these countries, are extremely sensitive to any criticism. Even genuine and constructive criticism are considered as heresy because they mix up the interests of the state with their own interests. As a result, they try to control the press through repressive legislations, curtailments of newsprint quota and advertisements, press advice, and at times, with threats and intimidation. Press in such situations faces an uphill task to fulfill its obligations. Demands for the freedom of press in such situations are perennial.

Photo: Thinkstock Images

The relationship between press and the governments in developed countries is not so grim. Here press uses its own judgment about what to print and what to withhold and demonstrates its responsible behavior, which is commonly known as 'editorial courtesy,' besides the censors that work silently like a presidential letter to an editor thanking him for not publishing news detrimental to the interest of the people/ state. Mostly, the relationship between the two seems congenial. However, both press and governments are cautious about each other's intentions. For example, in a developed democracy like Great Britain, there are legislations to control press when it comes to information regarding national interests and public morality. The Official Secrets Act, 1989, safeguards against leaking information with regards to national/states' interests. It has also legislated 1959 Obscene Publication Act, the 1984 Video Recording Act and established Broadcasting Standards Council in order to deal with the protection of public morality. Privacy law has also been enacted in this regard. In the same token, various countries have enacted Right to Information Act for the public/journalists to have access to non-classified documents of the government.

Democratic governments feel that press should operate within the guidelines provided by them. It is strongly felt that information regarding vital state' interests cannot be given away in the name of press freedom. The arguments seem justified. However, one needs to realize and internalize the full extent of the secretive nature of the governments. On many occasions, governments out of confusion or deliberately mix up national interests with their own political considerations, and try to suppress the information on former grounds that may have damaging political consequences. Such potentially dangerous situations have given rise to phenomenon like whistle blowing, which, on the hind side, may have negative impacts on the bureaucracy. Hence, though constitution grants freedom of press in liberal democracies, how much or how little freedom they should enjoy, has been an issue, and has been debated since the emergence of democratic order and the press. The issue, as such, is at the very heart of this perennial debate.

Photo: Gregor Schuster

In this context, recent divulgences of secret documents of various governments, especially the US government by WikiLeaks, have added a new dimension to the old debate. Through the disclosure of classified documents, the website has poignantly exposed democratic governments' activities that violated human rights elsewhere (of citizens of sovereign foreign countries) without any qualm of conscience proving that there exists a huge gap between their words and actions, imposition of their will on weaker countries demonstrating their disrespect for the sovereignty of others, and initiating uncalled for wars in far away lands- --all in the name of national interests, have created tremor in the developed democracies and world of journalism. The disclosures have been extremely disturbing. More disturbing has been that the actions taken by these governments were taken without the consent of their people, or in some instances, consent taken from the people by feeding them false information. Hence, the fundamental issues like democracy means people's government--a transparent government, in which people have rights to participate and know all the activities of their governments, have come under shadows. Questions have also been raised about the role of the press. Should the press expose the governments for taking actions without people's consent and maintaining secrecy in the name of state interest or should they maintain silence for the sake of same reasons though the decision were taken without peoples' knowledge and participation. Should the press demand more freedom in the context of these new avenues and expose governments' secret actions? How would the states respond to these challenges? The establishment people are naturally angry and want to bring Assange to the dock. But around the world, people have voiced their own preferences. They want more democracy, more transparency. The debate would undoubtedly continue. And no matter what happens to Assange personally, his demands for freedom of press in an era of information technology for greater transparency will forever the change the relationships between the governments and the press.

The writer is Political Analyst.