By Isaac Mwanza

“I treasure the fact there’s media freedom, but with that goes responsibility. I think that there should be a self-regulatory organisation and that they should start to think about standards…” ~ Ray Dalio

[Continued]

There are times when the media itself noticed or notices that it could have strayed in the manner of reporting information, sometimes to the extent of unjustly destroying people’s lives. No one took responsibility. Those are times that call for the media to be held answerable to the public that it serves and to itself.

The flimsy argument that when one is aggrieved by any misinformation or action of by the media, the aggrieved party must approach the courts of law for redress, fails to take into account the fact that some damage cannot be atoned in form of court awards.

What is more in Zambia is that it is a very costly and painfully slow process to get justice from our courts of law. Certain transgressions committed by journalists and the media do not need to reach our courts of law if they can be resolved through a competent authority within and among the media itself, away from the courts.

However, the question of media accountability has, for decades now, remained conceptually unresolved and an implementation nightmare.

A difficulty in resolving the issue of media regulation arises from the fact that there has been a lack of adequate understanding of media accountability and government draftspersons responsible for crafting a regulatory framework have not acted with honesty but have instead opted to make provisions that puts government in control of the media, in the same way they have managed to do so with NGOs, or may criminally penalise journalists.

Insights from scholars suggest that media accountability is a process, one that compels the media to conform to certain uniform standards which society expects from them and can therefore hold them answerable to those standards. Conformity can either be voluntary or involuntary.

Such accountability implies that the media and media practitioners, like lawyers and legal practitioners, become answerable to the profession for the truthfulness, quality or consequences of what they publish.

Media accountability thus requires some form of regulation which binds all media houses and practitioners to the same ethical standards and possible civil sanctions such as compensation, retraction and binding apologies, for violation of those professional standards without exclusion. And therein lies what has been a challenge on the model of regulation that achieves such accountability.

WAY FORWARD ON MEDIA REGULATION

Essentially, the media landscape in Zambia can be regulated in three ways.

1. Self-Regulation

First, there is self-regulation, which media owners in Zambia seem to prefer; this method is where the media draw up their own regulations and take full responsibility for monitoring compliance with those regulations through a media council.

This type of media regulation can only be effective if it binds all media owners and media practitioners to these regulations. Where it becomes voluntary to belong to the media council and there are no consequences for disregarding the findings of a media council, as it has been done in South Africa, this type of regulation is as good as no regulation at all.

2. Statutory Regulation

The second means of regulation is statutory regulation in which the State sets the relevant legislative or regulatory rules and monitors and enforces compliance in a transparent way. This author does not support this form of regulation.

In an environment like Zambia, where the media, in its duty to hold politicians and government and private officials to account and to expose evils in both government and the private sector, thereby clashing with political interests, statutory-regulation of the media is a very dangerous trap for media houses.

Politicians use and abuse the power conferred on them by statute, to make rules and monitor compliance which can silence the media.

3. Co-Regulation

The last model of media regulation is referred to as co-regulation or self-regulation backed by statute. This is a hybrid form where self-regulation ultimately is back-stopped by statutory regulation.

Writing in the Canadian Journal of Communication on the role of press councils in a system of media accountability, Pritchard asserts that the essence of accountability lies in naming, shaming and claiming, which essentially means identifying a problem, naming the offending media, and claiming apology or compensation.

Media regulation is enforced by law, rules or procedures and varies across the world. These regulations exist to protect freedom of expression and media freedom and to regulate media markets, ownership, infrastructure, standards and, most importantly, to protect public interest such as media pluralism and diversity.

Since 1973, the co-regulation model for the legal profession in Zambia has worked very well as it has allowed the profession itself rather than government to set and enforce the rules, demand compliance and punish those who fail to abide by the standards.

The fact that it is involuntary means that everyone in this profession ought to abide by those standards. No one can practice law without being regulated by the professional association for lawyers.

This author strongly recommends that the media in Zambia, should consider going that route and that government must support the self-regulation of the media which is backed by statute, not by the Bill which has been adulterated by government drafters but the first draft by the media itself must become the basis of discussion.

Media co-regulation has also been effective in Kenya. It has given the media itself full control of the rule making function, enforcement and sanctioning. Government ability to interfere in the independent functioning or operations of the media, is stopped by the law itself.

In neighbouring Zimbabwe, the media had also agreed to co-regulation of the media at the Kadoma Writeshop under the leadership of the Media Institute for Southern Africa – Zimbabwe Chapter (MISA Zimbabwe). This led to the generation of the Media Practitioners Bill which was to establish the Zimbabwe Media Practitioners Council as the first entry point for lodging complaints against the media.

The Zimbabwean media had envisaged a framework whose key principles included inclusivity, recognition for diversity, a unified code of ethics and standards, professionalism and media accountability.

Both the regulation of NGOs and the media must follow the model that empowers these sectors to truly self regulate although protected by statute. NGO and media co-regulation should not include provisions that have an effect of entrenching subtle statutory regulation or just be a form of piecemeal reforms that fail to address long-standing contestations against statutory regulation.

CONCLUSION

Access to information and media regulation (including regulation of other key institutions) are inter-linked. Access to Information will allow the media and citizens generally to access information held by government. Just like any other human right, access to information comes with responsibilities.

Media regulation is meant to achieve accountability of the media in performance of its function to receive, disseminate and impart information to the public. When considering the model of regulation, the author believes that statutory regulation should have no place in Zambia, as it may be used to silence or even to kill the media.

On the other hand, self-regulation which is not compulsory for the media and media practitioners, and whose rules and sanctions are non-binding or can be ignored, does not achieve anything at all. It is the firm belief of this author that the media in Zambia can replicate the self-regulation which has been used by the legal profession in this very country and is in use in Kenya, to get the desired result.

Self-regulation of the media which is supported by a law binds every practitioner and the media itself, prevents or stops government interference in the media, and does not criminally penalise journalists and media houses for human lapses while promoting compulsory accountability for the media and media practitioners to itself and society, is the way to go.

[For any contribution, write to [email protected]]

By Henry Kyambalesa

The term “socialism” is generally used to refer to an economic and political ideology whose premise is for state ownership of non-human means or factors of production and distribution, and centralized planning and control of economic activities, particularly activities in key and strategic commercial and industrial sectors of a country’s economy.

The means or factors of production and distribution alluded to include land and the various forms of capital, such as raw materials, financial assets and institutions, manufacturing facilities, assembly plants, machinery and equipment, transportation facilities, service centers, and retail outlets.

In socialist countries, therefore, some elements of private ownership of the means or factors of production and distribution are permissible, particularly in non-strategic commercial and industrial sectors of such countries’ economies.

There are many socialism-related issues and risks associated with propositions and pronouncements by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels in the Manifesto for the Communist Party which cannot only scare or fan away private investors but prohibit them from investing their capital in a country whose economy is, by design, based on socialist ideals, or a country that has political parties which have the potential to secure the people’s mandate to form government.

Such issues and risks include the following:

(a) Eradication of what the duo referred to as bourgeois competition;

(b) Abolition of free trade and of buying and selling of commodities;

(c) Abolition of private property and replacing it with communal control of a country’s national economy through nationalization or expropriation of such property;

(d) Nationalization or expropriation of privately owned business entities and conversion of such entities into state-owned enterprises; and

(e) Imposition of price controls, which require business entities to charge prices prescribed by the government for their products irrespective of the costs associated with the creation of the products.

As commonsense and observation have taught us, international trade and private investment are two vital drivers of both economic growth and economic development. Clearly, therefore, countries that actively and zealously participate in cross-border trade and simultaneously create a conducive and hospitable environment for private investment, among other pursuits and endeavors, have a much greater chance of improving the livelihoods of the majority of their citizens.

In practically all affluent nations of the world today, privately owned and operated business undertakings are the major institutions that are in the forefront searching for efficient and effective ways and means for application in the creation and delivery of a cornucopia of high-quality goods and services at competitive prices.

In these nations, business entities are greatly depended upon to keep the stream of discoveries flowing in the form of consumer goods and services.

We, for example, know too well that the affluence being enjoyed by citizens in such countries as Canada, France, Japan, Great Britain, and the United States today is the direct outcome of a relentless quest for new and improved forms of technology in agriculture, agribusiness, commerce, and the manufacturing industries by privately owned and operated business entities.

Naïve socialists and communists worldwide are likely to point to China as an excellent example of a communist country whose economic outputs have continued to flood the entire world unlike any other country in modern history.

In this regard, News China (2019:1) in an editorial has summed up the actual reason for the country’s economic success in the following words: “China’s economic success in the past decades has been established on the premise of a liberalized and vital private sector.” And Chinese President Xi Jinping affirmed in a meeting on November 1, 2018 that the Chinese government will support the private sector to become bigger and stronger.

Private investors in the Chinese economy include indigenous capitalists and investors from a wide range of countries, including Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America.

As I noted in a previous article entitled “The Privatization of State-Owned Assets Explained,” what has happened to countries worldwide whose economies are, or have been, based on socialist ideals, should offer us guidance. In the following paragraphs, I have re-cited examples of socioeconomic ills associated with government ownership of the means of production and distribution.

(a) Cuba: The country’s economy is dominated by state-run enterprises. The government owns and operates most industries in the country. The country is currently experiencing the worst economic crisis in its history. Akin to Zambia’s unpalatable experiences during the late 1980s when the country’s commercial and industrial sectors were captained by state-owned enterprises, stores in Cuba no longer routinely stock products including eggs, flour, chickens, cooking oil, rice, powdered milk, and ground turkey.

These basic commodities disappear from shops for days or weeks. Hours-long lines appear within minutes of trucks showing up with new supplies, and shelves are often empty the same day.

(b) East Germany: East Germany had a command economy—an economy captained by State enterprises. It experienced economic problems similar to those experienced by other socialist countries worldwide. Prior to the end of World War II in 1945, a War that started in 1939, East Germany and West Germany were one country. After the War, Soviet forces occupied eastern Germany, while French, British and U.S. forces occupied the western half of the country.

The Berlin Wall was constructed by East Germany with the help of the now-defunct Soviet Union in 1961 to prevent the socialist country’s citizens from escaping to the more affluent and democratic West Germany.

At least 171 East Germans were killed trying to defect to West Germany, while more than 600 border guards and 4,400 other refugees “managed to cross the border [illegally] by jumping out of windows adjacent to the wall, climbing over … barbed wire, flying in hot air balloons, crawling through … sewers, and driving through unfortified parts of the Wall at high speeds”—History.com Editors, 2019.

The introduction of perestroika and glasnost in the former USSR by the Mikhail Gorbachev administration in 1987 and the eventual break-up of the USSR on December 26, 1991 occasioned the dismantling of the Berlin Wall, which separated communist East Germany and capitalist West Germany, in November 1989 and eventual reunification of the two countries into a united capitalist Germany upon the signing of a reunification treaty on August 31, 1990.

(c) Venezuela: Shortages of regulated food staples and basic necessities are widespread mainly following the country’s enactment of price controls and other socialist policies. The severity of the shortages has led to the largest refugee crisis ever recorded in the Americas. There are shortages of milk, meat, coffee, rice, oil, precooked flour, butter, toilet paper, medicines, and personal hygiene products.

Hours-long lines have become common, and those who wait in them disappointingly go back to their homes empty-handed. Some citizens have resorted to eating wild fruit and garbage.

The country has been governed for the past 20 years by the socialist PSUV party. From 1999 to his death in 2013, Hugo Chávez was president. He was succeeded by his right-hand man, Nicolás Maduro. During its two decades in power, the PSUV has gained control of numerous key economic institutions.

On September 24, 2019 in a speech delivered at the United Nations General Assembly in New York, Jair Bolsonaro, then President of Brazil, uttered the following words relating to the socioeconomic ills facing Venezuela: “It is fair to say [that] socialism is working in Venezuela—they are all poor.”

(d) Zimbabwe: The economic history of Zimbabwe began with the transition to majority rule in 1980 and Britain’s ceremonial granting of independence. The new government under Prime Minister Robert Mugabe promoted socialism and Marxist-type rule. Within 20 years, the country has had unprecedented socioeconomic woes, rampant corruption and political instability, which have continued to haunt the country to date.

Note: In October 2001, Zimbabwean president, the late Mr. Robert Mugabe, stunned the world by abandoning his country’s economic liberalization efforts. News headlines in this regard were self-explanatory: “Mugabe Returns Zimbabwe to Socialism” (Independent Online, 2001) and “Zimbabwe a Step Closer to Marxist-Style Economy” (Independent Online, 2001).

(e) The Soviet Union: The Soviet economy was based on State ownership of the means of production and distribution. In May 1985, newly “elected” Mikhail Gorbachev delivered a speech in which he publicly criticized the Soviet Union’s inefficient socialist / communist system.

This was followed by a February 1986 speech to the Communist Party Congress, in which he talked about the need for political and economic restructuring (that is, Perestroika) and called for a new era of transparency and openness—that is, Glasnost.

It was reasoned that the lack of open markets which could have provided price signals and incentives to direct economic activity led to waste and economic inefficiencies. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) ceased to exist on December 31, 1991.

By Isaac Mwanza

“Who are to watch the watchmen? The people themselves.” – James Mill

[Continued from yesterday]

More than ever before, we live in a time when the role of media is high on the public agenda, criticism of the media is in abundance and the spread of fake news is on the rise, not only in Zambia but in most parts of the world where the media is considered to be free or independent. Questions have arisen as to how free or independent the media is, when its output does not differ from what is put out by the government’s own information outlets, such as government spokespersons.

This scenario raises the question of how to make the media accountable through some form of regulation, with the bigger question being, to whom should the media be accountable?

ATTEMPTS ON MEDIA REGULATION

In the mid-to late 2000s, efforts were made to work out mechanisms for media self-regulation by both the Media Ethics Council of Zambia and Zambia Media Ethics Council (ZAMEC). Unfortunately, these attempts at media self-regulation, were unsuccessful.

This had the effect of opening the way to a hybrid co-regulation also referred to as statutory self-regulatory framework which the media has now opposed because of the manner the original draft bill drafted by the media itself has been adulterated by draftspersons at the Ministry of Justice who have provided for criminal sanctions.

It must be understood from the beginning that co-regulation, also referred to as statutory self-regulation, is a framework which allows the media to self-regulate but is backed by statute that binds everyone to such regulation. An example of a statutory self-regulatory framework is that of the legal profession in Zambia through the Law Association of Zambia, birthed by an Act of Parliament.

Further attempts by the State to pass legislation to regulate the media, were thwarted by the vigilant private media which effectively used the power of the pen against government’s moves in that direction.

Recently, efforts have been made by the media itself, led by the Media Liaison Committee, to draft its own self-regulatory bill along similar lines to statutory self-regulation of the legal profession in Zambia, through the Law Association of Zambia and Legal Practitioners Acts.

According to information available in the public domain, the Ministry of Justice re-drafted the Bill which was proposed by the media itself, making it unacceptable to media owners.

The 1973 LAZ Act, although drafted during the one-party era, is a model of a successful statutory self-regulatory mechanism that gives the legal profession to control or self-regulate itself, rather than the government. This author is of the view that this is the model which should be pursued by the media and NGOs, for many obvious reasons.

However, the history of statutory regulation of the media through the Independent Broadcasting Authority as well as regulation of NGOs through the current NGO Act not only show weaknesses in statutory regulatory mechanisms, but also exposes what has been termed as the insatiable appetite by the State to regulate and control both the media and civil society.

The media has justifiable grounds to reject a Bill which has deviated from the original statutory self-regulatory process which was envisaged when the media had itself drafted and provided government with the draft bill.

The inclusion of criminally punitive and draconian clauses in the draft bill as well as bringing on board public officials on the media regulatory board and council should be rejected. But that said, a common ground can be achieved, and government must not be rigid.

SHOULD ZAMBIAN MEDIA BE REGULATED?

In Zambia, the media has been instrumental in the people’s quest to realise and exercise the right to freedom of expression which is protected by Article 20 of the Constitution.

Most importantly, the media has played a crucial role in holding politicians and other state officials accountable. Accountability of the executive, legislature and Judiciary to the people from whom the power they exercise is drawn, cannot be attained without a media that is free but also accountable.

It is therefore important that the public also holds to account, both media institutions and individuals such as journalists who monitor the state. Both must be held accountable for their stories, words and actions.

The media, while serving as autonomous agents of accountability, are themselves not immune from operating within the parameters of accountability based on ethical principles and standards.

The media space in Zambia and worldwide is being invaded by people with no training in journalism, media ethics and practices. Some of these people who own and control media outlets purportedly edit the professional work of trained journalists and dictate what information must be fed to the public, against the professional works done by journalists.

In this scenario, professional media ethics are sacrificed. French communication scholar Jean-Claude Bertrand wrote:

“For the past twenty years or so, I have been studying media ethics issues. And it has become clear to me that the survival of humanity depends on it. More clearly, this survival depends on the generalization of democracy; there can be no democracy without freedom of the press; this freedom cannot survive without deontology. When media freedom is abused out of an exaggerated desire for profit and the public is then poorly served, user discontent can be used by governments to restrict freedom.”

It is important that citizens not only trust the news media with truthfulness in reporting and unbiased coverage but also hold the media accountable for the information that it feeds them, Bertrand thus points out the delicate balance of media freedom as a privilege as well as a responsibility.

When such a balance is upset, the role and capacity of media to support the country democratic development becomes at risk. On the other hand, a high level of media accountability may lead to a high degree of citizens trusting the news media.

[To be continued on Monday]