Theorising media-democracy

Theorising media-democracy

in African conditions

Definitions: (methodology)

• Two institutions: Media & Democracy– But historically specific forms– So look at processes & functions.

• African democracy vs Western?– Apples & oranges should still be “fruit”, not

vegetables!• Can compare Africa to “Normative Ideal”

– But try to explain, not merely describe, the deficit

Universalisable categories

• Democracy– Majority principle, – Equal rights,– Associated principles (informed voters, rule of law,

human rights, checks and balances, nation state).• Media

– Vehicle or carrier of signs,– Radio, tv, etc.,– Inc. fashion and …. mass rallies, songs,

meetings.

Conventional wisdom

• Liberal pluralism view of media-democracy: – Media role as independent watchdog for citizens

= fairness for competing political parties, esp at elections.– This role is normally held up as the ideal “Standard”.

– True, we can measure deficit/shortfall in Africa …– but that does not explain why media is falling short,– and it doesn’t question the adequacy of the

“Standard”.

Conventional wisdom

• Assumptions underpinning liberal pluralist view of media and democracy.– Democracy is about elite parties & elections, period. – We can classify media systems according to the Standard

role of independent watchdog:• Liberal, social-responsible, authoritarian, communist

– “Liberal pluralism role is operational in First World”– Dense media system.– Media should (and can) be neutral and pluralistic.

• All these assumptions can be criticised – esp from the point of view of media-democracy in Africa.

Other paradigms

• Public sphere – diff assumptions to lib pluralism– Democracy = open to all (not only to

political & economic elites and political parties); not only at elections.

– The state has to operate in regard to public opinion.

– Role: Media should lubricate participation in ongoing public debate.

Other paradigms

• Civil society – also diff assumptions to lib pluralism– Democracy needs voices of NGOs and CBOs. – In this way, the state is kept democratic.– Media should continuously bolster these groups

against the powerful, esp. the State (sometimes also big business).

• Civic journalism & public journalism• Cyberdemocracy

Other paradigms: questions

• Public sphere: – Qtn: Singular or plural?– Qtn: Keane’s micro, meso, macro levels– Qtn: Includes Civil Society and State?– Qtn: Private realm and government realm?

• Civil Society:– Qtns: One or more Civil Societies? – Qtns: Is business included?

Analysis: Civil Society

• Non-state activities– Organisations, churches, media– Burial societies, stokvels, culture gps, NGOs

• Civil society– Can a country have many civil societies?

• Ans: Sometimes (eg. “two nations”)

– Should business be included in CS?• Ans: Sometimes (eg. not WSIS, WSSD)

Civil Society- media questions

• State-linked media not seen as part of CS. • But … is private media - as a business - in or out of CS?• What about non-profit or small community media? • Is the private media (commercial or community)

different to the rest of CS?• How important is it for CS to have its own media?

Civil Society- media questions

Looking more closely at CS perspective:What is private media’s democratic role?– Many complications exist … which show some of the insights and some of the problems of a Civil Society perspective on media-role.

Civil Society- complications 1

• A. 2 realms: but CS is not so distinct from state– What about tertiary institutions? Chiefs?– Often there is a culture of fear of the State among

journos, and assumption that controls are tighter than they are.

– So …not a Chinese Wall between CS & State

• B. Interconnection: – Yes, CS is a check and balance to state power…– But often there is articulation with, & integration into,

the State


• C. Dualistic thinking:– “state bad, civil society good”– But what of democratic qualities in state?– What when private media or journalists are part of

the problem?

• D. Interdependence: – Assumption is: strong CS, & preferably weaker State– But it may well be that a strong State is necessary

for a strong CS!


• E. Democratic eligibility of CS elements?:– Govts often see private media as anti-patriotic

• But: democracy encompasses all interests (Traber)• I.e. even those that are unelected like the media!

– Is it all of CS that is democratic? No:– CS can be anti-democratic (eg. settlers, vigilantes)– Tho: even illegal groups can be pro-democracy.

• F. Thin social density: – There is indeed rural sparseness of CS– However, look at social movements & media flow


• G. Focus is on media-govt relations:– But how does media relate to the rest of CS?– Is “independent” media really independent?

• H. Counterpositioning issue:– Media people as “the Opposition”– What when they get into power?


• I. Reductionism:– Conflating CS with demands for change? What

about demands against change?– What about ordinary times when CS is apolitical?– Still, mere existence of CS can be a significant

factor.

• J. Summing up CS complexities:– Can’t apply willy-nilly to African media

• End of part 1

Civil Society- conclusion 1

Contrary to CS: Media in CS is not a world cut off from State influence. State media – like tertiary institutions - can in principle

play a pro-CS role. Non-state media can be dependent & even co-opted by

governments. State has democratic potential while media can be part

of problem. Private media may need strong state (eg. to protect

journalists against mafia – Cardosa case).


In favour of CS: Despite being unelected, private media is

not disqualified from democratic role. Private media is indeed scarce, but it can

still have important impact. CS is an important democratic counter to

government’s having too much power. But we need to look beyond media-State

relations, to media-CS relations and to media-business relations.


• Mixed assessment:• CS should acknowledge that some private

media people are a political Opposition, • this is democratically legitimate, but it is

not a media role as such.• Like CS, media is not per se politically and

democratically relevant, • Yet, this can still be an important parameter –

and limit - for how the State can use power. ---------------------------------------------------------

Paradigm: Public Sphere

• Sees soul of democracy as participative debate. • Original concept by Habermas has been

criticised for romanticism and sexism.• But concept revived in order to understand

media’s role in democracy. • PS refers to that “space” in society in which the

public can “gather” as such, discuss and make decisions.

Assumptions in Public Sphere

• Public (opinion):– Assumes that majority views become dominant– Assumes there should be equal rights to participation– It impacts on policy & the exercise of power

• Sphere (of influence):– contrasts to governmental sphere & private sphere

• Note: Not all democratic politics is public sphere discourse:– Can be direct action

• Note: Not all public sphere politics are democratic.

Analysing Public Sphere

• Nonetheless, the PS is a strategically important “place” to look at in understanding democracy.

• Media role in the public sphere:– It facilitates participation– It impacts on policy & the exercise of power through

public opinion– It is a central institution if there is to be democracy

via debate & dialogue about alternatives.

Public Sphere compared to Civil Society

• CS tends towards grassroots focus • PS tends to elitism (like liberal pluralism):

– Focuses on those who access the “space” or the “media”.• What is the connection between PS & CS?

– PS exists between state and CS (Traber)– CS creates PS (Mansson)

• Above = abrupt marriage, but …there is a link: – Public Sphere without Civil Society is sterile– CS without PS lacks an effectuating mechanism

• (CS has other political influence too: riots, individual non-cooperation, lobbying, corruption … but democracy gives weight to discussion and debate in the PS)

Public Sphere compared to Civil Society

• Beware an abrupt marriage, but …there is a link: – Public Sphere without Civil Society is sterile– CS without PS lacks an effectuating mechanism

• (Note: CS has other political influence too: riots, individual non-cooperation, lobbying, corruption … but from Habermas’ perspective democracy gives weight to discussion and debate in the PS)

PS & CS on the role of media. 1

• Similarities:– Both CS and PS see a democratic role for media,

• but both are instrumentalist, and ignore the institutional character of media enterprises.

• Different emphases:– Media is a central institution for democracy in the PS.– CS sees a broad definition of media (t-shirts, songs).– PS is info-focused, blind to entertainment.– CS is more gender-sensitive re: democracy.– PS recognises need for the State.

PS & CS on the role of media. 2

• CS sees role for community & commercial media.

• PS adds a role for media outside of CS, – i.e. public service media

• Significant policy implications:– PS: need a Public Broadcasting System (PBS)– CS: danger of govt control, and competition with

commercial & community media: “so privatise it”.• PS allows for mixed system: impartial PBS, +

partisan private media, + even govt media.

PS & CS on role of media. 3

• CS: gives us a focus on the role of one sector: the private media (commercial & community).

• PS: All media relevant, not just private media. – a totality of voices needed,– It suggests PS-style ethics of fairness, balance.– However, the degree of pluralism across the whole

spectrum is ultimately what is important. • PS: holistic – looks at role of all media (but

what about clothing, mass rallies, etc?).


• CS suggests rights against the state;• PS suggests rights through the state.

• PS has a strategic view of the State so that growing media’s democratic role should include: – Transforming government-controlled media to PBS– Using the courts– Promoting and deepening the notion of citizenship.

• But qtn of citizenship: who’s in, who’s out?


• PS suggests citizenship and “civility”– Protocols, ethics, rules of procedure– Has clear bearing on journalistic behaviour

• Like CS, PS has to be qualified for use in Africa– Recognise how govt power shapes the PS & role that

CS can play. • Both concepts complement each other, and …• Both have implications for understanding media

role.

Women, the poor, minorities?

Summing up:

Civil society

Public sphere

State

GovtSociety at large

The Marginalised

Relevance of CS & PS theories:

• Where there is State repression:– Civil Society role remains NB (CS)– Public judiciary is a potentially progressive factor. (PS)– Legal regime (cf PS) is important. – Alliance of media with CS is called for.

• African State is needed for media enabling role:– To operate a genuine PBS– Re-regulation for broadcast pluralism– Empowerment of marginalised groups (eg. MDDA)

• Media’s role in African citizenship is important.

Limits of each paradigm:

• Of the PS paradigm:– The private sphere is very NB:

• Rape, child abuse• Gender relations, sexuality• Aids

• Of the CS paradigm: – Horizontal issues are important for media:

• not just democracy as regards who controls the State.

Limits of both paradigms:

• Media are not free-floating & autonomous: – State control: a danger esp for PBS.

• Cronyism• Advertising & other pressure• Thus, media can be sucked into govt sphere.

– Commercialisation: a danger for CS view• Collapse in standards• Issue of media councils

Horizons:

• Paradigms and policy:– Recognition that there are different roles for public,

commercial and community media.

• Globalization:– Nowadays: we operate in a transnational public

space with diasporas, donors, etc.– Needed: an African continent public space with

active civil society participation.– African cybersphere has potential.

Retracing ground covered:

• We have gone into:– Methodological issues– CS and PS concepts– Synthesis model advanced– Limitations noted

The end

• The underlying issue is: – media in relation to power, participation, policy,

practices.• Remember that democracy is an end in itself,

not merely a means to development. • Can we export theory & understanding of

media role in democracy, drawing from African cases?.

Documents

Theorising media-democracy