July 8, 2007

The Right to Information and the Strengthening of

the Ministry of Information: Are They Incompatible?

By Tesfaye Habisso

habisso@yahoo.co.uk

"...The Ministry [of Information] has become the country's "information czar". This is a further instance of a step in the wrong direction....We call on the government, for the sake of the country, to repeal all the laws that give undue power to the Ministry of Information as well as to abolish the ministry and replace it with a strong institution that serves as its spokesperson."

                 [The Reporter, Saturday, July 7, 2007]

The Reporter's editorial of Saturday, July 7, 2007 ("Dealing a further blow to freedom of the press") reminds me of the peaceful struggle of the German free press waged in the 1960s against the setting up of the ministry of information by successive regimes of the time, charging that information ministries are "unusual in democratic states and, [if set up in Germany, might] strengthen tendencies aiming at infringement of the freedom and independence of the press." For the sake of information, let us reminisce this story in some detail: Under the Nazis, the German press was rigidly controlled by Hitler's ministry of information. In 1954, when Chancellor Konrad Adenauer's Christian-Democratic government announced plans to set up its own ministry of information, the free press of Germany howled objections. Political reporters banded together, passed a resolution vehemently condemning the plan of setting up the MOI (ministry of information). The uproar forced Chancellor Adenauer to call off his plans for the information ministry. Subsequently, however, the government quietly announced the formation of a "press coordinating committee" under Christian-Democratic Deputy Otto Lenz, who had been scheduled to head the original ministry of information. All over Germany, the free press locked arms to prevent the government from slipping through the back door what it had not succeeded in bringing in through the front.

 In light of the above story, The Reporter's critical comment on the gradual and detrimental erosion of fundamental rights and freedoms, including freedom of the press and the right to information, by the incumbent regime's recently promulgated laws and subsequent policies that are aimed at creating an "Information Czar", namely, the Ministry of Information, and the present government's alleged regression in terms of not fully safe-guarding and strengthening freedom of the press is rather amusing, thought-provoking and bold. But, I  would strongly argue that The Reporter's criticism should have been set in the context of Ethiopia of today, and not of tomorrow,  an underdeveloped country beset by abject poverty and massive illiteracy and struggling to emerge from the legacy of a century-old  absolutist and tyrannical rule by the so-called Solomonic emperors and the now defunct military junta and evolve to a democratic and developed polity, unlike Germany of the 1960s which was an industrially well-developed and democratic society, at the time leading many European nations in terms of economic development and democratic credentials. Be this as it may, many Ethiopians at home and abroad would challenge The Reporter's allegations of creating an "Information Czar" that would eventually stifle press freedom in Ethiopia. They would rather agree, I hope, that the present Ministry of Information has been, and remains to be, very weak and ineffective. So also, the private press. They would cite, for instance, the recent case where the Washington Post alleged that the Prime Minister of Ethiopia, Meles Zenawi, had publicly admitted making a grave mistake in sending his troops into Somalia. That piece of information was widely circulated and disseminated to all corners of the earth for well over a week, and some disappointed compatriots and neutral observers at the circulation of the wrong information even commented and wrote articles criticizing the Washington Post's irresponsible and false press report, before the Ethiopian government's Ministry of Information came out belatedly to denounce it as a fabrication and the twisting of the Prime Minister's words and to make the necessary corrections and clarifications. There were many observers at the time who asked themselves a simple question: Why did the Ministry of Information (MOI) have to take such a long time to denounce the misinformation and to disseminate the correct information? The obvious answer to all of us was that the MOI has been, and still is, indeed weak and ineffective as mentioned here above.

In the USA, for example, the Spokesperson for the President faces/confronts the free press quite regularly, sometimes daily; if not, twice or thrice every week. That way, he/she advocates, clarifies the President's position, or articulates the statements made by the President, or makes corrections or rejects some allegations that may have been fabricated by the various newspapers and other media, be it print or broadcasting media. A newly democratizing country such as Ethiopia cannot, and should not, be any different.

If truth is to be bluntly told and at the risk of inviting the wrath of my friends at the ministry, I dare say again that the MOI has been, and continues to be, pitiably weak and ineffective when it comes to disseminating relevant, timely and sufficient information to the general public and the free press regarding the government's many commendable achievements recorded over the last decade and a half in a number of political, economic and social areas, and what the regime has been, and still is, doing in terms of progress and development in all parts of the country. This may be considered by some cynical minds as "propaganda" for the government, but this is undoubtedly a very important function of the Ministry of Information (MOI). How else will/can the public and the free press be informed timely and correctly on pertinent issues of political, economic and social development and be able to evaluate the government's performance and to give it "good" or "bad" grades depending on its service delivery record if the MOI and the free press remain weak and inconsequential? How will the Ethiopian people insure their inalienable right to timely, correct and sufficient information/data in order to make informed decisions in the face of very weak and, most often, irresponsible private press bent on spreading rumours and hate propaganda instead of reporting well-researched and reliable information based on facts and figures, and abiding by media ethics that puts the public good as the number one priority and that serves as a voice for the voiceless majority of the nation? Strengthening the MOI as well as the private press by the present government must, I believe, receive enough attention and support, not sidelined. The government should stretch its 'helping hand' to the free press and not its 'craving hand' to punish and stifle them. Arranging appropriate training programmes for journalists in the area of responsible journalism and assisting them in establishing their own independent press council that would oversee and guide their journalistic outputs, condoning petty press offences and showing them the correct path in this regard instead of punishing them with exhorbitant fines or imprisonment, etc. could constitute some aspects of the 'helping hand' of the government [the MOI] in this area. Establishing another strong institution that will replace the MOI and  serve only as the government's spokesperson will not be able to tackle the immense responsibilities of the MOI that will include its role as the spokesperson of the present government and its additional duty of supporting and assisting the private press to grow to a truely responsible and reliable status and thus serve the public's genuine interests. Under the prevailing circumstances, to call for the abolition of the MOI is not timely and tenable, I am afraid. Though its demise may be necessary as we successfully complete our transition to and consolidation of democracy in this country of ours, I still strongly argue that the abolition of the MOI must remain as a project for the future and not a task that should be tackled head on now. Suffice it to say these words regarding The Reporter's editorial advocating for the abolition of the MOI, contending that the ministry is unnecessary and that it should be replaced "..with a strong institution that serves as its spokesperson", I think, a brief look at the significance of the right to information and the respect of fundamental freedoms and rights to building a democratic society in Ethiopia is in order. My arguments in this regard will be elaborated here below, preceded by a few worth-quoting national and international legal provisions:

* Supremacy of the Constitution [FDRE Constitution 1994, Article 9]

1. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Any law, customary practice or a decision of an organ of state or a public official which contravenes this Constitution shall be of no effect.

2. All citizens, organs of state, political organizations, other associations as well as their officials have the duty to ensure observance of the Constitution and obey it.

*Right of Thought, Opinion and Expression [FDRE Constitution 1994, Article 29]

1. Everyone has the right to hold opinions without interference.

2. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression without interference. This right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any media of his choice.

3.Freedom of the press and other mass media and freedom or artistic creativity is guaranteed. Freedom of the press shall specifically include the following elements:

4. Prohibition of any form of censorship.

5. Access to information of public interest.

6. In the interest of the free flow of information, ideas and opinions which are essential to the functioning of a democratic order, the press shall, as an institution, enjoy legal protection to ensure its operational independence and its capacity to entertain diverse opinions.

7. Any media financed by or under the control of the State shall be operated in a manner ensuring its capacity to entertain diversity in the expression of opinion.

8. These rights can be limited only through laws which are guided by the principle that freedom of expression and information cannot be limited on account of the content or effect of the point of view expressed. Legal limitations can be laid down in order to protect the well-being of the youth, and the honour and reputation of individuals. Any propaganda for war as well as the public expression of opinion intended to injure human dignity shall be prohibited by law.

9. Any citizen who violates any legal limitations on the exercise of these rights may be held liable under the law

.

*"Freedom of information is a fundamental human right and ... the touchstone of all the freedoms to which the United Nations is consecrated." - UN General Assembly Resolution 59(I), 1946 –

In Ethiopia and elsewhere, there has always been some tension between the need for openness and the desire for secrecy. The public has a legitimate interest in being kept informed about the activities of government, while government has a legitimate interest in withholding information in certain circumstances. Every government must indeed maintain a level of secrecy, but the contention has always been on the fulcrum that balances secrecy and civil liberty.

Globally, the advent of Information Communications Technology has led to diminished public tolerance of government secrecy. With this greater awareness of the public in the affairs of government comes the realization that in a parliamentary democracy such as ours, those elected to office to represent constituencies often do not fulfil their mandate. Voters who are tired of feeling left out of important policy decisions that fuel present moves towards a culture of voluntary disclosure by government and public authorities.

The importance of the Freedom to Information

Information is power. It is predictable, therefore, that those in authority will seek to manipulate others through the control of data. However, all information in a democratic society should be freely available unless there are specific, well-formulated reasons for withholding it in the interest of security.

The importance of freedom of information functions at a number of different levels: in itself, for the fulfilment of all other rights and as an underpinning of democracy. The importance of information is especially pertinent in Ethiopia, where secrecy of public information has for long been a rule and the free flow of information an exception, and thus has created a body politic that is by and large denied timely, correct and sufficient information to make informed decisions and thus sceptical of any information trickling now and then from the government and public authorities at the latter's whim.

It is as an underpinning of democracy that freedom of information is most important. Information held by public bodies is not only for the benefit of officials or politicians but for the public as a whole. Unless there are good reasons for withholding such information, all interested parties should be able to access it. More importantly, freedom of information is a key component of transparent and accountable government. It plays a key role in enabling citizens to see what is going on within government, and in exposing corruption and mismanagement. Transparent and open government is also essential if voters are to be able to assess the performance of elected officials and if individuals are to exercise their democratic rights effectively, for example through timely protests against new policies, or by using their vote against candidates who have indulged in undemocratic activity.

Freedom of expression and access to information is a fundamental right and must be held as a cornerstone of democracy. In its absence, government can, and often does, behave with impunity. It is argued, however, that it is not an absolute right - the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) for instance, specifies certain permissible constraints. One of these is the right of the state to withhold information 'for the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health and morals'. This is, however, pityingly and irascibly vague and provides many loopholes for governments to use this wording as a basis for restricting information that is inconsistent with their ambitions. For instance, it is now widely recognised that the Asian financial meltdown of the late 1990s was due in part to draconian censorship that prevented reporting on government corruption. (Indonesia and Malaysia are two good examples).

The public's right to know is an intrinsic part of informed public debate, which has traditionally been dependent on the freedom to receive and impart information without government interference. However, it may also be argued that this does not mean a right to receive any type of information from the government. It is of paramount importance that any restrictions on information or expression regarding security matters must designate in law only the specific and narrow categories of information absolutely necessary to protect a legitimate national security concern. A threat to national security can be defined as 'any expression or information that is intended to incite imminent violence, or is likely to incite violence. In addition, there must be a direct and immediate connection between the expression and the likelihood or occurrence of such violence'[The Johannesburg Principles, Article 19, 1995] .The public interest in having information at all times must remain a priority consideration in any freedom of information bill ( FOI Bill), and that any denial of this right be subject to independent review.

Along these lines, in a seminal judgement in 1982, the Indian Supreme Court held that, 'The concept of an open Government is the direct emanation from the right to know which seems to be implicit in the right of free speech and expression�disclosure of information in regard to the functioning of government must be the rule and secrecy an exception justified only where the strictest requirement of public interest so demands' [S. P. Gupta versus President of India and Others (1982) AIR (SC) 149, p. 234 as quoted in Freedom of Information as Internationally Protected Human Right by Toby Mendel, Article 19]. In this particular case, the Supreme Court held that where the non-appointment of an additional Judge for a further term was challenged, correspondence between the Law Minister, the Chief Justice of the High Court, the State Government and the Chief Justice of India should be disclosed.

Peace and the right to information

Media reportage of the political and ethnic conflicts in Ethiopia ( conflicts that erupt now and then between legal opposition parties and the EPRDF, and the long-drawn out low-intensity wars between the incumbent regime and other armed rebel groups such as the OLF, ONLF, ARDUF, EPPF, etc.) is often deficient and not well understood by the public. What are their agendas? Do we know their political programmes and visions for Ethiopia or their respective cultural-linguistic communities, as most of them claim to be national liberation movements? Why don't they pursue peaceful means of struggle, whatever their agendas and programmes may be?  Are they pushed out of the political process by the incumbent party and government or it is their considered option and choice to wage armed struggle because of irreconciliable differences between the former and themselves? Accurate reporting of the nature and raison d'etre of the conflicts is hampered by the absence of appropriate forums to the truthful information aired by all the protagonists and the warring groups as the latter are bent on achieving their objectives only through unconstitutional and violent means, and thus a reliance on statements only by the ruling party and government or the military, which are most often not trusted by the public at large, charging it as one-sided and biased at best and mere misinformation or propaganda at worst. This is comic to the extent that the public, whilst realising the questionable veracity of news on the conflicts, nevertheless continue to digest biased reportage as the 'Truth'. It is tragic to realise that it is this very inability to investigate the true nature of events that has led to a long-persisting and lingering schism and instability amongst the different communities of this country.

While recognising the need for confidentiality in some respects, the peace and dialogue efforts that we hear from time to time from those at the helm of political power and allegedly happening between the rebel groups and the incumbent party and government in Ethiopia must be transparent and inclusive of nationally renowned elders and other civil society actors . Peace and dialogue efforts and processes enshrouded in secrecy will only serve to fuel mistrust, suspicions and extremist opinions. The plethora of conspiracy theories in Ethiopia also stem from a dearth of accurate information regarding these non-transparent efforts and processes.

The Ethiopian people bear the human and financial cost of the conflicts, but government and military policies and practices regarding the conflicts are most often inaccessible to the public and remain largely shielded from public scrutiny and challenge, precluding citizens from participating in a meaningful way in promoting a solution to the conflicts. The Ethiopian people are thus unable to participate in the efforts or to pursue their legitimate right to monitor the said peace and reconciliation talks, challenge either party or parties for lack of political will or commitment to peace and reconciliation, or even to form opinions and political loyalties in an informed manner. It is also important to recognise that the freedom to information must not be a tool that is manipulated for the gain of one stakeholder.

The freedom of information, coupled with sound media ethics can buttress the peace and reconciliation efforts and the democratization process in Ethiopia by nurturing journalism of a stature that encourages the process of healing and reconciliation. While the process of negotiations and future peace talks must be as all-inclusive and transparent as possible to allay any fears and doubts of the legitimacy of the process, stakeholder opinion and interests must be portrayed in a dispassionate light that lends itself to critical examination. The public's right to know is predicated upon the belief that the free flow of information helps inform public opinion and debate. The government must, in the present instant, make sure that its interests are made public and its position regarding the future course of a resolution to the conflicts made clear. The government must also encourage the process of inter-communal understanding by highlighting the real needs and aspirations of those affected by the conflicts.

Fundamental rights and freedoms as conditions for sustainable democracy

It is a well recognised principle that one of the conditions for the existence and sustainability of a democratic society is respect for fundamental rights and freedoms, and among these freedoms, freedom of expression is considered the most precious and, indeed, the very foundation of such a society. But in newly democratising societies such as Ethiopia, media manipulation often plays a central role in promoting nationalist and ethnic conflict, and thus, promoting unconditional freedom of speech and expression and public debate in such societies is, in many circumstances, likely to make the problem worse. Historically and today, from the French Revolution to the Rwanda Genocide, sudden liberalizations of press/media freedom have been associated with bloody outbursts of popular nationalism. As Vera points out, "the most dangerous situation is precisely when the government's press monopoly begins to break down."[Van Evera, "Hypotheses", p.33; Human Rights Watch, Playing the "Communal Card", p. VIII]. He further states: "During incipient democratization, when civil society is burgeoning but democratic institutions are not fully entrenched, the state and other elites are forced to engage in public debate in order to compete for mass allies in the struggle for power" [ Van Evera, Ibid, p. 33]. Under those circumstances, governments and their opponents often have the motive and the opportunity to play the nationalist/ethnic card.

When this occurs, unconditional freedom of public debate or free speech and expression is a dubious remedy. "Just as economic competition produces socially beneficial results only in a well-institutionalized market-place, where monopolies and false advertising are counter-acted, so too increased debate in the political marketplace leads to better outcomes only when there are mechanisms to correct market imperfections" [R. H. Coase, "The Market for Goods and the Market for Ideas", American Economic Review, vol. 64, No. 2, May 1974, pp. 384-391]. Many newly democratizing states such as Ethiopia lack institutions to break up governmental and non-governmental information monopolies, to professionalize journalism, and to create common public forums where diverse ideas engage each other under conditions in which erroneous arguments will be challenged. In the absence of these institutions, an increase in the freedom of speech and unconditional public debate can create an opening for ethnic demagogues and nationalist mythmakers to hijack public discourse.

One of the most critical problems in many new democracies around the world today is the absence of an independent and responsible media that enjoys reasonable financial and political independence. Another problem is that journalists who once had to toe the single-party line equate independence with opposition. Because they speak out against the government, they say they are independent and fail to realize that they have just traded one affiliation for another. There is little room for untarnished truth in a partisan press. Of utmost necessity, therefore, is that objectivity is not at all a luxury in societies that have only recently begun to enjoy the freedom to voice their independent opinions without any fear of  reprisal from government, although journalists in emerging democracies are constrained by lack of professionalism and financial resources. Whatever the case, there is a need today--perhaps more than ever before-- for true journalists to identify sense amidst the nonsense, to sift the important from the trivial, 'the grain from the chaff', so to speak, and yes, for telling the truth to serve the public good. These goals still continue to remain the best mandate for free press and independent mass media in a democracy worthy of the name.

The need of the hour

 The need of the hour is for government (and civil society) to realise the undeniable importance of the freedom to information and respect for fundamental rights and freedoms to building and sustaining a stable democratic society. Among these freedoms, freedom of expression is considered as the most precious and, indeed, the very foundation of such a society. It must also enact the proper legislation that enshrines these rights and freedoms. At the same time, it must not allow such legislation to exist merely on paper. The existence of rules that establish mechanisms for obtaining information cannot be assumed to work, even if they have constitutional status. The problem is not what the law says, but the extent to which it is being implemented. To animate the culture of any such legislation will require great political courage and skill, especially in a country not used to a free-flow of information. As one of the stated aims of the present government is good governance, the right to information and freedom of expression has to be recognised as a cornerstone of any such reform. It is necessary to promote a culture of accountability, and also to expose malpractices and corruption. There is no guarantee that the mere introduction of FOI legislation will overnight change the political culture of Ethiopia. Nevertheless, the accessibility of information pertaining to public authorities is a guarantee that public authorities will be held accountable for their decisions.

Final Thoughts

There is some consensus, even among those who most vigorously support the right to information, that there are categories of information that will always require protection and will never be part of the public domain. But this only makes up for a small portion of the data that is part of government. A key issue in this regard is how to determine the criteria that will guide decisions on what data will remain classified and what will be publicly released. A change of mindset is necessary here -- from a militaristic possession of information, to a more benevolent government, which treats all information as a catalyst that informs public debate and opinion. What is needed in Ethiopia is the right to information entrenched in every single ministry and public authority -- a culture that facilitates the disclosure of information by handing out relevant information to citizens in the vernacular. The public in turn must learn to translate information into knowledge, and thereafter, how to use this knowledge to best effect.

Also alarming is the belief that the West is a tabernacle of faultless governments, where FOI legislation has been passed without any hindrance. This has not been the case in the US, where many Federal authorities have been very reluctant to declassify documents despite efforts to expedite the process by former President Bill Clinton. In the UK, Tony Blair, though overtly in favour of the Freedom of Information has nevertheless made the actual application of legislation difficult. These should not be taken as excuses for Ethiopia to be pessimistic or lackadaisical in its own legislative thrusts for the Freedom of Information and Press /Media Freedom. While lessons must surely be learnt from the experiences of these countries, the government must realise that there really is no alternative to the introduction and application of FOI legislation.

What the present government must also realise is that democracy is quintessentially about the adherence of government to the will of the people. This basic accountability is impossible unless the present government not only champions FOI legislation and press/media freedom, but also commits itself to open and transparent governance. What is needed now is a spirited, informed public that creatively and constructively engages with government in policy making and a government which treats the right to information and freedom of expression as the bedrock of good governance working together to forge a better future for Ethiopia. All the spectacular gains recorded in the area of press/media freedom over the last decade or so and the right to information must further be strengthened and institutionalised, and not eroded through promulgating unfavourable laws and consequent rules and regulations that might undermine the constitutional guarantees accorded to the right to information as well as  press/media freedom in the FDRE Constitution of 1994. There will, and should, never be any turning back to the ugly past of yesterdays.