Why Templates for Media Development do not Work in Crisis States: Defining and Understanding Media Development Strategies in Post-War and Crisis States

This report is based on the outcome of discussions at a workshop organised by the LSE Crisis States Research Centre, the Stanhope Centre for Communications and the Annenberg School for Communications. Our objective was to examine how media policy can be adapted to developing countries affected by crises and war. Democratisation and privatisation were central elements of the liberalisation programmes adopted in the debt-ridden countries of the developing world during the last two decades of the 20th Century. From the media perspective, this entailed a call for the creation and strengthening of independent and privatised media organisations that were believed to form a crucial element for the advancement of democratic values and economic growth. There are, however, serious problems when relying on media freedom to build national consensus in fragile states, especially those recently emerging from periods of violent conflict and war. In situations where national cohesion and consensus is lacking, state or public involvement in the media can, as part of the equation, actually be a constructive force for the social, economic and political reconstruction and development of a country. The first session of the workshop analyzed the issue of strong-state versus weak-state, by looking at Ministries of Information. The discussion that followed was dominated by three key issues: the implications of the reinvention of Ministries of Information as licensing agencies for private media organisations; the enduring need for governments of any political stripe to be concerned with public opinion and public support; and the tension between control by government and control by religious authorities of media content in the Arabic speaking world and the implications for democracy. Participants drew on the experience of East Africa, especially Uganda and Kenya, as well as on Nigeria and Zimbabwe and on Western Asia, touching on Kuwait, Iraq and Iran, and finally on Russia and the Balkans. The discussion in the second session focused on the various ways in which the media was transforming public authority and the practice of politics. It analyzed a range of issues, including: the role of technological change in the media and its impact on democratic possibilities; the role the media can play in both destabilizing politics and in promoting national integration; and the effect of Western media's behaviour, during recent military interventions, on attitudes towards prescriptions for media reform. The discussion considered the experience of a wide range of countries from Italy and Peru to the Philippines and South and Central Asia, focusing on Pakistan and Afghanistan. Panel three aimed to explore arguments for and against regulation of the media in fragile states. Debate centred on the role of censorship and whether, even in post-war states, it can ever be justified. Most agreed that some constraints on hate speech and other abuses of media must be adopted. International laws are needed both to protect information flows from being excessively manipulated for cynical political purposes by elites and to constrain hate speech. The adherence to such laws would have to be overseen by an existing UN agency capable of preventing information abuse. Participants also considered: the role of public broadcasting in post-war reconstruction; liberal approaches to media in the context of insecurity; and problems of open media while peace remains elusive. Participants drew on the experience of Rwanda, Uganda, Liberia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Afghanistan, Iraq and the Balkans. The last panel provided an opportunity to discuss the implications of these debates for developing media strategies in fragile, crisis and post-war states. The report takes off from these discussions to suggest a 'Diagnostic Approach' that donors should consider employing when designing strategies for media intervention in these situations. This is followed by the suggestion of a set of prescriptive choices that illustrate the diversity of objectives which external intervention might encompass, given the particular characteristics of the states involved. Proposals concerning support for media training and a future research agenda are advanced. The workshop was based on the proposition that attention to the role of the media needs to be at the heart of efforts to consolidate security, effective government and development in the wake of crises and war. In situations where the state is fragile, however, and where the political process is unstable and de-legitimated, the primary objective of donor assistance should be supporting the formation of a functioning state.; In such a scenario, unsophisticated liberalisation of the media can potentially undermine the state building project. The creation and sustaining of independent media is central to theories of democratisation. However, in the case of fragile states, it may also be misguided and potentially dangerous to assume that encouraging the creation of free and independent media will automatically strengthen civil society, or help establish a democratic system that will hold governments accountable. This approach underestimates the complexity of the contexts of fragile states.