The media has its fair share of problems and yet it seems more laden with opportunity for improvements than the other more 'formal' pillars of democracy.
Source: PSM Media
Firmly acknowledged as one of the four pillars of democracy, the Press is oft referred to as the Fourth Estate or the fourth power; the other powers of course being the Executive, the Judiciary, and the Legislature, or in our case, Majlis. While one may attempt to exclude the press from the more ‘formal’ pillars of democracy it is, at least on paper, the most removed from the ‘intersections’ of power. Where elements from the other powers often bleed into each other due to real world issues, such as state budgets, logistics, and other administrative compromises, an independent press owes no allegiance to the rest of the powers in order to function and carry out their responsibilities to the public.
The press has, as a pillar of democracy, the “explicit capacity of advocacy and implicit ability to frame political issues.” Removed from the more formal political system, it wields significant influence in shaping and critiquing public perception while also taking to task “the power that be," namely the Executive, Majlis, Judiciary and even corporations and other outside interests — and ensuring that these powers are ultimately responsible, and answerable, to the public.
Even as recently as the early 2000s, the Maldives had far from a truly free press — President Maumoon’s state media dominated the airwaves and newspapers were owned and operated almost exclusively by state officials in the ‘highest standing’ with the president himself. These 'legacy' mechanisms survive to this day although some having gone through more 're-brands' than others. However, as the nation headed towards her first multi-party democratic elections, mounting pressure to democratise, even from within Maumoon’s own increasingly fragmenting administration, led to more publications offering a wider point of reference. While not unbiased on their own right, nor purely representing public interests, they at least, in the moment, allowed for more diverse points of view.
Fast-forward to now, the Maldives has witnessed a significant proliferation of newspapers; especially in recent times where the ‘cost of entry,' and even distribution, has been significantly democratised by the ease of access to the world wide web and near 200 percent smart phone proliferation nationwide.
That is not to say, much like their brethren from the other powers, that all’s been well in the fourth estate.
Freedom of the Press, if it means anything at all, means the freedom to criticize and oppose.
As far as being separate, and free from influence of the other powers, there have always been attempts to exert influence over the press. Take for example amendments to laws from time to time, often drawn up by the Executive and passed by Majlis and the enforcement of said laws, by agencies answering to the Executive most times aided or prompted by Judicial orders or sentencing — such laws are often criticised by the opposition as they lay in wait for power but are often forgotten once they are in office; and even if not ‘forgotten,’ amendments made can often be toothless and execution of their powers, with due force from the law, dependent solely on the good will of the Executive. Take for example the actions of the Police against journalists during the recent protests — where members of the press where subject to tear-gas, man-handling and even physical harm by the Police; an agency which answers to the Minister of Home Affairs.
And as far as being independent and unbiased goes, since the democratisation of the press in the Maldives in the early 2000s, pro party press organisations, intent on buffing up one party over others, have also been mainstays — this in the absence of any proper review mechanisms, or agencies, established that would fairly address professional conduct.
Add to this the ‘boys club’ mentality that has been traditionally entrenched within the sector where a select few seem to have been intent on controlling the direction and evolution of the press in a somewhat vain — and luckily of late, mostly futile — attempt to not let the industry outgrow their capacity for relevance and control over a medium they have perceived as their domain.
What is sorely needed now is a concerted focus on entrenching formal, professional and ethical, standards within the profession — to introduce agencies, NGOs and mechanisms, not to stifle journalism, but to allow this power to flourish in a manner in which it will best serve the public, public interest and the nation; as opposed to individuals and political organisations alone.
A positive transformation seems to be happening even without ‘intervention’ — but one wonders if, while still hoping, that momentum alone can propel the needed acceleration within the sector. The beauty of allowing an ‘organic’ system is how the cracks one leaves for oneself, to manipulate, can also sometimes leave gaps that other smarter, passionate, and thankfully more altruistic, individuals can use to come into prominence as the more rightful inheritors of the fourth estate.
Admirably, younger and more passionate voices vested in social change, and the empowerment of the underrepresented and the marginalised, seem increasingly to be making their voices be heard. This is undoubtedly where, toxic as it can sometimes be, social media has helped — where journalistic voices speaking up against corruption, abuse and sidelined, having their voices amplified by the more socially active, and ever more invested, younger population, have come to the fore.
As promising as this relatively new development may be, the institutional structure, mechanisms and the spirit of maintaining ethical, moral and professional codes within the sector, answerable to the people, is still severely lacking. That will need work; and long term commitment.
