Radio Silence

Next week, Governance Village will be spotlighting Sierra Leone, which is a region that has surfaced here often in our discussion of media development.

In recent days, the Concord Times in Freetown published an interesting piece that appears to be written by Sierra Leone's police force, in response to an earlier article the newspaper ran about the state of journalism in the country (That original piece was highlighted on this site, here).

The article by the police force is interesting in a number of ways, but namely because it takes a fairly high-minded approach to the topic, from quoting Napoleon to discussing the merits of journalistic theory in developing countries.

I quote at length from the piece because it's so interesting:

"There are two distinct schools of thought on how the Press should play this watchdog role.

The Totalitarian School sees the press as being part of the machinery of Government. Its duty is to inform citizens about the policies and programmes of Government and to mobilize the citizens to support the realization of such policies and programmes. The Press under, believes this theory, does not see or report anything adverse about Government. Under the Totalitarian School, private individuals are not encouraged to own newspapers, radio or television. It is therefore easy for the Press to do what it is told since journalists are state employees.

The Liberal School sees the Press as the custodian of public trust. Its responsibility is to constantly search for and expose the misdeeds of public officials. It mobilizes people to protect their rights, and nudges the society towards rejecting prejudices which hinder its progress. Under the Liberal School, private individuals are allowed to own and operate newspapers, radio, and television alongside Government, which also operates its own media. The individual is then free to choose what view to accept or reject. The press under this school is said to be a market place of ideas.

Some intellectuals and statesmen have argued that the Liberal Press System is not suitable for developing societies. In their view, the Press serves as a catalyst to divide the society and dissipate its energy, which is best, harnessed for developmental purposes. They see the Totalitarian system as being more ideal because it focuses on what should be done not what is wrong. They argue that it is supportive of the society rather than disruptive.

Having weighed carefully the merits and the demerits of the two schools, it has been accepted that the Liberal School, despite its handicap, is the best for the long term development of society. But I realize its disruptive potential. If not properly managed, it can be a license for anarchy. It is this fear more than anything else which is responsible for the friction between the Police and the Press in many developing countries which operate the Liberal press system."

Rarely would any country anywhere expect to bear witness to journalistic theory coming from the state's police force (the piece, at least as it appears on allAfrica.com, is unsigned but my attribution to it as being written by the police force comes from this line: "Even though, generally we (the SLP) enjoy a very good relationship with the Press...". "SLP" is the country's police force).

The discussion of the media's role in developing countries has of course surfaced elsewhere.

In the years following the Rwandan genocide, that country's president Paul Kagame has argued that the media in Rwanda must be carefully watched and in some cases controlled given the role it played in inciting violence during the genocide (read about that role here).

More about the controversy surrounding press freedom in Rwanda here, here and, going back a few years, here.

Journalists perceived to oppose Kagame have been attacked by the government (Reporters Without Borders in 2007 listed Rwanda as 147th out of 169 countries for freedom of the press) and The Economist recently concluded that Kagame "allows less political space and press freedom at home than Robert Mugabe does in Zimbabwe."

Despite the many who criticize actions against freedom of the press in Rwanda, some support the notion that the control is necessary.

In a 2007 essay in the New York Review of Books, Kagama biographer Stephen Kinzer wrote:

The editor of an independent newspaper, Shyaka Kanuma, who is the only Rwandan to win a Nieman fellowship to study journalism at Harvard, told me that for years he saw Kagame as "a power-hungry, self-serving guy," but has now changed his view. "He has weaknesses, he has authoritarian tendencies, but he's good for our country," Kanuma said. "Some of the things he did to suppress opposition were necessary. We have people in our country who would do absolutely anything to get power."

The tales of Sierra Leone and Rwanda are interesting. Both display elements of the two schools of thought outlined in the Sierra Leone article.There are of course many, many variables that differentiate the two countries. But both countries are emerging from significant instability (Sierra Leone's civil war and the Rwandan genocide followed by its conflict with the DRC and Uganda), and they each seem to have taken different tacts, at least in some respects, towards freedom of the press and the media's role in re-establishing long-term stability.

Perhaps as Governance Village turns its attention to Sierra Leone, we can use that as an opportunity to explore media development in that country and how it has evolved since 2002.