The Commonwealth media’s role in elections: some lessons from Britain and Canada
Written by William Crawley, Senior Research Fellow, Institute of Commonwealth Studies
The principles of freedom of information and freedom of expression are regarded as the core of shared values to which Commonwealth governments aspire. In practice many Commonwealth countries give cause for real concern. National elections in India earlier in the year showed the dangers which many Indian journalists face not just in their freedom to report but in their exposure to physical, at worst lethal, violence.
As long-established and mature parliamentary democracies, both Britain and Canada are taking a leading role in promoting these principles and media freedoms globally and within the Commonwealth. But recent elections in both Britain and in Canada have justifiably invited scrutiny of aspects of their own record. The principles adopted by Commonwealth Heads of Government in 2003, known as the Latimer House principles, endorsed the aim of enabling “an independent and vibrant media which is protected by law in its freedom to report and comment on public affairs”. In 2017 the Commonwealth Journalists Association and the Institute of Commonwealth Studies, together with other Commonwealth professional associations, and in support of an earlier CJA initiative, established a Working Group on ‘Media and Good Governance’. The principles on Freedom of Expression and the Role of the Media in Good Governance which they agreed in 2018 highlighted among other things ‘the essential role of the media in the democratic process, especially during times of elections and referenda’.
In Canada there has been controversy not so much on the application of the law to the exercise of media freedoms during the election campaign, but on newly-amended provisions of the Canada Elections Act (CEA). Section 91 of the CEA makes it an offence to publish statements during the election period about political candidates and other public figures which are deemed ‘false’. The prohibition leaves words like ‘false’ and ‘public figure’ undefined. The Canadian Constitutional Foundation, a right wing lobby group, have argued that this could be used to shut down political speech that is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a fundamental part of the Canadian constitution since 1982. They argue – though this even the CCF admit would be an extreme interpretation – that it might even be used to stifle political debate about climate change. In a ‘post-truth’ age when the concepts of ‘truth’ and ‘falsehood’ are routinely derided, the Charter’s support for ethical media practices could be seen as restrictive, and new definitions are called for.
The issue that gained most international publicity during the Canadian election campaign could hardly be described either as a constitutional matter or one or truth of falsehood. Images of a youthful Justin Trudeau at a themed party wearing so-called ‘blackface’ makeup became an acute source of embarrassment to the prime minister during his re-election campaign nearly twenty years later. These were undoubtedly tasteless at the time, and awareness of racist tropes and racial discrimination has grown immeasurably in the intervening years. At the same time, their prominence in the media hardly showed the best side of journalistic principles and ethics. The capture on camera of an unguarded moment during the NATO summit in London, on the eve of the British election, with Mr Trudeau apparently joking with other prominent politicians at the expense of President Trump, arguably carried a more valid and contemporary political message, one with serious implications.
In the British election campaign, the media made the most of Boris Johnson’s many questionable assertions, as was to be expected in a bitterly divided campaign in which so much was at stake. The concept of ‘fake news’ has lost its ability to shock since it was first brought into common currency by the Trump administration and President Trump himself. A common perception is that governments and political parties – not to speak of the social media – have been offenders as much or more than the mainstream media. But there were elements in the British election campaign in which more than personal or partisan embarrassment was at stake. The Conservative campaign headquarters, in rebranding its own Twitter account as ‘factcheckUK’, was creating a conscious parody of one of the more encouraging trends in underscoring responsible journalism in the media The Conservative Party’s so-called ‘fact-checking’ service was revived to celebrate Boris Johnson’s election victory.
One of the key principles recommended by the Commonwealth Working group is that public broadcast services should operate under governance frameworks which guarantee their editorial independence. On two occasions at least, the Conservative party and Prime Minister Johnson made specific threats to public service broadcasting institutions. The first was to the television network Channel 4, when a Conservative party source threatened to review Channel 4’s broadcasting remit if they won the general election. During a debate between party leaders on climate change in which Boris Johnson had declined to take part, the Channel had replaced him with a sculpture of melting ice. The Channel’s license currently runs to 2024 and its output, like that of the BBC, is subject to the media regulator Ofcom. Channel 4 is owned by the state and the legislation setting it up could be altered by parliament at any time.
At another point in the campaign the prime minister said that if he were re-elected he would consider abolishing the BBC’s main source of income, the compulsory license fee. Either of these policy proposals would be within the power of a government, but the current BBC Charter started in January 2017 and lasts to the end of 2027. The Government would carry out a mid-term review of the Charter but that is not intended as a full Charter Review, and would, in theory, not look at the BBC’s mission, purpose, or the method by which it is funded. So while a review of Channel 4 would fall in the government’s current expected 5 year term, a full review of the BBC is not scheduled until after the next general election.
Boris Johnson’s decisive election victory has turned these campaign threats to both major public service broadcasters into real possibilities, and the broadcasters may legitimately regard themselves as on notice. But the independence of public service broadcasters is a major platform of the media freedoms that British governments have repeatedly committed to protecting and promoting. Their dilution would do little for Britain’s international reputation.
"""Jukumu la vyombo vya habari vya Jumuiya ya Madola katika uchaguzi: baadhi ya masomo kutoka Uingereza na Canada"" - William Crawley, Mtafiti Mtendaji, Taasisi ya Mafunzo ya Jumuiya ya Madola, Mfumo wa Uhuru wa Habari na Uhuru wa Maonyesho - ni msingi wa maadili ya pamoja ambayo serikali za Jumuiya ya Madola zinatamani." Katika mazoezi nchi nyingi za Jumuiya ya Madola hutoa sababu ya wasiwasi halisi. Uchaguzi wa mwaka huu nchini India umeonyesha hatari ambazo waandishi wengi wa habari wa India wanakabiliwa nazo, sio tu katika uhuru wao wa kuripoti, lakini katika kuathiriwa na vurugu za kimwili, mbaya zaidi, za mauaji. Kama demokrasia za zamani na zilizokomaa za bunge, Uingereza na Canada zinachukua jukumu la kuongoza katika kukuza kanuni hizi na uhuru wa vyombo vya habari ulimwenguni na ndani ya Jumuiya ya Madola. Lakini uchaguzi wa hivi karibuni nchini Uingereza na Canada umewasababisha uchunguzi wa mambo ya rekodi yao wenyewe. "Mafunzo ya Jumuiya ya Madola ya Uingereza, yaliyoidhinishwa na viongozi wa serikali mwaka 2003, yanayojulikana kama ""Mafunzo ya Latimer House,"" yaliunga mkono lengo la kuwezesha vyombo vya habari vya kujitegemea na vyenye nguvu ambavyo vinalindwa na sheria katika uhuru wake wa kuripoti na kutoa maoni juu ya masuala ya umma." Katika 2017, Chama cha Waandishi wa Habari cha Jumuiya ya Madola na Taasisi ya Mafunzo ya Jumuiya ya Madola, pamoja na vyama vingine vya kitaaluma vya Jumuiya ya Madola, na kwa msaada wa mpango wa awali wa CJA, walianzisha Kikundi cha Kazi juu ya Vyombo vya Habari na Utawala Mzuri. "Kama ilivyoelezwa katika kanuni za uhuru wa kujieleza na jukumu la vyombo vya habari katika utawala mzuri, ambayo walikubaliana juu yake mnamo 2018, ilikazia, kati ya mambo mengine, ""jukumu muhimu la vyombo vya habari katika mchakato wa kidemokrasia, haswa wakati wa uchaguzi na kura ya maoni.""" Katika Canada, kumekuwa na utata sio sana juu ya matumizi ya sheria ya mazoezi ya uhuru wa vyombo vya habari wakati wa kampeni ya uchaguzi, lakini juu ya masharti mapya ya Sheria ya Uchaguzi ya Canada. "Kifungu cha 91 cha Sheria ya Uchaguzi ya Marekani kinasema ""ni kosa kuchapisha taarifa wakati wa kipindi cha uchaguzi kuhusu wagombea wa kisiasa na watu wengine wa umma ambazo zinaonekana kuwa za uwongo.""" Marufuku hiyo inaacha maneno kama vile "mbaya" na "mtu wa umma" bila ufafanuzi. "Kampuni ya ""Canadian Constitutional Foundation"" imesema kuwa sheria hiyo inapaswa kuondolewa kwa sababu ya kukosa uthibitisho wa kisheria wa sheria za kisheria zilizotumika katika nchi hiyo tangu mwaka 1982." "Wanasema, ""ingawa hata CCF inakubali kuwa hii ni tafsiri kali, inaweza hata kutumika kuzuia mjadala wa kisiasa juu ya mabadiliko ya hali ya hewa.""" Katika enzi ya "baada ya ukweli" wakati dhana za "kweli" na "usemi wa uwongo" zinadhihakiwa kwa kawaida, msaada wa Mkataba kwa mazoea ya vyombo vya habari vya maadili unaweza kuonekana kuwa na vizuizi, na ufafanuzi mpya unahitajika. "Sehemu ambayo ilipata utangazaji mkubwa wa kimataifa wakati wa kampeni ya uchaguzi wa Canada haiwezi kuelezwa kama suala la kikatiba au moja au ukweli wa uwongo. """ Picha za kijana wa Justin Trudeau katika sherehe ya mandhari akiwa amevaa kile kinachoitwa "mwenye uso mweusi" ilikuja kuwa chanzo kikali cha aibu kwa waziri mkuu wakati wa kampeni yake ya uchaguzi karibu miaka ishirini baadaye. Hizi bila shaka hazikuwa na ladha wakati huo, na ufahamu wa misemo ya ubaguzi wa rangi na ubaguzi wa rangi umekua sana katika miaka ya kati. Wakati huohuo, umaarufu wao katika vyombo vya habari haukuonyesha upande bora wa kanuni na maadili ya uandishi wa habari. "Kuchukua picha ya wakati wa mkutano wa kilele wa NATO mjini London, kabla ya uchaguzi wa Uingereza, ambapo Trudeau anaonekana kuchekesha na wanasiasa wengine mashuhuri kwa gharama ya Rais Trump, ni ujumbe wa kisiasa wa sasa na wenye maana kubwa.""" Katika kampeni ya uchaguzi wa Uingereza, vyombo vya habari vilitumia vikali madai mengi ya Boris Johnson yenye kutiliwa shaka, kama ilivyotarajiwa katika kampeni iliyogawanyika sana ambayo mengi yalikuwa yanahusika. Dhana ya "habari bandia" imepoteza uwezo wake wa kushtua tangu ilipoletwa kwa mara ya kwanza katika sarafu ya kawaida na utawala wa Trump na Rais Trump mwenyewe. Maoni ya kawaida ni kwamba serikali na vyama vya siasa - bila kuongea ya vyombo vya habari vya kijamii - wamekuwa wahalifu kama vile au zaidi ya vyombo vya habari vya kawaida. Lakini kulikuwa na mambo katika kampeni ya uchaguzi wa Uingereza ambayo zaidi ya aibu ya kibinafsi au ya chama ilikuwa hatarini. "Kampuni ya Conservative ya ""factcheckUK"" ilifanya hivyo kwa kuanzisha huduma ya ""factchecking"" ya Boris Johnson." Moja ya kanuni muhimu iliyopendekezwa na Kikundi cha Kazi cha Jumuiya ya Madola ni kwamba huduma za utangazaji wa umma zinapaswa kufanya kazi chini ya mifumo ya utawala ambayo inahakikisha uhuru wao wa uhariri. Katika hafla mbili angalau, chama cha Conservative na Waziri Mkuu Johnson walifanya vitisho maalum kwa taasisi za utangazaji wa huduma ya umma. Miongoni mwao ni Channel 4 TV, ambayo ilitangaza kuwa itatumia mfumo wa TV ya Conservative Party kuondoa vipindi vya televisheni vya Channel 4 ikiwa itashinda uchaguzi mkuu. Wakati wa mjadala kati ya viongozi wa vyama juu ya mabadiliko ya hali ya hewa, ambapo Boris Johnson alikataa kushiriki, Channel ilibadilisha kwa sanamu ya barafu inayeyuka. Leseni ya kituo hicho sasa inaendelea hadi 2024 na pato lake, kama ile ya BBC, ni chini ya mdhibiti wa vyombo vya habari Ofcom. Channel 4 ni mali ya serikali na sheria ya kuanzisha inaweza kubadilishwa na bunge wakati wowote. Wakati huo huo, Waziri Mkuu wa Uingereza amesema kwamba iwapo atachaguliwa tena, atafikiria kuondoa chanzo kikuu cha mapato ya BBC, kodi ya leseni ya lazima. Mkataba wa BBC wa sasa ulianza Januari 2017 na unadumu hadi mwisho wa 2027. Serikali itafanya ukaguzi wa kati wa Mkataba lakini haikusudiwa kuwa ukaguzi kamili wa Mkataba, na kwa nadharia haitaangalia utume wa BBC, kusudi, au njia ambayo inafadhiliwa. """Kwa hivyo, wakati ukaguzi wa Channel 4 utaanguka katika muhula wa sasa wa miaka mitano wa serikali, ukaguzi kamili wa BBC haujapangwa hadi baada ya uchaguzi mkuu ujao." Ushindi wa uchaguzi wa Boris Johnson umegeuza vitisho hivi vya kampeni kwa watangazaji wakuu wa huduma ya umma kuwa uwezekano halisi, na watangazaji wanaweza kujifikiria wenyewe kama taarifa. "Usaidizi wa vyombo vya habari vya umma ni ""kiwango cha juu cha uhuru wa vyombo vya habari ambao serikali za Uingereza zimejitolea mara kwa mara kulinda na kukuza.""" Kupunguzwa kwao kungefanya kidogo kwa sifa ya kimataifa ya Uingereza.