Press freedom and democracy

Press freedom and democracy

Patrick Guntensperger, Jakarta

A politician's commitment to freedom of the press is one of
the best possible indicators of his commitment to the general
principles of democracy. A politician who is willing to see an
unfettered press judge him and report on him, fairly or unfairly,
is one who places democracy ahead of personal considerations.

More than anything, Indonesia, right now, needs politicians who
are ready to place the democratization of this country ahead of
their personal ambition, wealth, power or even ego gratification.

A free press is one that is free to publish unpopular
opinions. And that must include opinions that are unpopular with
the established political powers. As long as a published opinion
stops short of libel (and in a democracy, that's a civil matter
to be taken up by the injured party, not a criminal matter to be
prosecuted by the government), a politician who supports
democracy must be willing to accept even tasteless, misleading
and heavily slanted criticism.

A politician, on the other hand, who claims to support the
process of democratization but allows his government to use the
criminal courts to punish those who malign him in the press, is a
hypocrite and fundamentally anti-democratic.

True freedom of the press must extend even to shoddy, second
and third rate journalism. It would be a mistake to think that
granting the people the right to a free press would guarantee
high professional standards among journalists; in truth, the
effect could well be precisely the opposite. A truly free press
would have room for vicious verbal assaults on public figures,
rabidly partisan tub-thumping, unreasonable demands and
expectations, faulty logic and sheer stupidity in print.

In a democracy though, we assume that the people have a right
to consider even the opinions of halfwits. The key is that the
people have a right to hear and then to consider opinions before
accepting or rejecting them. Just as a democratic government has
no business imposing particular opinions (no matter how virtuous)
on the people, it has no right to withhold views (no matter how
ridiculous) from consideration.

In a true democracy, opinions of every sort have an
opportunity for expression. The truly stupid will find a few
adherents. The outrageous might spark some debate; the thoughtful
and intelligent will claim supporters. High quality, professional
journalism will attract and maintain the largest audience for
their news and opinions.

In any case, the people will have a chance to consider all
opinions, their sources and their proponents. Without such
freedom, all published opinion becomes suspect. Without such
freedom, no printed or broadcast opinion or news item can be
accepted at face value and all are therefore mistrusted. The
government itself becomes an object of fear and suspicion because
it controls the printed and spoken word.

A truly free press would spawn a higher level of journalism,
even at the same time as it would tolerate the lowest kind of
gutter press. A news source that practices the highest standards
of ethics and strives towards objectivity and accuracy in its
reporting and even-handedness in its editorial policy will
attract readers. Having a number of such sources, particularly if
they occupy different places on the political spectrum, will
ensure that the population has access to a variety of views and
that their opinions therefore, can be informed ones. People will
always read the trash that is published as well. Gutter press
will always have its adherents; the gutter press is useful even
if only because it contrasts so starkly with the legitimate
press.

If an important public figure in Indonesian politics were ever
to publish an intelligent and thoughtful rebuttal of an
accusation or of a derogatory story, rather than imposing the
Criminal Code on the writer or publisher, the country should sit
up and take notice. This would be an indication that the
politician genuinely has true democratic leanings. That would
cause us all to suspect that the noble sounding speeches about
democracy were more than mere political posturing.

A politician who is truly committed to the democratization of
Indonesia would tolerate opposing views, no matter how much they
rankle; a true democrat would even be able to shrug off a
vindictive personal condemnation as being a misguided but
permissible expression of opinion. Nobody enjoys being insulted
or even taken to task for perceived failures, but that's part of
the baggage that comes with public life. A representative of the
people must hear from those whom he represents...even the idiots
out there.

If a politician feels that his position in government entitles
him to insulation under the law from negative opinions, it is an
indication that he still subscribes to the old anti-democratic
paradigms. That politician hasn't progressed to the point where
he accepts and embraces his role as a public servant; he is still
mired in the traditional belief that he is a ruler. A ruler is
exempt from criticism; a leader rejects it and moves on. Or
accepts it and learns from it.

The writer, social and political commentator, can be reached
at ttpguntensperger@hotmail.com