Media and Human Rights in the context
of Globalization.
Symbolism
Let’s start by making some sense of the three terms, shall we?
Media … Human Rights … Globalization.
Can they be woven into a harmonious whole? Perhaps a symbol might help!
Imagine the isosceles triangle — Media and Human Rights symbolizing the two equal sides, with the the base, symbolizing Globalization, both wedging them apart, and yet supporting them.
Media and Human Rights meet at the apex point, the peak of the triangle/pyramid, and Globalization meets both separately, at the two base points.
The analogy, seemingly bizarre and perhaps difficult to accept at first blush, nonetheless has a certain aptness about it, especially in the present-day scenario. And is not more bizarre than the unfolding of certain recent events, when news edged out fiction as a form of popular addictive entertainment, and the ratings of favoured international news channels spiralled with theatrical leaps, geometrically.
If we proceed on the a priori assumption of the symbiotic relationship between `Media’ and `Human Rights’, in what perspective does this relationship find itself, in the context of `Globalization’?
The devil, as ever, is in the definitions — especially in a world where prismatic perceptions abound, as do divergent truths.
Media … Human Rights … Globalization …
Words denoting weighty, somewhat fluid concepts, unfolding often conflicting ideas in a rapidly changing world, holding differing, multiple meanings for the different peoples, the different nations, the different worlds, that constitute the Globe.
Human Rights
Let’s start with the concept … the idea … of Human Rights, which is the bedrock of this Seminar.
The futility of attempting one universal, coherent definition for Human Rights ahs been admirably put across by none other than Mr. Nani Palkhivla, in his paper on “Human Rights and Legal Responsibility”:
“To attempt to define Human Rights definitively, would be to merely illustrate how the human mind tries, and tries in vain, to give a more precise definition than the subject-matter warrants. Human rights may be summed up in one word — Liberty. But Isaiah Berlin noted that there are more than 200 definitions of liberty, and, as Abraham Lincoln observed, the world has never had a good definition of liberty.“
[Human Rights in the Changing World, Ed by Justice E. S. Vekataramiah, pub. International law Association, (Regional Branch, India,) 1988].
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, which is perhaps the first attempt at codification of Human Rights, internationally, while setting forth the importance of human rights, trying to provide for means of ensuring them unto all the peoples of the world, and cautioning against the consequences of their disregard, fails to really come up with any cogent definition of the concept itself, thought he general meaning may be gleaned from the preamble, peppered liberally with comfort-giving phrases that sound oh-so-good!:
“ … recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world …”
“ … the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people …”
“essential … that human rights should be protected by the rule of law …”
“… essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations …”
And then goes on to state that:
“… the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,
… a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,”
leading to the proclamation of the Declaration
“… as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under the jurisdiction.”
For the purposes of this paper, it is Article 19 which is relevant:
“Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
The freedoms which (hopefully) promote Human Rights, pertaining to the Media, are elaborated further in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, (whose preamble make reference to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), again in Article 19 thereof:
“Article 19
1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; 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 other media of this choice.
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
(a) for respect of the rights or reputations of others;
(b) for the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health of morals.”
So, it’s Article 19, that’s the crucial one — even in our own Constitution, in India, enshrined as a Fundamental Right; Art 19 (1) (a) which postulates that “All citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression.”
Interestingly, Article 19 is also the name adopted by the Global Campaign for Free Expression, so named after Art 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Some information on Art. 19, as culled from their web-site:
Having partners in over 30 countries, Art 19 works worldwide to combat censorship by promoting freedom of expression and access to official information. Art 19 also works to strengthen local capacity to monitor and protest institutional and informal censorship, monitors, researches, publishes, lobbies, campaigns, and litigates on behalf of freedom of expression wherever it is threatened. Art. 19 develops standards to advance freedom, assists individuals to speak out and campaign for the free flow of information.
Art. 19 is registered as a charity in the United Kingdom.
Media
In the case of the media, the devil is not in the definition, it’s in the credibility!
Article 19 has described `information’ as the `oxygen of democracy’. The right to information has indeed been recognized as a fundamental human right, intimately linked to the respect for the inherent dignity of all human beings, and as being crucial to participatory democracy. Without information, citizens cannot possibly make informed choices, electoral or otherwise, or participate in the decision making process.
It has been suggested that no government can now seriously deny that the public has a right to information or that fundamental principles of democracy and accountability demand that public bodies operate in a transparent fashion. (But try telling that to a lot of governments around the globe!)
To cite the hoary cliché, which nonetheless is so very true, the role of the Media includes acting as a watchdog of the government, and also enhancing the free flow of information.
As far back as January 16, 1787, Thomas Jefferson stated, in a letter to Carrington, that if he had to choose between having “A Government without newspapers on the one hand, and newspapers without a Government on the other”, he would have no hesitation in preferring the latter.
It was this view that eventually triumphed in the adoption of the Frist Amendment to the American Constitution, in 1791, to the effect that “the Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech or the press …”
It has been held in #Associated press v/s US, (1945) 3264 US 1, that “… the widest dissemination of information from diverse sources is necessary for public education …” (emphasis supplied.)
And in # Grosjean v/s. American press Co., (1935) 297 US 233, it was held that: “A free Press stands as one of the great interpreters between the Government and the people. To allow it to be fettered is to fetter ourselves.”
In India, historically, the agitation for freedom of the Press started by way of protest against such special laws, such as the Press Emergency Powers Act, 1931, The Press (Objectionable Matter) Act, 1951, the Prevention of Publication of Objectionable Matter Act, 1976. None of these laws are in existence today, and though we no longer have such repressive laws, there do exist certain regulatory measures.
As stated above, `freedom of expression’ has been guaranteed by the Constitution, and it has been held by our supreme Court, that the Freedom of the Press is included in that wider guarantee. (# Express Newspapers v/s Union of India, AIR 1958 p 578, @ p 614+); The Supreme Court has also held the Freedom of the Press to be a `basic’ human right, (# LIC v/s Manubhai, AIR 1993 SC 171):
“… Freedom of speech and expression is a natural right which a human being acquires on birth. It is, therefore, a basic human right. The words `freedom of speech and expression’ has (sic) to be broadly construed to include the freedom to circulate one’s views by word of mouth or in writing or through audio-visual instrumentalities. It, therefore, includes the right to propagate one’s views through the print media or through any other communication channel e.g. the radio and the television. ……. Freedom to air one’s views is the life line of any democratic institution and any attempt to stifle, suffocate or gag this right would sound the death-knell to democracy and would help usher in dictatorship. It cannot be gainsaid that modern communication mediums (sic) advance public interest by informing the public of the events and developments that have taken place and thereby educating the voters, a role considered significant for the vibrant functioning of a democracy ….”
Significantly, it was in this judgement that their Lordships also gave weightage to the publication of a counter view-point, (not always done even by the so-called `free press’, even in the so-called `mature democracies’!), inter alia holding that on the fairness doctrine, the LIC was under an obligation to publish the rejoinder since it had published the counter to the study paper …
In # Odyssey Communications Pvt. Ltd. V/s Lokvidayan Sanghatana, AIR 1988 SC 1642, it has been held that “Freedom of expression is a preferred right which is always very zealously guarded by this Court…” (emphasis supplied).
There is now a global trend towards the recognition of the right to information by States, intergovernmental organizations, civil society and the people, supported by a growing body of authoritative statements, international declarations, and individual State laws, guaranteeing this very important right. Despite this global recognition of the right to information, however, it is unfortunate that in several States in South Asia still maintain the Official Secrets Act, as also other secrecy legislation, a legacy from the colonial era.
Four organizations, Article 19, Global Campaign for Free Expression, based in London, the Centre of Policy Alternatives (CPA), based in Colombo, the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, (CHRI), based in New Delhi, and the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) based in Lahore, have carried out a survey in South Asia on freedom of Information, which survey is part of a regional project, “Promoting a Right to Freedom of Information in South Asia”, which, project, in turn, is part of a global movement in support of the right to information.
As far as India is concerned, the survey notes that “the main thrust of the movement for the right to information in India has seen this right as being closely related to survival. Food security, shelter, environment and employment are all bound up with the right to information. In the absence of information on these issues, people remain marginalized and excluded from their rightful places in society.” …
Indeed, this interlocking of the right to information as a basic human right, at a social and political level, together with the economic compulsions of survival is not only necessary, indeed, it is inescapable. The two, though each essential in their own way, and not of much meaning or use without the other, are not always compatible.
Human Rights as an intangible concept may not have much meaning for those marginalized peoples who live beyond the pale of subsistence infrastructure; and conversely, those whose basic needs allowing for at least survival are catered for by a totalitarian or authoritarian regime may, not having tasted the exhilarating though perilous whiff of freedom of expression and choice with its corresponding responsibilities, perhaps not miss it!
To quote a few informed viewpoints, from the Survey supra:
“From the point of view of infrastructural development, information regarding state and local bodies when regularly and routinely available tot eh people, should do much to reform governments, especially in their enterprise and regulatory dimension. Nothing could be better for commercial provisioning and for good governance which engenders local (and general) development.”
A report on infrastructure development, in Network, India Infrastructure Report, 2000 (OUP 2000).
And this, from an interview with Arjun Makhijani, the President of the US-based independent organization which monitors the working conditions in nuclear plants throughout America, in Times of India, Feb 22, 2001:
“If the Government claims that nuclear plants re necessary, then it … has to inform the public about the sacrifices involved … the BARC should disclose how much of the highly radioactive waste generated from the plutonium processing plant is stored there and in what forms… The use of the Official Secrets Act in preventing public access to data regarding their health is an artefact of British imperialism and should be abandoned. Moreover, there is no reason to keep health and environment data secret.”
And finally, regarding one of the worst man-made disasters, this is what the author Jasanoff had to say, in “The Bhopal Disaster & the Right to Know,” 27 Social Science and Medicine, 1113:
“The tragedy in Bhopal can be seen not merely as a failure of technology, but as a failure of knowledge. The accident might not have happened at all if the right people had obtained the right information at a time when they were capable of appreciating it and taking appropriate preventive action … A central challenge for the future right to know policies is to bridge the information gaps and the communication gaps that are likely to arise in the course of technology transfer.”
In the case of Pakistan, the survey discloses several varied means adopted by the State to withhold information, apart from the obvious, i.e. outright refusal. There are other ways of preventing timely or effective publication of information, by delaying or restricting its dissemination.
It is observed in the survey that the State has exercised a great deal of direct control over the media and thereby over the flow of information to the public. The electronic media always has been under strict government control and the State has also exercised some control over news agencies.
In Sri Lanka, the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka has, in a series of Judgements held that the Constitution does guarantee a right to information.
It is thus evident that the relationship between the Media, and the concept of Human Rights is a symbiotic one. And yet, it is fluid, unequal in different parts of the globe, rapidly changing as perceptions change, advances are made and educational levels rise in the countries around the globe. Also, the relationship between the Media and Human Rights differs from Nation to Nation, from people to people, from region to region, and even within the same State, from strata to strata, depending upon divergent factors, especially where the gap between the levels of education, literacy, and economic strength between the populace of the same nation differs to an unimaginable degree, (as In India, for example!) How and where then, does this symbiotic, yet strangely uneasy relationship fit into the context of `Globalization’ Assuming even, that `Globalization means the same thing to different peoples and nations, which it assuredly does not?
Globalization.
If it be said that `Human Rights’ are hard to define, then perhaps the term `Globalization’ is even more so, meaning as it does, different things to different people.
This has been recognized in a report prepared by the staff of the International Monetary fund itself, in April 2000, (updated January 2002): “Globalization: Threat or Opportunity?” which begins, thus, rather tellingly, in the Introduction itself:
“The term `Globalization’ has acquired considerable emotive force. Some view it as a process that is beneficial — a key to future world economic development — and also inevitable and irreversible. Others regards it with hostility, even believing that it increases inequality within and between nations, threatens employment and living standards, and thwarts social progress.”
Of course, any report prepared by the IMF on `Globalization’ would immediately be deemed suspect, but to give the (perceived) Devil his due, this particular report does touch upon the problems of globalization, and admits in terms, in the Conclusion that:
a) the income gap between the high-income and low-income countries has grown wider (as globalization progressed) and that is a matter of concern;
b) the number of the world’s citizens in abject poverty is deeply disturbing …
Of course, the caveat does follow, that “it is wrong to jump to the conclusion that globalization has caused the divergence, or that nothing can be done to improve the situation …”
In terms of `definition’, the IMF clearly puts Economic Globalization across as “a historical process, the result of human innovation and technological progress. It refers to the increasing integration of economies around the world, particularly through trade and financial flows. The term sometimes also refers to the movement of people (labour) and knowledge (technology) across international borders …”
Conclusion
So, what does the term, and the dynamics of Globalization portend for the Media, especially as seen conjuncted with the issue of Human Rights?
I would bifurcate the effect of globalization on Media, per se, into two broad heads:
A) How global trends affect the various State laws of individual nations in their approach to Freedom of the Press and the Right to Information, now an internationally protected Human Right?
B) The perceptible effects of `Globalization’ on the Media in terms of tangible `hardware’, viz. infrastructure and intangible `software’, viz. news.
As far as Head A is concerned, the effects, at least on paper, appear to be beneficial, and as the Survey on South Asia has shown, there is a perceptible trend among governments to ensure a legally enforceable Right to Information unto its citizens. This is to some extent due to international pressures, and the excellent work done by several international organizations, NGOs, etc., cutting across the divides of sovereign States, economic background, beliefs, ideologies, cultures, and political allegiance, if any!
However, this trend also needs to be viewed with caution, and examined without complacency. India probably has the best laws in the world — on paper! the implementation is abysmal, given a myriad reasons: corruption, lack of infrastructure, sluggish, unwieldy system of justice, approachable and amenable Officials, and a citizenry which, more often than not, looks for the loophole in every law!
In other states also, such as Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and some of the African nations, all that is writ on paper, may not necessarily be implemented in practice.
Another caution that needs to be exercised, is the background funding of various NGO’s, especially international NGO’s, their motives and agendas, as also their competence to prescribe for a milieu which largely is very different from theirs — very often, problems may be created by workers of international voluntary associations and organizations, trying to succour peoples round the globe, without proper understanding of the background, and even a proper grasp of the true aspirations of such peoples.
Voluntary Organizations ostensibly working in the fields of human rights, education, sustainable development, etc.., have almost become big international business. Log on to the site of the `Lonely Planet’, and you will come across queries with regard to such organizations, from persons round the globe, whose main desire is to travel, and by the way, maybe `do something worthwhile’, by that token also obtaining free board and lodging, and maybe some pin – money!
Even the most well-intentioned may sometimes mess up, trying to oppose any and every government policy in a given nation, aimed at development, if it is perceived as being seemingly `anti-poor’ — notwithstanding that no such opposition would be permitted or tolerated in the nations of their own domicile!
While the need for government and governmental bodies to disseminate information and keep the public informed on major issues cannot be gainsaid, even less can it be gainsaid that NGOs and Voluntary Organizations need to have both transparency and accountability, towards both the government and the people in the countries they work in.
As far as Head B is concerned, the technology is no doubt responsible for facilitating the global reach of both print, as well as electronic media.
But whose reach has been globalized, is the question! Evidently, large media conglomerates, major international players, trans-national organizations with money, power and the wherewithal to manufacture as well as disseminate news!
In considering the effect of Globalization on the intangible software of the Media, especially news and views, two parameters need to be borne in mind:
i) The Globalization of the reach;
ii) The Globalization of the source(s) of the news and views.
If the so-called `Globalization’ of the Media is examined clearly and carefully, bearing in mind the above-mentioned two parameters, the present trends are disturbing, almost alarming!
The events of September 11, last year, have shown us how seductive television imagery can be, how addictive television reportage of tragedy on such scale, how cathartic mass mourning!
However, what needs to be borne in mind was that the whole was also a slick, professionally produced show, as America, with characteristic élan and panache showcased the greatest tragedy it had suffered on its soil, into world theatre. America was bruised, and the world was required to bleed! Horror weaves its own fascination, and the images held viewers glued across the globe, as they beamed with careless, indiscriminate intrusion into almost every home owning a television, round the globe.
Al Jazeera could even somewhat attempt to match the might of CNN, Fox, BBC, CNBC, etc … because of obvious wealth obviously pumped in — after all, the perceived villain of the piece was a billionaire!
Smaller players fell completely by the wayside, in the race for logging those TRPs!
Sep 11 coverage also an excellent example of, how, the greater the globalization of the reach, the narrower the localization of the source. It’s like a powerful searchlight being beamed by one source, extinguishing into darkness the pathetic flickers of other candlelights.
Who, for instance, would want to watch Doordarshan, or Radio Pakistan, when one could watch CNN, or BBC?
Globalization? Or subtle imperialism of the worst kind, the enslavement of minds, the moulding of opinions, the seduction of the senses of peoples across the globe, by the chosen few? Who could well disseminate deliberate disinformation, manipulative misinformation, garbled gobledook, or even just plain, one viewpoint: Theirs!
The truism `one man’s freedom-fighter is another’s terrorist’ has been quoted so often, as to be relegated, today, as a cliché! Nonetheless, like most clichés, it continues to remain true!
In the final analysis, we need to be clear about the concepts articulated and defined by the few, which affect the lives of so many. George Orwell has shown how language can be used to oppress, manipulate, and even seduce into submission. And the Devil can and does cite Scriptures for his purpose!
Human Rights — Media — Globalization — words, and what do they mean? So long as they continue to mean different thighs to different people, can any common good be advanced?
Centuries ago, the poet Lord Byron, put it rather well:
“Were things only called by their right name,
Caesar himself would be ashamed of Fame!”
(`Don Juan’, by George Gordon, Lord Byron.)
In the present world scenario, it is perhaps term `Globalization’ that is used perhaps the most loosely, and the word itself is misunderstood, manipulated, rendered Procrustean, sometimes intentionally, sometimes inadvertently, leading to the propagation or perpetuation of misunderstanding and manipulation, and the application of Procrustean means to difficult, complex problems.
We need to ask ourselves: Globalization by whom? for whom? And of what?
And yet, to get back to the triangle — optimism need not be eschewed altogether. Globalization could, if properly applied and harnessed and channelized, its benefits distributed with greater equity, indeed act as the solid base, or rather vehicle, to support both Media and Human rights together, while wedging that slight necessary distance between them on the one hand, and allowing them to meet, at the apex. For that, what is needed is perhaps a rethinking of priorities, revaluing of essentials, redesigning of the lives of several nations, redistribution of resources and wealth, and the nourishment, education and upliftment of several. People who are today beyond the pale of subsistence infrastructure need to be brought within it, so Globalization acquires a true meaning for all the people on the globe; and in which Global milieu the Media and Human Rights can continue their symbiotic relationship.
****
(Paper read at the Seminar on Human Rights and Globalization organized inter alia by the University of Mumbai.)
