Why is the freedom of the media important?

Why a free press is so important

By Chang Noi

Why is the freedom of the media important? Is it just a principle for the sake of principle? Or is there a practical value?

Consider this recent report: "The children and grandchildren of politicians are noted for their opulent and vulgar lifestyle; many are simply criminals. Most politicians have something to hide; hence the guilty are not fearful of being caught by other politicians. They also have become disdainful of public opinion, which they see mainly as a problem of media management."*

The passage is not about Thailand. It was written about India and the Surendra Kumar Jain corruption scandal.

Jain became one of India’s richest contractors and businessmen by systematically bribing politicians on a massive scale. He kept a record of all his bribes, and by chance these fell into the hands of the police. Still, nothing happened for almost four years. Only when a TV journalist publicised the story and petitioned the supreme court, did things begin to happen. Now 42 politicians and bureaucrats, including seven Cabinet members, are under charge for accepting large bribes from Jain. And more cases are expected.

Only when a TV journalist ....

The famous political scientist, Samuel Huntington, has a very simple definition of American democracy: "a way of preventing any individual or group from achieving too much power". Parliament was first invented in England to prevent the king spending tax revenues without any control. The US constitution was devised to check the power of both politicians and bureaucrats.

Democracy has arisen because, as the saying goes, "power corrupts", so we need a system to check and limit power.

Thailand has a tradition of authoritarian rule - first under absolute monarchy, later under military dictatorship. The new elected politicians are not very enthusiastic about limiting this authoritarianism. Instead they try to keep it intact, and grab it for themselves. Elections do not act as much of a check on the abuse of power. And parliament only does to a limited extent.

That is where the media have come in.

Thailand’s press has a long tradition of acting as a "public court" to expose the abuse of power. The press first became important in the 1920s when it expressed a growing popular feeling that the old absolute monarchy needed to be controlled. It was bottled up again through the long period of military rule. But it emerged again in the 1970s to articulate criticism against military dictatorship. Since then, the press has gradually grown into its role as a public watchdog.

From the early days of radio in the 1930s, government understood how much more powerful electronic media are than the printed word. They made sure radio and later TV were under close government control. But from the mid-80s, the drive for press independence filtered into the electronic media. Individual programmes tested the possibilities for airing independent views.

Now Thai politics sometimes seems to be just a procession of scandals - over share fixing, illegal land deals, vote-buying, stealing trees. That is because those in power consistently try to take advantage of authoritarian power, and the media offer one of the few ways available to oppose them. Because police, judiciary and other forms of check are so often ineffective against the politically powerful, the media have become a final court of popular appeal.

It is not necessarily a very just or effective court. Journalists can get things wrong. They too can be manipulated and bought. The press has no weapon of authority except public shame. And most politicians have developed thick skins and a very limited sensitivity to shame. I did not buy the votes, somebody else did. The gift cheques were repayments for loans. It’s a coincidence so much of the land is owned by my relatives. And so on.

The media may not be very effective, but right now they may be the best form of democratic limitation we have got.

The unmasking of the Jain scandal in India was the joint work of TV journalism and the judiciary. The media made the issue public. The supreme court took up the issue and charged the politicians. Now the public is praising the judges as defenders of morality and democracy.

The Jain case is following a pattern similar to the recent "Clean Hands" saga in Italy. There, a single case about political corruption was taken up by both press and judiciary, and snowballed into a massive political house-cleaning.

This same combination of media and judiciary may not work here. India’s powerful supreme court was inherited from the British tradition of separation of powers. The Italian magistracy also has a tradition of independence from politics. In Thailand, the judiciary has rarely shown much independence. Most see it as just another part of a single government machine.

But there is a small glimmer of hope in the Buriram election case. Initially the police decided that 11 million baht and stacks of candidate cards was not sufficient evidence of vote-buying. They dropped the case. But the press continued to focus on the issue. And eventually the Office of the Attorney General launched charges.

Of course the case may still fail. This is still a long way away from the Jain scandal or the Clean Hands saga. But it is a start.

So in the end, the issue of media freedom comes down to this. If we feel confident about those in power, if we think the current limits on power are sufficient, then maybe the freedom of the media is not so critical. But if we like Huntington’s definition of US democracy as a system for limiting abuse of power, and if we have doubts about the effectiveness of other limits, then maybe media freedom is very important to us at this moment. Very important.

[* Ashis Nandy in Newsweek, 4 March 1996.]

Source : The Nation , April 1, 1996