The elections (at least the voting part of it) may now be
over, and it is such a relief to see people (at least the ‘common Wanjiku’)
back to work, back to their daily hustles, awakened to the challenges of life
and a realization that political process are in many ways a gamble – a process
where upon lending your overt support (almost to the point of antagonizing your
very important shop keeper who faithfully sorts you our when the month hits a
“bad corner”) they now sit back and PRAY that; one, whoever they voted for will
actually deliver on their undertakings and pledges, and two which is even more important,
your shopkeeper will quickly forget all the bashing you gave him and happily
sort you out again.
Many countries the world over grapple with governments keen
on using their power to curtail media freedom or using their influence to
control what the public can have access to in terms of public information.
Thanks to a vibrant civil society such cases are on a decline and media houses
have been able to exercise their own self censorship in line with constitutions
and other related laws.
The pandemonium witnessed in 2007/08 led to concerted efforts
at soul searching to see what really ailed Kenya so much that it could all of a
sudden degenerate to such chaos, having consistently been praised as an oasis and
a hub in the region. A lot has been written and discussed on this but of
interest is the role the media played during this time, and how culpable they
were in whatever happened. Accusations of a biased media that blatantly
participated in inciting the public depending on their political inclinations
became part of the discourse.
Fast forward to the period leading up to the recently held
2013 elections and again the media would come into scrutiny. Elections are
ideally periods where a country does an evaluation of itself, how far it has
come, what strides it has made and what gaps it needs to fill going forward.
Elections in Kenya are however another opportunity to take sides and forget
(gold fish memory) that there is life prior to and subsequent to elections.
These elections were certainly huge for Kenya both in terms of evaluation as
well as way-forwardness. Evaluation in the sense that each of those
institutions that failed us five years ago would be scrutinized to ensure there
was no repeat. An evaluation about whether Kenyans had grown into a more cohesive
society, or whether the negative ethnicity had mutated into something worse,
something more dangerous. Indeed, a chance to ward off the 2007/2008
ghosts.
A look at the media in retrospect gives insight into this
evaluation. I read through three very interesting pieces that carried out this
evaluation. One was an article in the online edition of the International
Herald Tribunal titled ‘To Be Prudent Isto Be Partial’ by Michela Wrong (of the controversial ‘It’s Our Turn to
Eat’), the other was an article in The East African titled ‘Peace vs. Truth: A Story of UnnecessaryTrade-offs’ by L. Muthoni Wanyeki, while the last is a blog post titled ‘The Monsters under the House’ in
Gathara’s World. They all discuss an issue that has through silent consensus
become a taboo topic. The fact that the media made a deliberate decision to
give a black out on all news that would raise emotions – in effect blocking out
any and all voices either questioning the credibility or professionalism of the
electoral management and process. Muthoni refers to these actions as
‘trade-offs’ – sweeping critical questions and concerns under the carpet in the
name of peace. The famed #Kot were glorified for lambasting any foreign
journalist that seemed hell-bent on highlighting some negativity in the process
(case in point #SomeOneTellCNN). The acme of this trend was when CORD press
conferences including that of Prime Minister Raila Odinga contesting the
results and promising to seek recourse in court even as he urged the populace
to maintain calm, were given a blackout and cameras shifted to the victory
speeches of the President-Elect Uhuru Kenyatta.
Well, considering our history, Kenyans did have a point to
prove – both to the international community, but in my opinion more importantly
to themselves. And proving we tried to though in a way that this writing seeks
to question. Did we spend more time blasting foreign media at the expense of
scrutinizing our own processes to guarantee credibility? Were we so petrified by
the fear the outbreak of conflict making even issues that ordinarily ought to
be discussed out in the open taboo? Did the media have a right to give a black
out to public information – in effect carrying out an ‘erroneous analysis of
what threatens peace’? Isn’t true democracy characterized by openness and the
ability to access, hear out, take in or reject information in a mature manner?
Is it not illegal for a media, out to protect the country’s image, but mainly out
to absolve itself of any blame in the event that the country goes haywire, to
actively participate in depriving the public of information they ought to
ordinarily be disseminating?
These questions probably lead us to some very fundamental
questions. For example, who owns or has a monopoly over public information? If
indeed as per the Constitution the state holds public property in trust for the
people of Kenya, and if frequencies and licenses to publish are part of these
public property, and further if the state’s ability to lease out frequencies
and give licenses to private media houses subject to certain conditions, is as
entrusted to it by the people of Kenya, do these media houses have a
responsibility to disseminate public information in line with principles of
democracy as that which they disseminate is not theirs but they too hold it in
trust for the people of Kenya?
Would it therefore be safe to infer that the same way the
state can be held to account for omissions and commissions when dealing with
matters of public interest or concern, is the same way actions by the media
ought to be scrutinized not just for commission (as was the accusation is
2007/08) but also omission as has been witnessed in this election by their
failure to provide accurate information on the electoral process, in effect
hiding information they deemed was capable of provoking or inciting to violence?
The role and importance of the media in promoting and
widening the democratic space cannot be overstated and is protected by the Constitution.
Article 34 of the Constitution provides for freedom of the media and goes
further to mention the need to afford fair opportunity for the presentation of
divergent views and dissenting opinions in Article 34 (4) (c). However, is it
possible that we may have turned media houses into gods the moment we heaped
blame on them for what happened 5 years ago? Did the media this time round
actually “afford fair opportunity for the presentation of divergent views and
dissenting opinions” including a dissatisfaction with the management of the
electoral process by the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission
(IEBC)?
In an ideal democracy the media, free of state control or
influence from any other quarters, disseminates information. It lets a mature
public react to the information. It does not treat the public like a little
child, giving doses of information, or deciding whether it is time to wean the
public or not.
Understanding the context informing the actions of media
houses is important. The one media personality facing trial at the
International Criminal Court as a result of the post-election violence has not
been convicted, and therefore until that happens there might not be an actual-proven
link between the conduct of the media then and the resultant violence. It might
just be that there is no such link and the media suffered scorn and ridicule
for absolutely no reason.
However, the same way
the media houses will take stock of how they performed this time round, is the
same way the public with its varied and diverse opinions on media freedom and
responsible journalism will take stock to see how much the media participated
in the push towards an ideal democracy. Here is one such process.
My Take_
Comments
Post a Comment