.The UN Sec Gen.'s Message

.World Press Freedom Day 2009(Nigeria) Final Statement

THE ROLE OF THE MEDIA IN FOSTERING DIALOGUE AND MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND THE PEOPLE

KEYNOTE ADDRESS BY THE SPECIAL ADVISER TO THE PRESIDENT (MEDIA AND PUBLICITY), MR. OLUSEGUN ADENIYI AT THE CELEBRATION OF WORLD PRESS FREEDOM DAY IN LAGOS, MONDAY MAY 4, 2009

 PROTOCOLS

I am indeed very delighted to join you all at this distinguished gathering to celebrate the World Press Freedom Day. I am also honoured to have been asked by the organizers to present this keynote address on the role of the media in fostering dialogue and mutual understanding between government and the people.

Having been privileged to work for many years as a reporter, columnist and editor before taking up my present appointment as Special Adviser to the President on Media Affairs, and having always been on the side of the people, I believe that I can safely say with all humility that I have gained very useful insights on this subject over the years which I will be delighted to share with you today.

A little over ten years ago, Nigeria used to be one of the global dark spots for press freedom. It was an era when many journalists were detained, forced on exile and jailed for plotting coups with their pens. Some, like my friend, Bagauda Kaltho, did not even live to tell the story as he was made to disappear without trace even up to this day.

In the midst of all this madness, the resilience of the Nigerian journalist came to the fore as many resorted to what was then described as ‘guerrilla journalism’—or if you like hit-and-run journalism—with all the attendant dangers to themselves and their families.

While celebrating the progress we have made on this front over the years, we therefore cannot but salute the efforts and sacrifices that Nigerian journalists have made in advancing the cause of democracy and freedom in our country, right from the decolonisation era to the present. Neither should we forget that we must remain eternally vigilant.

As we gather here to mark the World Press Freedom Day, I bring you the goodwill of President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua who not only recognises and respects the importance of the work of the media, but is also interested in empowering practitioners to discharge their constitutional responsibilities under section 22 of the 1999 Constitution. That explains why he has continually reiterated his commitment to the Freedom of Information Bill which he has pledged to assent into law once it is passed by the National Assembly.

Distinguished ladies and gentlemen, in the last few weeks, a couple of issues have gained prominence in the public domain. The most significant one is the Federal Government White Paper on the report of the Justice Muhammadu Uwais-led Electoral Reform Committee set up by President Yar’Adua to assist in actualising his desire to reform our electoral system. As the debate generated by the White Paper raged, the court-ordered Gubernatorial re-run elections in Ekiti State was conducted.

Unfortunately, the election slated for 63 wards in 10 local government areas became a difficult task for the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) because of the activities of the principal actors in the yet-unfolding drama who are not ready to play by the rules. These two interwoven issues of national importance which have been given prominence in the media best exemplify the growing culture of discourse in our country, a culture that is increasing public scrutiny of the activities of government and its agencies.

This is a good development essentially because it is helping to nurture a basic culture of democracy: freedom of expression as a bulwark against dictatorial and authoritarian tendencies. It also shows the increasing conviction of the media that it has a fundamental role in promoting public participation in the formulation and implementation of public policy. This second part of the development is the central theme of this year’s World Press Freedom Day: Potentials of the media in fostering dialogue, mutual understanding and reconciliation.

The diversity of our nation and the limited resources available to government to meet the competing needs for growth and development of all parts of the country as well as individual and group aspirations has constantly generated conflicts that have taken several forms. In the process of moderating these interests, however, a lot of forces--political, social and economical—often exert pressure on the government and compete rigorously for space and advantage. One of the platforms commonly used for the expression of these interests is the media because of its capacity to influence public perceptions and opinions.

Herein lays the significance of the media which needs to understand that in order for it to impact positively on public policy it has to moderate debate of issues in a fair and balanced manner. This is particularly important because the media as a market for the interplay of ideas and opinions serve as a veritable means which the governments gauge public opinion in the formulation and implementation of public policy.

Broadly speaking, students of journalism are taught that the role of the mass media is to inform, educate and entertain. It is within this ambit that we can situate dialogue between the government and the people and the role of the media in fostering it. It is also in recognition of the vital importance of this role of the media that the right to freedom of expression and the press is enshrined in Section 39 of our 1999 constitution.

When we talk of dialogue between government and the people we do not of course mean only dialogue in the traditional sense of two persons or groups sitting down to discuss an issue. Such dialogue does indeed occur occasionally between government and the governed but not on any sustainable or regular basis.

 What we mean essentially is a structured engagement in which both the government and the media are held accountable by the public whose interest they seek to promote. This kind of structured dialogue is central to nation building, democratisation and development. And the government of President Yar’Adua is ever willing to collaborate with the media on this onerous task.

The reality of life today is that almost everyone, governments and government officials included, get much of their information about the world and events in their environments from the media. Governments, of course, have specialized and other unique sources of information available to them, but when it comes to keeping abreast with public opinion and getting instant feedback from the people for their actions or inactions, there is still a great reliance on the media.

 It has therefore become a key function of the media in all modern democracies to provide the primary platform for constant dialogue between the government and the people. The dialogue we speak of goes on in this way: Government communicates its policies, programmes and actions to the people through radio, television, newspapers and the internet which has revolutionalized modern day communications in ways that were unimaginable not too long ago; the people ingest the information coming from government through the mass media and send a feedback by way of expressions of public opinion.

Since various channels exist today for this constant, never-ending dialogue between governments and those they govern, virtually all government departments and agencies maintain public communication units such as the one I head in the Presidency.

We strive to fulfil this responsibility by doing our best to place government’s intentions, motives, actions and justifications constantly in the public domain and ensuring that the President and other key officials of government are kept informed of the public’s responses and reactions to its actions and management of national affairs. 

Since the issue before us today is how the media can foster this very important dialogue while promoting mutual understanding between government and the people, I must highlight a few critical challenges which impinge on the capacity of the media to play that role. One, there seems to be a narrow definition of government which many see as interchangeable with the executive only.

Indeed, one common feature of media engagement in our country today is the disproportionate interest in the presidency which the public is erroneously made to see as symbolising the totality of government, especially at the national level. Thus the presidency has come to bear the yoke of an unfair and very large share of blame for all the failings of other agencies and institutions of government who can then eat their cake and literally still have it.

Another major challenge is the emphasis that is most often placed on conflict between arms of government and within different segments of the society rather than in fostering productive collaboration and peaceful co-existence in the interest of the people. A glaring example today is the reportage of the Niger Delta crisis which often appears as glorifying violence and criminality.

While government recognizes the need for more openness, transparency and accountability in the conduct of public affairs, there is also the need for concerted action by stakeholders in the media to entrench and enforce greater respect and adherence to the rules and ethics of the journalism profession. It goes without saying that for the media to function effectively as a means of communication between government and the public, greater effort must be made to ensure that their contents are factual, credible and unbiased.

The feedback role of the media therefore imposes a responsibility on it to, as much as possible, give equal opportunity to contending views and ideas so that the public can have balanced information that will form the basis for rational choices. Indeed, the media could do more in explaining society to government and vice versa, and here I mean not just those with access and privilege but the entire society.

 This is why President Yar’Adua places a very high premium on the media as a significant vessel for reaching the people. This also explains why a couple of weeks ago he directed all ministries, departments and agencies of government to open up and ensure that information of public interest is quickly released to the media for the benefit of the citizenry.

This open information policy underscores the understanding of the President that government needs the media to explain its policies and programmes to the people whose mandate it holds. It also demonstrates his expectation that the media will use its vantage position to collate divergent public views so that government can constantly review the efficacy and acceptability of its policies.

To be able to foster dialogue among different segments of the society and between government and society, the media must not only be ready to rise above the fray but also must be ready to adopt a posture that facilitates dialogue which means it should have the capacity to hold all sides (not just the government) to account, to question received wisdoms and to engage in consensus building.

The danger of the media failing to serve as a fair and objective platform for public policy discourse lies in its capacity to create a crisis of confidence between the government and the people. If the media skews the basis of a government policy, it undermines the ability of the people to appreciate it and, therefore, attracts opposition to it. A similar thing will happen if the media misrepresents public opinion on government policy.

The misrepresentation of the position of government on issues of public importance also results in the conclusion by the populace that it is insensitive to public opinion.

 The two issues earlier cited are a clear demonstration of this state of affairs. President Yar’Adua had upon ascension to office on May 29, 2007 acknowledged the imperfections in our electoral system and had pledged to reform it. His objective is to deliver a just and equitable electoral system that will guarantee the sanctity of the ballot as the true expression of the will of our people.

As a demonstration of his faith in the need for a credible electoral system, a few months into office, he called a meeting of all the governors of the 36 states of the federation and appealed to them to ensure that as they prepared to organise local government elections in their states they allowed the will of the people to prevail by protecting the sanctity of the ballot. He followed this up in December 2007 by setting up a committee to review the electoral system and recommend ways of reforming it. The committee headed by respected Justice Uwais and comprised of prominent Nigerians, submitted its report and recommendations earlier this year.

After three meetings, spanning over 30 hours, of the Federal Executive Council, the government issued a White Paper which accepted more than 90 percent of the committee’s recommendations and disagreed with only three of them. In refusing the three recommendations, the government explained that one of them violated the doctrine of separation of powers among the executive, the legislature and the judiciary in a democracy; the other undermines the authority of the judiciary which should be insulated from partisan politics; while the last one could adumbrate the fundamental right of a petitioner who has been accused of criminal wrongdoing.

 In most reviews of the government white paper, the impression being created is that the committee was set up to look into these three issues only. The justification for this view is that the three recommendations rejected by the Federal Executive Council and subsequently by the Council of State represent the fundamental factors that impede the exercise of a credible election. Yet we know that this argument merely reinforces the view of opposition politicians who themselves, as senior government officials in the recent past, showed no commitment to electoral reform.  

The position of government is that the independence of INEC is not necessarily vitiated by the executive input to the nomination of the electoral body but by the integrity of the nominees as well as the funding of the body. This is why the government accepted other recommendations of the committee which aim at restoring the integrity of INEC officials by reducing the influence of the executive on the body.

Aside many other far-reaching provisions in the seven Bills sent by the President, the reform now seeks to strengthen the independence of INEC by granting it financial autonomy as its funding will be a first line charge on the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The exercise will also provide additional sanctions for persons convicted of electoral offences by declaring such convicts unfit to stand for election for ten years.

Yet the practical implication of media review of the white paper on electoral reform is the general impression created that the government is not committed to electoral reform without presenting any facts upon which to base this kind of premeditated conclusion beyond what some politicians say.

Similarly, the impression created by some opposition politicians whose views are lavishly aired by the media that the Federal Government is responsible for the situation in Ekiti State is erroneous as there is nothing directly linking either the President or the federal government with the crisis contrived by desperate politicians who see politics as a do-or-die affair.

My critique of the media which is generally reflective of its attitude to the analysis of several policies of government, however, does not vitiate its significant role as a veritable tool for the dissemination of official information required by the public to access the performance of government and its officials.

As I pointed out at the beginning, Nigerian media practitioners, despite the constraints we all face, have done a lot in the promotion of the kind of dialogue we are talking about today. Many practitioners have also paid the price and some are still paying the price in the process of promoting dialogue. But we can still do more.

The point being made here is that the media needs to be more rigorous in its interrogation of government policies and public reactions to them. This can only be achieved if the media go beyond the surface and dig more into the fidelity of claims by the government as well as that of its critics, all in the protection of public interests.

I thank the organisers of this event for the opportunity given me to reflect with you on this important role of the media in shaping the kind of constructive dialogue that in turn help to strengthen institutions as well as deepen democracy in our beloved country.