Media Reform

Democratizing the Media, Democratizing the State

Monroe E. Price, Beata Rozumilowicz, Stefaan G. Verhulst

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2003
• Print ISBN: 9780415243537
• eBook ISBN: 9781134544356
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Media Studies
• Index: Social Sciences

Using examples of media from a range of countries in Latin America, Europe, Asia and Africa including Uruguay, Poland, China, Indonesia, Jordan and Uganda, Media Reform considers the social and cultural implications of a free and independent media.

1
DEMOCRATIC CHANGE
A theoretical perspective

Beata Rozumilowicz

Before proceeding to the individual country analyses, it is necessary to delineate a number of key conceptual tools that underwrite any study of the role of media in its impact on democratic values. This chapter first surveys the definitions of concepts such as “democracy” and “media reform” and explicates the conceptual link between them. Second, it examines the impact of such definitions upon the general framework of the study in order to underscore their normative implications. The chapter then sets out a hypothetical model of media reform and democratization that posits a series of “stages of transition” during which different aspects of the media reform come to the fore and are addressed as primary concerns.

Theoretical background: the impact of media reform upon the process of democratization

What does “democratization” imply?

In order to understand the relationship between media reform and its role in promoting practices which are more democratic, the terms being used must be defined. In particular, the process of “democratization” implies progress toward some ideal of democracy and a clear delineation of the concept must be made.

Any definition of democracy, however, is certain to be contentious. Should the definition be substantive and include factors such as citizen empowerment, inclusiveness, and representativeness or should it be merely procedural (that is, taking account of open and transparent elections, changeover of governments, equal voting rights, and so on)? Further, is democracy a universal principle that allows individuals to generalize cross-culturally or is it an inherently liberal ideal that is unlikely to transfer without problems?

This is not to say, however, that no definition should be attempted. Rather, the difficulty inherent in such an attempt should heighten awareness of the problems encountered by previous studies and provide impetus toward greater precision in defining terms. Choice of terminology should also encompass theoretical and empirical arguments for the favored interpretation. The various interpretations of leading political scientists in their understanding of the term “democracy” are presented in chronological order in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1 Comparative definitions of democracy

Many authors have remarked upon the fact that civil and political liberties such as freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and freedom to organize are all elements that are necessary to ensure the integrity of political competition. This in turn supports more democratic outcomes (Bollen 1990; Diamond et al. 1990; Gastil 1993). Through the use of advanced statistical methodology, however, other authors have shown that these freedoms co-vary and correlate with general levels of democratic competition. As levels of democracy increase, levels of civil and political liberties do so too (Hadenius 1992; Vanhanen 1996). To date, however, the directionality of the causal effect has remained unverified.

Table 1.1 highlights two indispensable aspects of an operational definition of democracy. In the first place, competition among political actors is necessary to ensure a meaningful choice for the electorate and to promote the accountability of representatives after they are elected. In the second place, participation is necessary in order to ensure that those making the choices within a competitive framework are themselves representative of the larger political community.

If democracy is understood as the institutionalized diffusion of political power in a society and its allocation to specified agents via the explicit choices of that society, then both competition and participation are intrinsic to this deliberative process. In light of this definition, for a development to be characterized as a democratizing “media reform,” it must contribute to a more competitive or participatory political system as well as to the institutionalized diffusion and fragmentation of political power conferred by the electorate upon a chosen group of representatives.

The role of media should not be restricted to this, however, and a reforming media system can do more than contribute to the advancement of a more democratic political order. It can support economic structures by providing greater information on products and services and promote enhanced societal understanding via access to information regarding myriad societal groups (religious, cultural, and so on). This observation leads to a further quandary regarding the connection between democracy, economics, and society.

The roots of democratization

Since the conclusion of the Second World War, numerous political scientists have explored the prerequisite conditions that contribute to the development and consolidation of democratic political systems. Correlations have emerged that link democracy to capitalist systems, literacy rates, Protestant populations, economic trade with the United States, and military expenditure, among others (Hadenius 1992). By far the clearest correlation which has emerged, however, has been between democracy and economic development or modernization. Although authors generally recognize that additional factors may contribute to explaining residual variation in prospects for democracy, the onus has fallen mainly on economic development and modernization.¹

This conclusion implies that the prospects are bleak for those hoping to further democratic government with little or no power to influence economic development. The findings of one author, however, lead to the possibility of more optimistic expectations. Tatu Vanhanen (1996) has found that it is not so much economic development, per se, which influences the prospects for democracy, but rather the way in which this economic development is distributed. In nations where a variety of social and economic goods were more equitably distributed among a number of social groups or classes, prospects for democracy were greater. In countries where these economic, intellectual, and social “powers” were concentrated in the hands of a single or a few such groups, democracy failed to thrive.

Intuitively, this finding makes sense. Social or class groups which have managed to gain a hegemony of economic or social power are likely to use these advantages to consolidate political power in order to ensure their predominance. This has clear implications for the role that media play in supporting democracy. Before addressing this question, however, the concept of “media reform” must first be examined.

“Free and independent media” and the process of media reform

In the process of media reform, the general assumption is that media should progress ever nearer to an ideal of freedom and independence and away from dependency and control. Scholars generally argue that a media structure that is free of interference from government, business, or dominant social groups is better able to maintain and support the competitive and participative elements that define the concept of democracy and the related process of democratization.

Free and independent media, however, are not a good in themselves, but only in as much as they support other, more intrinsic values and goals (that is, democracy, a particular economic structure, greater cultural understanding, general human development, and so on). In a certain sense, free and independent media buttress these greater societal objectives and are, therefore, subordinate to them.

The development of free and independent media has traditionally been linked to freedom of expression, viewed both in democratic theory and practice as an intrinsic and universal human right. Yet, as T. M. Scanlon has stated, “to analyze the freedom of expression […] we need to identify the values it seeks to protect” (1990: 335). It is not enough to posit freedom of expression as a teleological good without further examining its function in human life.

In the first place, expression and communication are aspects of “humanness” that require actualization and, in certain ways, a human life is not fully realized unless it can express and communicate its state, concerns, and interests. In media development, this concern has given rise to a dual and dialectic process. On the one hand, the freedom and independence of media are necessary so that individuals can find a public forum in which to express opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints to their fellow humans. On the other hand, the freedom and independence of media are needed to inform, entertain, and thereby enrich human life through the profusion of others’ ideas, opinions, and visions.

Both aspects are seen as vitally important to the functioning of democratic government and democratic institutions. Without ample expression of options, choices become limited or stunted and, without adequate information, meaningful decisions cannot be undertaken. A subsidiary issue, however, which arises with the delineation of “free and independent media,” is the question of free and independent from whom or what.

In the classical conception of media as the watchdog of democracy, freedom and independence were related directly to governance. In order to provide the public with adequate information to make decisions as well as to ensure a forum for the development of ideas and options, it has been felt that state monopolization of media sources must be limited. Therefore, media have been relegated to the competitive market with the understanding that economic criteria of access should prevent tyranny of opinion. Although some scholars have supported other solutions (such as public ownership models), market mechanisms have predominated in most discussions of democratic transitions.

Yet, many theorists have argued that the market introduces its own prospects of tyranny. Modern technologies have led to circumstances in which media are central to an ever-greater degree, and media monopolization is an increasingly significant threat. Modern societies can reasonably question whether media dominated by the market offer the depth of information and the plurality of options necessary for democratic government to thrive.

Transitional societies may further experience control of their national media by certain social or cultural elites. This can limit the access to these sources for minority social and cultural groups. In this case, to ensure democracy, it is important to ensure access to those less privileged.

How does one support the other?

It seems that the essence of media independence and freedom lies in its non-monopolization, whether by the government, the market, or by dominant social forces. This observation also links into Vanhanen’s conclusion cited above. Namely, it is not so much the modernization of societies that leads to democracy as the way in which goods are distributed between different social groups. Consistent concentration of resources in the hands of one group seems to be antithetical to the development and consolidation of democratic forms of government.

If this observation is accepted, the conclusion that follows is that societies should be structured in such a way as to assure a demonopolization of media sources. This will ensure the freedom and independence of media, and thereby promote competitive and participative democracy. For media to become truly free and independent, a nation’s legal, institutional, economic, and socio-cultural arenas must all support this diffusion of control and access.

In this context, independence can mean either private or public ownership (or mixed ownership), depending on outlook, predisposition, or predilection as long as demonopolization is assured. This also affects the role of media as government watchdogs. Although some have theorized that media can only be free if there is both a party in power and an effective opposition to provide a useful critique of the government in power, it is possible to accept that independent media exist in a state that has a dominant political party, as long as access and voice are equally distributed both on paper and in practice. This conclusion forms the benchmark of what this study considers “free and independent media.” Specifically, free and independent media exist within a structure which is effectively demonopolized of the control of any concentrated social groups or forces and in which access is both equally and effectively guaranteed.

Ensuring this media structure must happen at two levels. On the one hand, the rule of law is necessary to establish effective guarantees of this freedom. Without an adequate legal structure, no examination of media can take place and no recourse for those who find themselves disenfranchised is available. On the other hand, substantive guarantees of this freedom may arise...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Tables
• Contributors
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• 1. Democratic Change: A Theoretical Perspective
• 2. China: Media Liberalization Under Authoritarianism
• 3. Uzbekistan
• 4. Indonesia: Media and the End of Authoritarian Rule
• 5. Bosnia-Hercegovina and Post-Conflict Media Restructuring
• 6. Media Reform In Jordan: The Stop–Go Transition
• 7. The Partial Transition: Ukraine’s Post-Communist Media
• 8. The Current State of Media Reform In Uganda
• 9. The Disenfranchised Voter: Silences And Exclusions In Indian Media
• 10. Media In Transition: The Case of Poland
• 11.Media Reform In Uruguay: A Case Study In Mature Transition
• 12. Conclusion