A good democratic environment is sine qua non for a free press. A nation's constitution must have the following eight elements to be a full-fledged democracy.

Eight Fundamentals of Democracy

1. An inviolable commitment to freedom of speech and expression; freedom of conscience and other fundamental rights

2. An unambiguous constitutional commitment to secularism

3. Separation of religion and State

4. Right to equality before law and the equal protection of the laws

5. Gender Equality

6. Right to life and personal liberty

7. Republican form of government.

8. Universal Adult Suffrage

These eight elements are critical for a healthy democratic environment and India has all of them.

- A. Surya Prakash

Link: http://asuryaprakash.com/share.php?p=TGijCEvr&k=20

PRESS FREEDOM INDEX BY RSF – BIASED, SUBJECTIVE, NON-TRANSPARENT- PART I

BURKINA FASO WAY AHEAD OF INDIA!

A.SURYA PRAKASH

The Paris-based NGO, Reporters Without Borders (RSF), has come out with its latest Press Freedom Index to judge the degree of freedom available to journalists in different countries of the world. This index places India, the world’s largest, the most vibrant and liberal democracy and arguably the most plural society, down below at number 142 among 180 countries assessed for this evaluation. This is two notches below 140, the position occupied by India a year ago.

Why, according to RSF, does India perform so poorly vis-à-vis other nations, when it comes to press freedom? This calls for some serious analysis of the RSF’s understanding of democracy and the methodology that it employs.

The RSF website says the degree of freedom available to journalists is determined by pooling responses of experts to an elaborate questionnaire devised by it. The quantitative data is combined with qualitative analysis on abuses and acts of violence against journalists during the period evaluated. The criteria evaluated in the questionnaire, which has 87 questions, are pluralism, media independence, media environment and self-censorship, legislative framework, transparency, and the quality of the infrastructure that supports the production of news and information. This on-line questionnaire is sent by RSF to 18 NGOs across the world and a network of 150 correspondents and to researchers, jurists, human rights activists chosen by these correspondents. About ten per cent of the respondents are foreign correspondents working in the country being evaluated.But, here is the catch. The sample size for the survey for a country like India, which has 1330 million citizens, is too small and little is known of the respondents chosen. We shall deal with this a little later.

First of all, one would presume that a good democratic environment is sine qua non for a free press, but, strangely, there is little or no weightage in this index for fundamentals of democracy like a republican government; an inviolable commitment to freedom of speech and expression in a country’s constitution; an unambiguous constitutional commitment to pursuit of secular values; separation of religion and State; the fundamental right to equality before law and the equal protection of the laws; gender equality; and the fundamental right to life and personal liberty. It appears as if RSF does not see the need for any of this while judging whether there is press freedom in a country, and this is its biggest flaw.

This becomes obvious when one sees the ranking of certain nations, which cannot even qualify as democracies, way ahead of India. Here are some samples:

While the RSF Index places India at 142, Burkina Faso is over a hundredpoints ahead at number 36. This is the country which was identified by the State Department of the U.S sometime ago in its Trafficking in Persons Report saying that slavery continued to exist in Burkina Faso and that Burkinabè children were often the victims. It said slavery is an entrenched institution with a long history that dates back to the Arab slave trade. In 2018, an estimated 82,000 people in the country were living under "modern slavery" according to the Global Slavery Index. The Republic of Maldives is placed at number 79 in the CSF Index. Its constitution states that Islam is the religion of the State of Maldives and “no law contrary to the tenets of Islam shall be enacted in the Maldives”. Article 9 (d) of the Constitution declares that “a non-Muslim may not become a citizen of the Maldives”.

The Sultanate of Oman, which is at 135 in the Index, is an Arab, Islamic nation. Article 2 of the constitution of Oman says the religion of the State is Islam and Islamic Sharia is the basis for legislation. The system of governance is Sultani, hereditary in the male descendants of Sayyid Turki bin Said bin Sultan, provided that whomever is to be chosen from amongst them as successor “shall be a Muslim, mature, rational and the legitimate son of Omani Muslim parents”.

In other words, it is neither a secular state nor a republic and there is no gender equality because the constitution ordains that the head of state shall be a Muslim male.

The Index places Comoros at number 75. The constitution says the Comorian people solemnly affirm their will “to draw from Islam, the religion of the state, the permanent inspiration of the principles and rules that govern the union ……..”.

Now, let us look at some nations where the State is unabashedly wedded to Christianity. Argentina is at number 64. Its Constitution declares that the federal government supports the Roman Catholic Apostolic religion. The Constitution of Malta, which is at number 81 in the RSF Index declares that “the religion of Malta is the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion”. It says the authorities of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church “have the duty and the right to teach which principles are right and which are wrong” and that religious teaching of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Faith shall be provided in all State schools as part of compulsory education.

The Kingdom of Norway tops the RSF list and is declared the nation with the maximum press freedom. Its constitution describes its form of government as a limited and hereditary monarchy and says “Our values will remain our Christian and humanistic heritage”. Laying down the eligibility criteria to be head of State in Norway, it says “The King shall at all times profess the Evangelical-Lutheran religion”. It also grants immunity to the head of state - “the King’s person is sacred; he cannot be censured or accused”. In other words, it is not a secular state; it is not republican; and one of the basic fundamentals of democracy – equality before the law and the equal application of the laws (Art 14 in the Indian Constitution) – has no place in Norway.

The constitution of Denmark, which is number 3 in the CSF list declares that the Evangelical Lutheran Church shall be the established Church of Denmark, “and as such will be supported by the State”. This means that “it is based on the Holy Bible, various ecclesiastical symbolic books, and the teachings of the German theologian Martin Luther……..”. Today, the State has a duty to support the Church of Denmark financially and in other ways”.

Greece is at number 65 in this Index. Article 3 of its constitution declares that “the prevailing religion in Greece is that of the Eastern Orthodox Church of Christ. The orthodox Church of Greece, acknowledging our Lord Jesus Christ as its head, is inseparably united in doctrine with the Great Church of Christ in Constantinople and with every other Church of Christ of the same doctrine”.

Is not separation of church and State and religion and State central to democracy? This is one of the problematic issues with the RSF Index, but there are many more.

(To be Continued)





PRESS FREEDOM INDEX BY RSF – BIASED, SUBJECTIVE, NON-TRANSPARENT- PART II

WHY INDIA SHOULD REJECT THE PRESS FREEDOM INDEX LOCK, STOCK AND BARREL

A.SURYA PRAKASH

How can India, which has secularism embedded in the preamble of its constitution and which has no state religion, and which elects its head of state in the best traditions of egalitarianism lag behind hereditary monarchies wedded to churches and gender inequality? Further, how can theocracies and religion-based states which cannot even be classified as democracies, have press freedom better than a secular democracy like India? These are questions that first come to mind when one looks at the RSF’s laboured effort at producing a Press Freedom Index.

The RSF Website claims that press freedom in countries is judged under six categories On the touchstone of pluralism, it measures the degree to which opinions are represented in the media. If that be so, RSF wants us to believe that there is greater pluralism in media in theocracies and Islamic states and states where even citizenship is denied to non-Muslims than in India, the most pluralistic society in the world!

The second touchstone is media independence – to measure the degree to which media is able to function independent of politics, government, religious power and influence. And, if we go by the RSF Index, “religious power and influence” on the media in Argentina, Malta, Denmark etc where the State is wedded to the Church and in Maldives, the Sultanate of Oman, Comoros etc where the State is wedded to Islam, is far less than in secular, democratic India!

The third criterion is “media environment and self-censorship”. Liberal India has been witnessing a media boom over the last few decades, so much so, that the total print order of publications in the country has crossed 430 million copies in dozens of languages and the nation boasts of over 800 television channels of which a quarter deal with news and current affairs. The respondents are expected to analyse the environment in which journalists work. Can there be another nation which boasts of such media diversity? Also, when it comes to self-censorship, I hope RSF is aware of the consequences of non-compliance with self-censorship in Islamic States and theocracies. I hope it also has some idea of self- censorship that is de rigueur in the U.K vis-à-vis the Queen and in nations like Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark etc regarding their royalty. Self-censorship is anathema to a diverse, vibrant democracy like India.

As regards the “legislative framework” that governs media, starting with the Indian Constitution and a plethora of laws made by parliament, the media is provided with adequate insulation to enable it to work freely and fearlessly.

“Transparency” is another criteria on which India scores high. There is a great deal of divergence of political opinion in the editorial positions taken by Indian media houses, just as in the USA and other democracies and no media house ever hides its stripes. One can see all the colours of the rainbow in the media bouquet including those committed to communism, socialism, centrism, the right wing etc. Also, to those who complain of lack of transparency, one must say that the boot is on the other leg. The media was non-transparent in the past because of its excessive left-wing lilt. This stands corrected now because all shades of opinion find their place. In fact, it is this plurality which ensures free flow of information and opinion and it must be said without fear of contradiction that this kind of plurality is simply not available elsewhere.

This can also be seen on the social media as well, where there is a virtual free-for-all with the worst abuses hurled at political leaders including with the Prime Minister. If you are looking for “transparency”, you will get it in abundance on these platforms, but if you are looking for decency, this is not the place to go!

Finally, the index examined the quality of infrastructure that supports the production of news and information. India is technologically advanced and offers state-of-the-art infrastructure for those who want it. Also, because of its leadership in Information Technology, Indian media companies are building robust social media platforms to take their businesses to new platforms.

Apart from all this, the methodology adopted by RSF is highly questionable. It must name its correspondents in each nation; provide the list of respondents along with their social, political, economic background, place of residence etc. Unless the sample is credible, the inferences will be suspect. There are other drawbacks: The core team based in Paris determines the questions and the weightage given to each answer – not a satisfactory situation; RSF does not explain the definition of press freedom. Instead uses terms like press freedom, freedom of information etc loosely; and finally, the questionnaire is so long and exhaustive, that it would leave most respondents exhausted even before the process is over.

Finally, it must be said that the work of RSF is subjective, biased and non- transparent the biggest flaw is the RSF’s complete disrespect for the foundational principles of democracy. It seems to delude itself into believing that press freedom can exist in wholly non-democratic environments. For this reason alone, its conclusions must be rejected lock, stock and barrel. RSF must read the Constitution of India and compare it with other constitutions. It must look at the robust institutions that propel democratic traditions in India and first define democracy itself, before venturing into the preparation of a global index. In other words, it must go back to the drawing board.

Powered by Froala Editor