New Order thinking prevalent regarding community broadcasting
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.