MEDIA AND THE PROCESS OF DEMOCRATIZATION IN NIGERIA
Umaru A. Pate
Professor and Head
Department of Mass Communication
University of Maiduguri
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Being text of a paper presented at a Workshop on The Media and Democracy in Nigeria organized by the INEC Press Corps holding at Kaduna, December 15-17, 2011
INTRODUCTION
It has been established that there is a very strong relationship between media performance and the conduct and vibrancy of politics and political activities. In democracies, “the media have a complex relationship with sources of power and the political system” (McQuail, 2005), because politics and the media seek to promote the individual as well as the collective interests of the general society.
Politics serve as a route and means of uplifting the society through good governance, protection and advancement of people’s rights, and the creation of an enabling environment for democracy to thrive; the media on their part operate in the public sphere to expand the frontiers of freedom and enable the citizens to have access to quality information that will influence their judgments and decisions for sustainable democracy. Stated differently, the media in a democratic context “distribute entitlements to speak and to be heard”, even if unevenly (Keane, 1993).
The existence of a vibrant media system is quite fundamental to the enthronement and sustenance of a credible democratic process. As argued by Barret (2001), “A responsible nationwide democratic system requires a media system which is coterminous with it and which can generate discussion of issues of public concern in a way which does not favour partisan interests; whether these be the interests of particular political parties, the interests of media bosses or media professionals.”
In Nigeria, the performance of the mass media in the democratic process at various phases of our history has been well documented (Omu, 1978; Ogbondah, 1994; Yusuf, 2001 and Nwosu, 2003, Oso, 2010). Arguably, the mass media have remained in the forefront in the struggle to promote the rights of our people through a credible democratization process. After all, the media too find it quite difficult to operate in a non democratic environment. However, this is not to suggest that the media have been perfect in all circumstances. They have been severely criticized for complicity in truncating and subverting the democratic process at various times. For instance, Enahoro once observed that “whoever and whatever ruined the first republic did so with the active connivance and collaboration of the greater part of the Nigerian press”. Similarly, James (1984) had decried the high degree of professional breaches in the media during the second republic as manifested through “character assassination, false accusations, blackmail and misrepresentation of facts ….. to the extent that facts were muzzled and whole media organs became megaphones and machineries of propaganda to political parties and vested interests to the extent that the unity of this country was shaken to its very foundation”. Several other writers and scholars have expressed similar opinions (Pate, 2003; and Akinfeleye, 2004).
However, irrespective of such hard assessments, the basis of our argument is that the media are part as well as facilitators of the public sphere described as the “distinctive discursive space within which individuals combine to assume the role of a politically powerful force “(Ernst, 1998). It is our contention in this paper that Nigerian mass media outfits, with their advantages of reach, cost, speed, and credibility have played and will continue to perform critical functions in the promotion of a sustainable democratic system in the country. In this respect, one can easily recall the role of the media in the transition to the current democratic climate in the country. Thus, in this presentation, we shall focus on the issues involved, some of the challenges and the way forward in the relationship between the media and the strengthening of a viable democracy in Nigeria.
THE NIGERIAN MEDIA
Basically, the mass media in Nigeria serve as a major system of communication across the nation. The different organs of the media create awareness and understanding of happenings among the 167 Million diverse peoples of the country. These diversities cut across ethnic segmentation, religious affiliations, political orientations, social groupings and economic opportunities, among others. Imagine the complexities and divergences that exist in the stretch from Port Harcourt to Sokoto; from Lagos to Maiduguri; or from Enugu to Yola. And, just as the geographical landscape of the country varies, stretching from the Sahel savannah in the far north to the rain forest down south, so do the people differ in their outlooks but united in their humanity. It is also a country with many contradictions in terms of economic prosperity for a few and endemic poverty for the majority, high level of illiteracy, poor health care in dicators, high level corruption, etc. Indeed, Nigeria is sometime rated a poor country with an increasing poverty, even though it is endowed with limitless human and material resources that are incompetently managed over a long time.
Expectedly, all of these contradictions are appropriately reflected in the country’s media. As noted by one scholar, newspapers “...are not just a source of news about their time but because conditions in which they operate, the responsibilities they are allowed to fulfil, the pressures they have to meet, their circulation and economic base, the status of those who write for them and their relationship to their readers, all provide direct insight into the nature of their communities”. Issues like ideology, religion, regionalism, ethnicity, and politics of resource allocation, power sharing and other divisive national tendencies are openly debated on the pages of the newspapers and airwaves of the broadcast stations with no conclusive resolutions. Perhaps, intrigued by the boisterous nature of the newspapers, one foreigner commented that “from those newspapers, a foreigner can acquire a sense of what makes Nigerians angry, what they hope for, where they are realistic; where they are dreamers”.
NIGERIA’S DEMOCRACY
Since 1960 when Nigeria gained its independence and embraced the democratic option of governance, much has been witnessed in the country’s tortuous road to full democratization. Over the years, the system had encountered turbulence characterized by controversies, military incursions, dashed hopes and leadership and systemic failures. On all occasions, the political class was at the receiving end. They have been variously accused of anti-democratic tendencies that tend to violate constitutionality, abuse of citizens’ rights, promote non credible elections, and disrespect for the rule of law; others are poor delivery of services, propensity for violence and the non advancement and protection of individual and collective freedoms. Incidentally, these elements form the fundamental pillars that differentiate democracy from other forms of governance.
Perhaps, because of the long military rule, the psyche of the political elite and the general population has been infected with the militarist and regimented culture of arbitrariness characterized by executive fiat, absence of accountability and wanton disregard for the will of the people. Negative acts of political misbehaviours, electoral malpractices, tyrannical attitudes, bad governance, disregard for the rule of law, massive stealing of public resources, propagation of blatant lies, increased deprivations, personal appropriation of state power, and gross ineptitude by elected officials seem to combine with debilitating poverty to overwhelm the general population and push it to hopelessness, frustration and possible violent outburst. Indeed, the democratic space is heavily demonized by its immediate beneficiaries, the politicians to the chagrin of the ordinary people.
Arguably, the threats to the democratic process in the country today are incompetent leadership at different levels, poverty, structural weaknesses of public institutions, abuse of procedures and regulations, undemocratic tendencies, massive stealing of public resources, insensitive and desperate conduct of politicians, and the personalization of state power coupled with the rising level of public frustration.
MEDIA AND DEMOCRACY
In the Nigerian context, one can easily and in a simplified manner categorize the place of the media in the country’s democratic process. Before 1999, the media was actively engaged in enthroning democracy; thereafter, the attention shifted to elections, monitoring of the process of governance and generally reporting and interpreting the democratization process.
As it is often said, the driving mechanism of the democratic spirit is vibrant politicking based on principles, plurality of ideas, electoral discipline, diversity of audiences and respect for law and order. Thus, one can safely say that politics is the heartbeat of democracy and politics is about power; the struggle to possess, use and retain same. It affects everyone and everything in the society.
On the other hand, the media are the channels of mass communications that are actively engaged in the gathering, analyzing and disseminating issues of and about politics. The media institution is very important and centrally located in the lives of the people and the democratic process. Because of this centrality, the media justifiably focus their attention, in fact accord high priority on the government and those in it. In the process, they are partly expected to expose and criticize bureaucratic incompetence, dictatorial tendencies and abuse of power among officials. In the words of Curran and Seaton (1994), the media become an agency through which citizens reconstitute themselves to exercise informal supervision over the state.
In fact, the 1999 Nigerian Constitution is clear on its assigned role to the media in the polity. In section 22, it says that “the press, radio, television and other agencies of the mass media shall at all times be free to uphold the fundamental objectives contained in this chapter and uphold the responsibility and accountability of the government to the people”. Thus, the Constitution has legitimated the functions of the media and imposed on them the role of monitoring and evaluating the performance of our leaders at all levels. The extent to which the media actualize this Constitutional provision in their functions is another issue.
As indicated earlier, the media are generally engaged in active political reporting. I believe that political reporting is necessary for the sustenance of democracy where the system of checks and balances is required for good governance and democratic sustainability. It affords the media the opportunity to provide an open forum for “legitimated interest groups” to participate in public affairs. Indeed, as Nimmo and Combs (1992) put it, “historically, the mass media were heralded as the ultimate instruments of democracy … (They) were destined to unite, educate, and as a result, improve the actions and decisions of the polity”.
Furthermore, if we operationally consider the functions of the media in the country, we may realize that they are very important in conveying the messages of politicians and political office holders in their bid to capture and retain power particularly during electioneering periods. In the words of the one time Director General of the FRCN and later NTA, Mohammed Ibrahim, “the objective of politics on radio and television is essentially to sensitize the public to the significant nature of their decision, so that they can make the right choice in giving the country the government it desires”. In a simplified form, the media supply the electorate with the right information for sound political judgment.
Equally, the media, depending on how they use their powers, can “order and structure political reality, allotting events greater or lesser significance according to their presence or absence on the media agenda (McNair, 2000). This is where the issue of opinion polling or vox populi comes in. Through such mechanisms, the media too can play significant role in determining the agenda for elections and other policy issues.
PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF THE NIGERIAN MEDIA
The believability of media messages largely depend on their credibility rating by the public which in a way is a function of individual and collective perception of the content, behaviour and quality of these outlets. Credibility is at the heart of message believability and by implication media believability and action and reaction. In communication, credibility has four components that include truth, competence, relevance and dynamism. Without the feeling that the source is truthful, one can hardly believe the messages from such a source. It is equally true that individuals rate their perception of messages based on competent packaging, clarity, and skilful delivery. Furthermore, people are far more likely to believe messages that are cognitively consonant to their realities particularly when they feel involved or affected than those that contradict their common understanding or appear far removed from them. In addition, believability of messages on the media is higher when the audiences perceive that such messages are dynamic and reflect the changing issues in the society as accurately as possible.
Thus, from the foregoing, one can easily, even if none empirically hazard some guesses on the general perceptions of the Nigerian media among Nigerians into the following. First, broadcast media stations particularly those owned by the state government are hardly objective in matters that involve their states and their ruling political parties.
Secondly, foreign broadcast stations are seen as more reliable in providing credible information about events and personalities in the country. Thirdly, the resource poor, the rural majority and the female gender are peripherally involved in the media. They are treated merely as receivers than partners in the entire process.
And, fourthly the current commercialization of society has deeply eaten into the media thereby severely restricting access by the public and subverting the ideals of news, killing the spirit of investigative journalism, and devaluing the content of programmes and news on radio and television stations. Equally, the newspapers and magazines are easily associated with sectional, commercial and other discriminate interests to the extent that such colorations becloud their professional sense of judgement. And lastly, ethics and professionalism are commonly violated because the institution is constrained to sanction violators, hence the misguided conduct of many quacks who masquerade as Journalists all over the country. These observations, contentious as they may sound, have implications on the ability of the country’s media to meaningfully influence the democratic agenda in the nation.
Based on the above premises, one can then conclude that our media houses, particularly public owned media need to do far more than what they are doing now for them to be positively perceived as involving all segments of society, based on the principles of inclusivity, diversity, transparency, autonomy and accountability in their desire to build a broad based national democratic process.
MEDIA RESPONSIBILITY AND THE PROMOTION OF DEMOCRACY IN THE YEARS AHEAD
The current democratization process is expected to be sustained to the point that it guarantees peace, prosperity and sense of justice and equity to every citizen. To this end, all the stakeholders have their individual as well as collective roles to play. At this point, it is important to understand that the media is part of the political structure of the society and operate within some economic and political parameters; thus, any discussion on what the media can do to further facilitate and strengthen the process should be viewed within the context of the seriousness of the political leadership in the country to enthrone sustainable peace, accountable leadership and general development in the nation. With that understanding, it may be possible to appreciate the behaviour, performance, limitations and even interest of the media in the whole process.
But that notwithstanding, it is obvious that there are specific responsibilities that are most appropriately discharged by the media in consolidating the process. Obviously, the media institution widens the frontiers of the public sphere for good governance and development. It does this by legitimising, criticising and questioning the legitimacy as well as the operations of the stakeholders. In doing so, the media aids in shaping the public sphere, a major source of public opinion needed to ''legitimate authority in any functioning democracy'' (Rutherford, 2000).
Media responsibility connotes four things. The first responsibility is the answerability of the media to the various constituencies that depend on it for information, education and direction on the functioning of the system. In other words, to what extent can the various sections of the media sufficiently and ethically answer the queries of the public on the progress and challenges of democracy based on their role as watchdogs in the society? Secondly, the media is expected to strengthen its role as mediating agents through increased interactions between the various clients and consumers in the Nigerian society. Stated differently, the media is expected to interact more increasingly with all the parties and the stakeholders so that no one feels that the media is isolating his important opinion. Thirdly, the media has a responsibility to stamp some element of legitimacy on the democratic credentials of the constituent stakeholders by publicly justifying their actions or inactions that are positive or injurious to the democratization process in the country. For instance, the media has the responsibility to engage the parties on the extent to which they are abiding with the spirit of the democracy in their internal affairs.
The fourth responsibility relates to ensuring that the conduct of each of the stakeholders is in conformity with public interest, because, after all, the media’s objective is at all times expected to be for public good. Any action that deviates from that should, ethically, attract the critical eye of the media, partly because of the moral pedestal upon which it rides.
The ability of the media to be able to fulfil the above responsibilities creditably depends on a number of internal as well as external contingencies like ownership patterns, the openness of the communication system, the freedom of the media and the right of the audience to receive and impart mediated messages. Perhaps, one should also add the behaviour of the political elite as well as the performance of the economy.
With these definitive responsibilities which are, of course, derived from the constitutional, structural and psychological clout of the media, one can proceed to interrogate the extent to which the institution has been able to creditably engage the democratic process. Such total engagement may not necessarily mean the right engagement. It is possible to be busy doing nothing, or more commonly, to be busy doing harm. The intensity of the engagement should be able to reveal to us if the amount of goodwill invested by Nigerians in the media is yielding commensurate results.
SPECIFIC ACTIONS
First, the media has the huge task of working on the various mindsets of Nigerians about politics, elections, resource allocation, etc. I believe that we need a new mindset in the country on how we perceive leadership and politics in the country. I share the view that the media should champion and advocate a new approach to the subject to deviate from the emphasis on money-sharing to be approached from the point of view of being performance, competence, tolerance and equal justice for all in the country. The media should treat such issues as Nigerian problem by highlighting more on the miserable conditions of all Nigerians as opposed to the behaviour of the leadership at all levels. I believe that the media may have to focus increasing attention on leaders in public institutions, political offices and how they discharge their responsibilities, lead their people and acquit public trust. In other words, the leadership and our institutions should be far more monitored to ensure that public resources are judiciously utilized to address genuine concerns of the people.
Closely related to the above is the need for the media to focus extra attention on building institutions in the country instead of building some strong individuals. Institutions building have more advantages than strengthening of individuals. Functional institutions enhance the performance of the system and protect the society from the deviant behaviour of the few that try to injure the majority. This is what can sustain the interest of the majority to feel obligated to the extent of even sacrificing their lives if they have to.
CHALLENGES
While the media in Nigeria may want to play their constructive role in instituting democratic values and strengthening the democratic process, we must also acknowledge some of the major challenges confronting them both individually and collectively. Some of the weaknesses are internally generated while others are beyond their borders.
The greatest challenge to the effective performance of the media and indeed Nigeria in its bid to strengthen the democratic process is the behaviour of politicians especially those in government and particularly at state levels irrespective of political party affiliation. The non tolerant behaviour of politicians to alternative views or options in the present dispensation is frightening and threatening to democratic values. In fact, one can argue that while we have happily embraced democracy, our politicians have shown that they are unwilling or incapable of imbibing the tenets of democratization, two of which are tolerance and allowance of freedom to dissent. Unfortunately, what we see today is the crude emasculation and physical strangulation of the alternative voice by ruling politicians. There are hardly any exceptions. The media find it difficult to effectively perform in such a climate. Instead, sycophancy and praise singing dominate the airwaves and pages of our newspapers
Equally, corruption and corrupt activities of officials and business groups have remained cogs in the wheel of the nation’s democratization progress. Ideally, the media through investigative journalism should be able to expose some of the scams. Unfortunately, a combination of factors has rendered them largely ineffective in this direction. Corruption is manifested in various forms and shapes like the stealing of public resources, destruction of public institutions, abuse of procedures and regulations, insensitive, non-principled and desperate conduct of politicians, and the personalization of state power. All of these are ingredients for public frustration that are capable of crippling our young democracy. Unfortunately, the media appear to be helpless in the present scenario or their voices appear to be incapable of changing the tide of the waves. Therefore, one must continue to encourage our media to be bolder in investigative journalism. Stations should not simply collect money and broadcast dubious claims that have been perfected as conduits for the siphoning of public resources; they must find out the validity, costs and relevance of the claims.
Equally, during elections, the extent to which our media scrutinize the quality of intending contestants, their manifestoes and their fulfilled promises is weak. Our media need to develop mechanisms that could gather the manifestoes of office seekers and evaluate the extent to which such manifestoes have been implemented. This is one way by which the public can be assisted to differentiate the performing from non performing leaders who should be rejected or booted out of office.
But for all this to happen, individual media houses themselves must be seen to be well informed on the meaning and essence of the on-going democratization reform. To this end, democratic values should be seen to be reflected in their public relations, programme content and professional conduct. Credible feedback mechanisms and standard public opinion monitoring systems should be institutionalized to properly inform and guide programming pattern and content. After all, they cannot offer what they do not understand or practice. Otherwise, many of the broadcast stations may be reformed out of business. A media house is a change agent whose management requires dynamic in-flow of innovation, creativity, drive and energy to keep pace with contemporary democratic challenges in the society.
Another critical factor that undermines the function of the media particularly the broadcast media is the blanket implementation of the commercialization policy which automatically disables the majority of the people from any form of involvement in the airwaves. The high charges demanded by the various stations for almost everything disqualifies most people and sectors from any kind of meaningful engagement with the media. As a result, the airwaves are exclusively appropriated by governments, their organizations, money bags, business groups and big social institutions. They remain the only actors that have easy access to the expensive airwaves thus further widening the existing unequal balance of power relations in the society. In fact, even editorial judgment is subordinated to economic determinants. Perhaps, this is why many people are questioning the fate of investigative journalism and the concept of public interest in the new order. This has also raised further questions on the credibility, integrity and the status of state owned broadcast media stations as public broadcast service organizations that are positioned to provide independent social services for democratic sustenance.
The usual defence of managers is that their stations are dangerously and grossly underfunded that they need to devise alternative sources of survival. I agree with them. In fact, the penury and poverty in some of the stations are glaringly reflected in the quality and quantity of their services and the intolerable conduct of some of their staff. Today, we have broadcast outfits that ably qualify as epilepsy patients whose standard hours of daily operation/seizure are unknown. They simply operate on the mercy of the PHCN. I wonder how such weak institutions can command any serious respect among the general population.
Closely related to the funding anaemia in these organizations is weak capacity building mechanisms on democratic values through continuous staff development initiatives. The effects of this deficiency are manifested in the intolerable conduct and unimpressive output of some of the staff at all levels. Unfortunately, the media is one place where hiding one’s intellectual and creative deficiencies may be difficult. The consequences are very glaring to the audiences.
It may also be partially correct to say that many of our media houses are far removed from the global trend. They are poorly equipped to be able to discharge their expected functions of effective coverage, reporting and disseminating value added information for the democratic journey. Many of them are still battling with antiquated equipment that is still largely analogue. Many have no internet connectivity and staff offices are decrepit. Visit some of the newsrooms; they are anything but newsrooms with bare furniture, noisy ceiling fans and possibly worn out dictionaries. The newsrooms hardly portray that they are avenues for serious intellectual endeavours equipped for professionals who are set to expand the frontiers of democracy in Nigeria of the 21st century. In some other cases, we have digitalized transmission equipment in the stations, but unfortunately managed and operated by analogue managers and personnel who are still grappling with antiquated gadgets and absence of basic tools; vehicles for movement are in short supply, the alternative power generators are on and off due to overuse, and visible anger and frustration could be read on the faces of the staff each time one comes across them. I wonder how prepared could such media personnel be in addressing the numerous challenges confronting our democratization process.
CONSEQUENCES
The effects of all of these on the contributions of the media in strengthening our democracy are indeed clear. Apart from excluding the generality of the people who are the subjects of the democratization process, they seem to confirm some of the perceptions on the media in the country.
Few of the effects are:
· The general population can lose confidence and trust in the credibility of the media system to act as watchdogs and platforms for the promotion of democratic values.
· Our people may continue to rely on international broadcast stations for crucial information that affect their lives and nation. Thus, the external media may be determining the local and national agenda instead of the reverse. This could lead to serious consequences for the nation.
· New forms of information disseminations techniques like the Internet and GSM will render non-reforming media outfits obsolete and non reliable, thus irrelevant in the democratization process.
· The potential strength and centrality of the broadcast media are severely undermined by the visible absence of diversity, accessibility, courage and relevance in promoting the democratic process.
THE WAY FORWARD
The media as an institution is too critical to be ignored in the current democratization process in the country. In fact, it is often argued that the quality and freedom in a nation’s media speak volumes about the quality of its democracy. For instance, the seriousness and tolerance level in the system can be measured by the behaviour of its media.
To this end, I wish to suggest the following for the positive consideration of the media in the country.
· Be guided by the principle of social responsibility, i.e inclusivity, fairness and balance in the handling of political coverages.
· Build the knowledge of all staff to know the Constitution, the Electoral Law, NBC Code on Broadcasting, the Professional Code of Ethics, etc.
· Promote the principles of public involvement in programme planning and production.
· Emphasize and promote public interests, issue based programming, and institutional strengthening instead of personalities and personal activities.
· Media houses need to develop Strategic Plans on promoting democratic values through behaviour change oriented programmes targeted at the different segments of the population.
· Strengthen individual media organizations’ capacity in investigative journalism within a democratic context.
· We need to encourage the emergence of strong civil society/pressure groups that will monitor the performance of the various media outlets.
· The media should work towards changing the mindsets of our politicians and the general population on negative attitudes like money politics, political vandalism and rascality, etc.
· We urge the FGN to urgently release the criteria for licensing of community broadcasting stations to further deregulate and liberalize the broadcast industry. This will facilitate the growth of cheaper and people oriented community radio stations all over the country.
· Let media houses temper their commercialization regimes with mercy. It has remained a big disqualifier for the majority of people to partake in the airwaves.
· We appeal to all governments and private media owners to promote enabling working environment through the guaranteeing of operational freedom and provision of adequate resources for optimal operations.
REFERENCES
Akinfeleye, Ralph (2006). Inaugural Lecture. University of Lagos.
Boyd-Barrett, Oliver (2001). Conceptualizing the Public Sphere”. In Boyd-Barett, Q.et.al (eds). Approaches to Media. London: Arnold.
Curran, James and Seaton, J. (1988). Power Without Responsibility. London: Fontana.
Curran, James et.al (eds) (1991). Mass Media and Society. London: Edward Arnold.
James, U. A.. (1984). “Decree 4 and Responsible Journalism”. In Nigerian Journalist. Vol.2, No.2 Legos NUJ.
Keane, John (1993). Media in Transition: From Totalitarianism to Democracy. London: Kyiv Abris.
Mc Quail, Denis (2005). McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory. London: Sage Publications.
Murdoch, Graham (1992). Citizens, Consumers and public Culture. In Schroder, Kim et.al (eds) Media Cultures London: Routledge.
Nimmo, D. D and Combs, J.E (1992). The Political Pundits. New York: Praeger
Ogbondah, Chris (1994) Military Regimes and the Press in Nigeria, 1966-1993; Human Rights and National Development. Lanham: University Press America.
Onu, Fred (1978) Press and Politics in Nigeria. Ibadan: Longman.
Oso, L. and Pate U (2010). Mass Media and Society in Nigeria. Lagos: Malthouse Press
Pate, U. (2003). “Media Ethics in Political Reporting on the Broadcast Media in Nigeria”. In Nwosu, I (eds). POLIMEDIA: Media and Politics in Nigeria. Enugu: ACCE.
Pate, Umaru A. (2010). ‘’Diversity and Conflict in Democratic Nigeria: Addressing the Challenge through Education’.’ A paper delivered on the occasion of the 2nd National Convention, Prestigious Awards and Launching of Magazine of the Ganye Old Students Association at Ganye on Saturday, June 5, 2010.
Pate, U. (2006). “Challenges of Public Participation in Broadcasting: “The Case of North East Nigeria. In BRTV Newswatch Vol.1, No.3 Maiduguri.
Rutherford (2000) Radical Behaviorism
Yusuf, B. (2001). “Mass Media in a Constitutional Democracy: The Nigerian Experience”. In Alemika, E. O. et. al (eds) Constitutional Federalism and Democracy in Nigeria. Kaduna: HRM.
