Media Policy, Peace and State Reconstruction

"Should media freedoms be an essential aspect of peace building, or does peace building necessitate the restriction of dissent - in other words, censorship?"

This 20-page paper describes and assesses the current prevailing liberal policy towards the media's role in "peace-making" and "peace-building". In brief, the authors argue that laissez-faire policies towards media development in societies that are in the process of resolving violent conflicts are unlikely to be the best option. While recognising that proposing censorship is problematic and controversial, the paper argues that there have to be restrictions on material that is divisive and inflammatory.

In an opening section of the paper, the authors defend their claim that the capability of the media to inflame hatreds and promote violence has been relatively well documented. Nevertheless, they suggest, the ways in which a media environment can be either constructed or regulated to promote peace have yet to be sufficiently explored. For this reason, there has yet to be a consensus on what should comprise "best practice" in peacebuilding media policy. The ideal of press freedom becomes complicated in the face of improvisation on the ground level and circumstances that are very different from one country to another.

Next, the authors comment briefly on various developments in Ethiopia, South Africa, and Uganda, where - in their assessment - efforts have been made to move beyond the simplistic free/unfree dichotomy, and local governments have sought out alternative ways of conceptualising relationships between the media and state during complex transitions. For example, in Ethiopia: "While the effects of the Proclamation to Provide for Freedom of the Press has yet to be properly assessed, the debate the government has facilitated about media responsibilities and the limits to what is acceptable to say, may not be misplaced. It may indicate that things are less simple than has been asserted, and that this government is struggling to come to terms with a free media environment by trying to create a viable framework in which it can operate, without undermining the overarching agenda of re-invigorating the Ethiopian state."

In a final section, the authors advance the following arguments:

1. "...[T]he prevailing approach to media development is indicative of the broader ideological liberal approach to political development and is thus vulnerable to similar criticisms. Developing an open media environment, like other liberal projects, requires the presence of a strong state which includes, among other features, a well functioning legal and judicial environment."
2. "...While almost everyone is beginning to accept that markets have to be regulated, and that state institutions have to be strong for them to work effectively, the need for checks and balances in transitioning countries continues to be under-emphasised. This is partly because a free media continues to be considered by many journalists and NGO's [non-governmental organisations] as a human right.
3. "...The...tendency of journalists and human rights organisations to ignore the local realities and rather push their own 'international justice' agenda may be counter productive. While the media and human rights organisations have effectively lobbied, particularly in weaker states, against the use of state constraint they have similarly divorced issues of media liberalisation from the political context....Given the complexity of political transitions and state reconstruction it would be unfortunate if viable local alternatives were not explored or tolerated because they may possibly contradict some of the expectations or standards of rich countries..."
4. "...[W]hatever the rhetoric about promoting freedom of expression, the situation on the ground is often muddled, contradictory and sometimes hypocritical. In places like Iraq this has been at least partly because US [United States] and other occupying troops from rich countries are themselves vulnerable to attack and have thus been inclined to shut down media outlets. But more generally, concerns about hate speech are supplanted in initiatives to create a space for promoting news manipulation..."
5. "...[I]n instances when more institutionalised mechanisms that may exist in rich countries are either not present or functioning properly, explicit constraint may be required. When this is necessary, a crucial issue is by whom?...One possibility is the establishment of a United Nations global media watchdog that could serve as a central component to ensure standards and procedures are adhered to and to prevent abuse. Monitoring, however, must be done according to certain accepted principles and undertaken in such a way that is not seen as simply reflecting the values and interests of the world's rich states. The proliferation of Truth and Reconciliation Commissions (TRC) offers a possible analogy for establishing a media oversight body with both local and international credentials..."

In concluding, the authors reiterate their purpose: to question the underlying assumptions of the liberal approach to media in peace-building environments. "It is our hope that future initiatives will be characterised by a greater focus on holding local strategies to account rather than the continued imposition of rich country strategies."