Press freedom and democracy<\/p>\n
Patrick Guntensperger, Jakarta<\/p>\n
A politician's commitment to freedom of the press is one of
\nthe best possible indicators of his commitment to the general
\nprinciples of democracy. A politician who is willing to see an
\nunfettered press judge him and report on him, fairly or unfairly,
\nis one who places democracy ahead of personal considerations.<\/p>\n
More than anything, Indonesia, right now, needs politicians who
\nare ready to place the democratization of this country ahead of
\ntheir personal ambition, wealth, power or even ego gratification.<\/p>\n
A free press is one that is free to publish unpopular
\nopinions. And that must include opinions that are unpopular with
\nthe established political powers. As long as a published opinion
\nstops short of libel (and in a democracy, that's a civil matter
\nto be taken up by the injured party, not a criminal matter to be
\nprosecuted by the government), a politician who supports
\ndemocracy must be willing to accept even tasteless, misleading
\nand heavily slanted criticism.<\/p>\n
A politician, on the other hand, who claims to support the
\nprocess of democratization but allows his government to use the
\ncriminal courts to punish those who malign him in the press, is a
\nhypocrite and fundamentally anti-democratic.<\/p>\n
True freedom of the press must extend even to shoddy, second
\nand third rate journalism. It would be a mistake to think that
\ngranting the people the right to a free press would guarantee
\nhigh professional standards among journalists; in truth, the
\neffect could well be precisely the opposite. A truly free press
\nwould have room for vicious verbal assaults on public figures,
\nrabidly partisan tub-thumping, unreasonable demands and
\nexpectations, faulty logic and sheer stupidity in print.<\/p>\n
In a democracy though, we assume that the people have a right
\nto consider even the opinions of halfwits. The key is that the
\npeople have a right to hear and then to consider opinions before
\naccepting or rejecting them. Just as a democratic government has
\nno business imposing particular opinions (no matter how virtuous)
\non the people, it has no right to withhold views (no matter how
\nridiculous) from consideration.<\/p>\n
In a true democracy, opinions of every sort have an
\nopportunity for expression. The truly stupid will find a few
\nadherents. The outrageous might spark some debate; the thoughtful
\nand intelligent will claim supporters. High quality, professional
\njournalism will attract and maintain the largest audience for
\ntheir news and opinions.<\/p>\n
In any case, the people will have a chance to consider all
\nopinions, their sources and their proponents. Without such
\nfreedom, all published opinion becomes suspect. Without such
\nfreedom, no printed or broadcast opinion or news item can be
\naccepted at face value and all are therefore mistrusted. The
\ngovernment itself becomes an object of fear and suspicion because
\nit controls the printed and spoken word.<\/p>\n
A truly free press would spawn a higher level of journalism,
\neven at the same time as it would tolerate the lowest kind of
\ngutter press. A news source that practices the highest standards
\nof ethics and strives towards objectivity and accuracy in its
\nreporting and even-handedness in its editorial policy will
\nattract readers. Having a number of such sources, particularly if
\nthey occupy different places on the political spectrum, will
\nensure that the population has access to a variety of views and
\nthat their opinions therefore, can be informed ones. People will
\nalways read the trash that is published as well. Gutter press
\nwill always have its adherents; the gutter press is useful even
\nif only because it contrasts so starkly with the legitimate
\npress.<\/p>\n
If an important public figure in Indonesian politics were ever
\nto publish an intelligent and thoughtful rebuttal of an
\naccusation or of a derogatory story, rather than imposing the
\nCriminal Code on the writer or publisher, the country should sit
\nup and take notice. This would be an indication that the
\npolitician genuinely has true democratic leanings. That would
\ncause us all to suspect that the noble sounding speeches about
\ndemocracy were more than mere political posturing.<\/p>\n
A politician who is truly committed to the democratization of
\nIndonesia would tolerate opposing views, no matter how much they
\nrankle; a true democrat would even be able to shrug off a
\nvindictive personal condemnation as being a misguided but
\npermissible expression of opinion. Nobody enjoys being insulted
\nor even taken to task for perceived failures, but that's part of
\nthe baggage that comes with public life. A representative of the
\npeople must hear from those whom he represents...even the idiots
\nout there.<\/p>\n
If a politician feels that his position in government entitles
\nhim to insulation under the law from negative opinions, it is an
\nindication that he still subscribes to the old anti-democratic
\nparadigms. That politician hasn't progressed to the point where
\nhe accepts and embraces his role as a public servant; he is still
\nmired in the traditional belief that he is a ruler. A ruler is
\nexempt from criticism; a leader rejects it and moves on. Or
\naccepts it and learns from it.<\/p>\n
The writer, social and political commentator, can be reached
\nat ttpguntensperger@hotmail.com<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/press-freedom-and-democracy-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}