The Observer (Kampala)
James Tumusiime
2 July 2008
Amid talk that the government is seeking to rein in media through tougher laws; on Thursday, June 19, the United States Embassy hosted a dialogue of media practitioners at its Chancery in Nsambya to discuss press freedom. On this occasion, The Weekly Observer Managing Editor and Uganda Newspaper Editors and Proprietors Association (UNEPA) Interim President, JAMES TUMUSIIME, presented a paper on press freedom and democracy. Below is the paper in full:
I would like to talk about the relationship between press freedom and democracy in light of recent concerns that the government is trying to initiate measures to rein in media that they consider "irresponsible" and "telling lies".
My view is that often, politicians and even journalists make the mistake of looking at press freedom in isolation. To me all freedoms are intertwined. You can't claim to love FREEDOM and hate PRESS FREEDOM. You can't claim to be a freedom fighter and hate press freedom. You can't claim to advocate freedom of worship and hate press freedom. You can't claim to love democracy, perhaps the greatest of freedoms, and hate press freedom!
Because of the fallacy of looking at press freedom in isolation, many people make the mistake, again, of thinking that press freedom is a matter for the journalists alone. That is a grave mistake. Because freedoms are intertwined, losing one is likely to lead to losing the others. So when politicians look on as press freedom is being curtailed, or even advocate and abet such action; when intellectuals look on as media freedoms are being curtailed, when religious leaders look the other way as media is being gagged; they are forgetting [the Runyankore saying] that oruri ahambwa nirwo ruri aha muhiigi (the fate of the dog is intertwined with that of the hunter)!
Speaking up
Nazi Germany's Pastor Martin Niemoller captured this most succinctly:
"First, they came for the Communists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Protestant. Then they came for me and by that time there was no one left to speak for me.
Every one runs to the press at one time or another, so we must guard its freedom jealously. All of us. And one would expect politicians to know this more than anyone else. A former Vice President in this country was an avid critic of The Monitor during its early days, claiming that the paper was funded by 'enemy' Sudan, which was totally unfounded. The bosses had just bought a few second-hand cars, which gave him the audacity to say; "You see, where did they get the money from if they are not being bankrolled by Sudan?"
But when he was sacked over the radio, something he clearly didn't like, a couple of months later he would be seen trekking upstairs with he help of his walking stick to meet [then Monitor Editor-in-Chief] Wafula Oguttu to pour out his heart to him; lamenting on a lot of things, including being 'idle and disorderly' in his new office.
Faced with mafia
We don't have to look further. When the Vice President, Prof. Gilbert Bukenya, was pushed against the wall by the "Mafia" in government, to use his words, where did he go? To Daily Monitor! That much maligned enemy paper! How did Yoweri Museveni seek to draw attention to his guerrilla movement when he was in the bush? The media! At that time it was okay for newspapers to 'promote' a rebel group. However, a couple of years after he assumed power, a journalist was hounded out of the country for interviewing rebel Herbert Itongwa! And you all know what the anti-terrorism law prescribes for reporters who interview rebel leaders! So, if you like us when we tell your story, why don't you like us even when we tell others' stories? It should be some kind of unconditional love.
We must avoid being influenced by the few times journalists have offended us in our desire to see press freedom curtailed. Our 'fly on the wall' in one of the Cabinet meetings that discussed curbing press liberties told us that ministers known to have had bad press at one point or another were more interested in taking a hard line position, while those who have had relatively good press coverage saw no problem at all. But how can a country make laws on the basis of an individual's sentiments?
Also, we need to understand that media is not made up of angels. As one veteran Tanzanian journalist Generali Ulimwengu said recently, "There is nothing inherently virtuous about journalists; there's nothing inherently vicious about journalists. But there are good and bad journalists, just like there are good and bad politicians." And when bad journalists join bad politicians, the results are terrible!
So when politicians or other people get angry with journalists, it's normal. Don't we get angry with our wives/husbands? Must we divorce? Don't we at times get angry with our religious leaders? Must we become atheists or stop going to the Mosque?
Irritant press
It's the same with democracy. When you seek to build a democratic culture, you accept that sometimes the majority will make a decision that you don't like, but you must accept it nevertheless.
Similarly, when you believe in press freedom, you must accept that sometimes newspapers [or radios] will carry something that you don't like. Should that blemish alone erase all the good things that the media stands for? There was a mayoral election in this city two years ago, and most of the urban elite wanted a different candidate from the one who eventually won. Hard to take as it must have been for the losers, democracy prevailed. Should we give up on democracy because of such setbacks?
We must admit that democracy, and all freedoms in fact, come at a cost. Someone recently commented that what takes the United Kingdom 10 years to build takes China just two. In the UK, a new project will be subjected public discussions, strict parliamentary scrutiny, etc. Those who followed the heated debate about Heathrow's Terminal 5 know what I am talking about. But in China, it will be an order; if the government wants to build a fly-over that splits your house into two, that is it. But should we now jump onto the China model because of this little luxury that they seem to enjoy?
In other words, we need to look at press freedom with broad lenses. Politicians and other people who find problems with the press need to look at press freedom as a prerequisite of democracy and all freedoms, and look at the annoying aspects of press freedom as the cost that must be met for the sake of a greater good.
That means the politicians must believe deep inside that indeed press freedom is an indispensable value. Politicians like Nelson Mandela who once said that even bad press is better than no press at all. Politicians like Thomas Jefferson who said that given a choice between a government without free press and free press without government he would choose the latter!
But are we seeing that in Uganda? No.
My impression is that President Museveni embraced press freedom [and later democracy] not because he really appreciated or believed in it, but because it was the fashionable thing to do. He was under self-imposed pressure to be different, to stand out from the crowd, to cause a fundamental change. Now that the honey moon is over, he seems to be thinking twice.
I wouldn't be surprised if some elements in his government are regretting having pushed for media freedom at that early stage. They are admiring governments that are ruling without having to bother about this irritant called media. I am reliably informed that an official delegation recently traveled to China to study how the Communist government there controls media. I am only wondering why they had to go that far because there is a country in our neighbourhood which they could have learnt from!
And the same applies to democracy. We love it, we like to sing on top of mountains that we practise it, but we can't really stomach it. In fact, the President was very candid on this matter when he said that his government adopted multi-partyism to enable some people quit his Movement, and also because of donor pressure.
Yet for these freedoms to thrive, you need to believe in them.
When you believe in them, you are more willing to accept their flaws. Don't accept them only when they seem to be favouring you. A democrat at heart accepts that democracy has its cost, but recognises that the good outweighs the negative. A real democrat accepts that press freedom has its risks but recognises that the good outweighs the negative.
But what did we hear from our President sometime back? "If you had elected those killers, we'd have gone back to the bush"! Similar talk has been heard in Zimbabwe. It's a typical case of wanting to have your cake and eating it. You want to be known internationally as a democratic country, but you don't want to practise it. You want to be seen to be organising elections, but you are neither willing nor ready to lose them. When I was at Makerere University I belonged to a hall of residence known as Northcote. Our motto was, "We either win or they lose".
Animal Farm
With this kind of mentality, journalists are good as long as long as they write nice things about you. When it turns negative in your view, they are bad, fit to be guillotined. The double standard doesn't end there. Army officers shouldn't get involved in politics, but when they get involved on your side, it's ok, it can be ignored. If they get involved against you, they get court-martialed. Religious leaders shouldn't engage in or talk politics; but when they do in your favour, it's understandable; if they do against you, they are out of order! Traditional leaders are apolitical, but if they must get political, it had better be on your side, if not; they become enemies. This is Animal Farm politics!
In a nutshell, I am saying that press freedom must be institutionalised. It must not be based on the goodwill of an individual because that is not sustainable. He or she can withdraw it anytime. The freedom we enjoy today, albeit its limitations, is a donation from President Museveni. Thanks to him. And I say this with all sincerity. But I believe there are ministers in his government, and even politicians in the opposition, who would not stand even half the freedom Museveni has donated, if they were in charge. They think the man is mad to allow newspapers to run cartoons of him with his head looking like a spear! So what happens when Museveni goes tomorrow? Or when he wakes up on the wrong side of the bed?
That is why press freedom should be a culture, not a conditional offer. Yes, there will be fears about irresponsibility but these can be handled at another level. Through civil litigation or an independent media council.
Let me end by addressing myself to media responsibility.
Mediocre scribes
I would like to make it clear that nothing I have said here justifies irresponsibility, telling of lies or sheer incompetence on the part of Ugandan media.
I must say with pain that at times we in the media have been our worst enemies. When you have someone looking for an excuse to hang you, the worst you can do is hand him a rope. In my language they say, "even if a snake doesn't bite, you don't force your finger down its mouth".
When we get little things wrong; when we fail to live up to our professional ethics; when we don't do adequate research, when we are sloppy or incompetent; we are handing the hangman a rope.
We might look at government as an obstacle but I personally feel that the biggest challenge facing Ugandan media is low quality journalism. The industry is simply not attracting and retaining the best (the reasons for this are subject for another presentation altogether). Our newsrooms have too many mediocres and mediocrity is one way of handing the hangman a rope!
Media owners need to invest in good quality journalists. I know it's not easy. It's not cheap. But there is no alternative. Doing that is one major way of denying the hangman a rope.
I have always felt that one good thing about media in Uganda today, notwithstanding all the negative things I might have said, is that when you get things right, when you are accurate; fair, balanced; you give yourself a good chance (a good chance is not insurance enough, but it's something) of handling any possible repercussions.
Besides, we are lucky to still have a judiciary that generally believes in press freedom. That is why I started by saying that all freedoms are intertwined; we thus must fight to preserve judicial freedom and independence because when it is encroached upon, press freedom too will be suffocated.
Be the first to Write a Comment!
Copyright © 2008 The Observer. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
