Twenty years after the Windhoek Declaration on press freedom

Self-regulation isn’t perfect, but
statutory regulation is much worse
By Fred M’membe
Fred M’membe is editor in chief of The
Post, Zambia’s leading independent
daily, and a veteran crusader for
press freedom. He has incurred <strong>the</strong>
persecution of numerous Zambian
governments for his outspoken and
courageous journalism.
74 | Media in Africa - 2011
Self-regulation isn’t perfect, but
statutory regulation is much worse.
Few would argue that news media
on our continent always carry out
<strong>the</strong>ir functions responsibly. They can
be sensational, superficial, intrusive,
inaccurate and inflammatory. But as
Nelson Mandela once aptly put it,
“… none of our irritations with <strong>the</strong>
perceived inadequacies of <strong>the</strong> media
should ever allow us to suggest
even faintly that <strong>the</strong> independence
of <strong>the</strong> press could be compromised
or coerced.”
The freedom of <strong>the</strong> press, and of
its inalienable right to be <strong>the</strong> critic
and mirror of our societies, is under
threat on our continent. In saying
this, I am not in any way implying
that our people, including our
politicians, should not take issue
with <strong>the</strong> deficiencies of <strong>the</strong> media.
It is part of <strong>the</strong> democratic process
that <strong>the</strong>y take vigorous issue with
<strong>the</strong> media – but without in any way
implying a right to infringe on <strong>the</strong>
freedom of <strong>the</strong> press.
I have never understood <strong>the</strong> rationale
of those who seem to be
saying that <strong>the</strong> press will enjoy full
rights when it is worthy of <strong>the</strong>m;
i.e. when it is more “responsible”.
Fundamental rights do not have
to be earned through good or
acceptable conduct. Press freedom
would be a farce if it meant merely
<strong>the</strong> freedom to report pleasant
things. I hold that <strong>the</strong> greatest right
in <strong>the</strong> world is <strong>the</strong> right to be wrong
and that, in <strong>the</strong> exercise <strong>the</strong>reof,
people have an inviolable right to
express <strong>the</strong>ir unbridled thoughts on
all topics and personalities, being
liable only for <strong>the</strong> abuse of that
right.
There have been many complaints
from our politicians about <strong>the</strong> conduct
of our press and many have advocated
for statutory regulation of
<strong>the</strong> media. They argue that as one
of <strong>the</strong> basic attributes of democratic
sovereignty, <strong>the</strong> media should be
regulated by democratically elected
people in parliament and <strong>the</strong> government
in general. They also argue
that it is only through statutory
regulation that severe-enough
sanctions can be imposed to guarantee
strict observance of a given
set of rules. Such sanctions, particularly
those provided by criminal law,
can <strong>the</strong>n be implemented by state
authorities like <strong>the</strong> police and public
prosecutors.
But <strong>the</strong>re is great opposition to this
approach by o<strong>the</strong>r stakeholders who
feel statutory regulation is not <strong>the</strong>
best way of addressing deficiencies
in <strong>the</strong> media. These groups advocate
for self-regulation, under which
those involved in <strong>the</strong> media draw
up <strong>the</strong>ir own regulations in order
to achieve <strong>the</strong>ir objectives and take
full responsibility for monitoring
compliance with <strong>the</strong>m. And because
<strong>the</strong> state is not involved in this form
of regulation, statutory sanctions
cannot be imposed.