New Order thinking prevalent regarding community broadcasting

Arya Gunawan, Coordinator, Communication Sector, UNESCO Indonesia, Jakarta

Is community broadcasting so scary in the government's eyes? State Minister for Communication and Information Syamsul Muarif has said that community broadcasting can provoke racial, ethnic, and religious conflicts in such a diverse nation like ours.

The government is thus willing to scrap community broadcasting, which is already recognized in article 18 of the Broadcasting Bill. The bill has been debated in the legislature since two years ago.

Syamsul's view still echoes the thinking of the New Order, which prioritizes security. In this case the legislature represented the reformist view, at least in taking the initiative to recognize community broadcasting in the Bill.

Is security really the right reason for omitting provisions on community broadcasting from the bill? None of the racial, ethnic, religious conflicts so far had anything to do with community broadcasting.

There are three big systems in the world's broadcasting industry: Public broadcasting, private/commercial broadcasting, and community broadcasting. A public broadcasting institution is usually owned and supported by the state, and its broadcasting policies controlled by one public institution. It is independent of government, political parties, or other interests. Funding is collected from the public. England's British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is a classic example of a public broadcasting institution. A commercial broadcasting institution, on the other hand, is owned and run by commercial companies or individuals, which provide a profit-oriented information service.

A community broadcasting institution has a number of special characteristics: It does not go after profit, it is owned and run by a community -- through foundations, organizations, or co- operative movements -- and provides service for a limited, usually homogeneous, community.

At first glance, there are similarities between community and public broadcasting, because it broadcasts non-profitable programs, such as those related to education, practical information, local entertainment, cultural and religious programs. The difference is that a public broadcasting institution must cater for a whole nation, so that its programs are not very specific; while a community broadcasting institution serves the people in a more local context.

The non-commercial nature of community broadcasting is reflected in its coverage of operational costs and the nature of the programs. Costs are covered by small scale, non-commercial announcements, such as for local events, song requests or family announcements (deaths or weddings); and most programs are local. In this context, community broadcasting occupies a strategic position amidst the wave of globalization that tends to obscure local richness and content.

The government's fear of community broadcasting is also unreasonable. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and many other institutions, have been actively involved in developing community radio in various parts of the world. So far, community radio has not been proven as an institution that has potential to disintegrate a nation.

On the contrary, community radio has proved effective in reducing and even eliminating potential conflicts -- because it educates the community to solve and overcome conflicts in democratic manners through debates, arguments, and negotiations; as opposed to violence.

Colin Fraser and Sonia Restrepo Estrada, in their Community Radio Handbook (UNESCO, 2001) say that community broadcasting gives voice to the voiceless, enabling local communities to voice themselves out. With that, they will feel that attention is being paid to them, their rights respected, and in the end this will neutralize the intention to "rebel"; something that can lead to efforts to separate themselves from the rest of the nation.

Community broadcasting has several technical limitations, so that will also reduce the possibility of mobilizing people with "bad intentions" in massive numbers. For example, it has a limited transmission power (around 20 watts), resulting in a limited coverage (20 to 30 square kilometers); serving 25,000 to 40,000 people, all of which is usually homogeneous, e.g. the fishing community.

Besides, a community broadcasting institution has to have a code of conduct, designed with a high awareness not to touch on sensitive issues in a given community such as racial issues. The government could always cancel a station's frequency license in event of a violation of such a code of conducts.

Through community broadcasting, people follow developments in their surroundings which are useful in their daily decisions. It also has some practical benefits. The community radio (combined with the Internet) in Kothmale, a village in Sri Lanka, for instance, has provided valuable information on the right way to produce flour, or the best way to bend rattan for making handicrafts.

In the last four years, Indonesia has witnessed the illegal emergence of hundreds of community radio. Illegal, because they don't have frequency license. They know that the government will not grant them a frequency, even if they apply for that. This is because community broadcasting has yet to be recognized in any of the laws or regulations on the media. Now they are all waiting for acknowledgement and provisions from the government -- not prohibition.

The article, contributed by the writer, was first published in Indonesian in the July 1-7 edition of Tempo weekly magazine.