Twenty years after the Windhoek Declaration on press freedom

Thus, <strong>the</strong> self-regulation approach is
not primarily based on enforcement
by punitive or exemplary sanctions.
Based on voluntary agreement,
<strong>the</strong> conviction that <strong>the</strong> parties
concerned have common objectives
should ensure effectiveness of this
system. The key element of selfregulation
is <strong>the</strong> voluntary nature
of participation. But those who
advocate for statutory regulation
see this voluntariness as its weakest
point because stakeholders cannot
really be forced to comply with <strong>the</strong>
rules.
They also argue that self-regulation
suffers from a lack of democratic
legitimacy. It originates from media
players or groups with <strong>the</strong>ir own
specific interests. These interests
may contribute to, or even be partly
congruent with, <strong>the</strong> general interest
– but never<strong>the</strong>less <strong>the</strong>se special
interests do not necessarily coincide
totally with <strong>the</strong> general interest.
Thus, <strong>the</strong>y argue, <strong>the</strong>re will always
be a tendency that those involved
pursue <strong>the</strong>ir own interests ra<strong>the</strong>r
than public interest.
But <strong>the</strong> alternative to selfregulation
of <strong>the</strong> media is statutory
regulation, which would be <strong>the</strong>
quickest route to tyranny for most
of our governments. The discourse
should <strong>the</strong>refore not be about <strong>the</strong>
choice between statutory regulation
and self-regulation, but about <strong>the</strong>
best alternatives for self-regulation.
A lot of work is still needed on
<strong>the</strong> best ways to implement selfregulation.
And it’s up to each
country to find a form of selfregulation
that best suits its media
and takes into account factors that
may differ from country to country.
Self-regulation is widely seen as
a form of constraint on media behaviour
compatible with democracy.
And <strong>the</strong> terrain of self-regulation is
generally seen to operate within
<strong>the</strong> broad legal parameters of media
freedom. Most of our countries
“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’.”
already have enough laws on <strong>the</strong>ir
statute books to deal with most
media deficiencies. What more do
<strong>the</strong>y want? If it is our court systems
which are weak, why not remedy
that instead of putting unjustified
restrictions on <strong>the</strong> media? And if it
is <strong>the</strong> institutions of media self-regulation
that have deficiencies, why
not work on improving <strong>the</strong>m within
<strong>the</strong> context of self-regulation?
No one can argue that <strong>the</strong>re are
not many problems and challenges
in our self-regulatory systems. But
<strong>the</strong> solution is not to impose statutory
regulation on our media. Instead,
it lies in striving to continually
upgrade <strong>the</strong> professionalism
of our media through training and
through working to improve <strong>the</strong>
organisation, efficiency, effectiveness
and orderliness of our
self-regulatory systems.
Section 1: Freedom
Media in Africa - 2011 | 75