Significance of Media in Strengthening Democracy

Mukesh Devrari & Harsh Dobhal 

Abstract

Known as the fourth estate following the Executive, Judiciary and the Legislative, media play a very crucial role in nurturing, preserving and deepening democracy and its various institutions and processes. The media also play a tremendous role in negotiating and democratizing the public sphere and expanding it to a wider segment of society. It is in the complex set of dynamics a democracy offers that the role of media assumes utmost significance and media and democracy enter a symbiotic relationship. Without a free media that is accessible to and representative of all, there can be no democracy, and without democracy, media can never get adequate space for proper functioning. This paper deals with four interrelated themes. Building on the assumption that free media and democracy are inseparable, the first part discusses the linkages between and the role of media in deepening democracy. The second part deals with the freedom of the press, increasing attempts by the State to curb this freedom and the need to further democratize media. The third segment deals with the concept of public sphere and media as a critical constituent in the process of creating and furthering this public sphere for ensuring representation and voices to citizens towards shaping political power in a democracy. An attempt is made to construct an argument in favor of an expansion of freedom and the role of media in a democracy. Rather than perceiving the expansion and freedom of media with a sense of ‘skepticism‘, this paper argues that the media should be treated as a powerful tool towards furthering a vibrant participatory democratic process.

(Keywords: media and democracy, communication rights, public sphere, digital media)

Media and Democracy

 

The power of the media in a democracy comes from it being the 'watchdog' of society, the 'fourth estate', supplementing the other three pillars of democracy - the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary - by providing the necessary checks and balances on issues that concern the masses. (Saeed, 2009, p. 67)

This is how the idea of democracy and the free press as an integral part of this process has been conceptualized and articulated by political scientists and the founding fathers of modern democracies. According to Thomas Jefferson, “If it were left to me to decide whether we should have a government without a free press or a free press without a government, I would prefer the latter” (Choi & James, 2007, p. 23). Freedom of expression in India is guaranteed by the constitution and it is reasonably reflected in the functioning of national and international media. One of the founders of modern India and the first Prime Minister of the country who shaped a number of democratic institutions in the country, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru also said that he would prefer to face chaos and other related problems arising out of functioning of free and independent press than having a peace and discipline at the cost of enslaved press. In India, the movement for freedom from British rule injected certain values for democratic institutions and political leadership of the time was cautious enough not to leave any scope for authoritarian tendencies to spring up. However, things are slowly changing in India.

The noble idea of the independent free press is withering away. Mainstream media outlets are becoming town criers, cheerleaders, abettors, apologists and an advance guard of newshounds clearing the way, preparing the ground for totalizing ideology and agenda of the right-wing forces. (Kumar, 2017, p. 76)

Ideally, democracy is a structure where an individual's dignity is fully respected and maintained; at the same time, the collective interests of the community are also protected. The greatest part of modern democracy is the creation of an acceptable structure where though the ruling elite has the legitimacy to govern the masses, it provides a platform, although in a limited sense, to every citizen to argue for and attempt to realize her/his interests. It allows individuals to shape the nation-state in unique ways.

India as a nation-state may have the most modern model of political governance, but the idea of a full-blown democratic society can’t be realized without respect for concepts like equality, liberty and social justice. These needs are natural to human beings. They must be inculcated among the masses. This need to infuse value systems among the masses makes the role of media significant in democracy. There are many other tools to do it. Apart from this, there are several reasons why the equality provisions in the Indian Constitution appear stronger and more extensive than in America (Beteiile, 1999, p. 193). An eminent political scientist Achin Vanaik argues, India has had an overdeveloped State in an underdeveloped civil society and historically the country faced a unique problem of implanting a liberal democracy in a predominantly illiberal society (Vanaik, 2007, p. 1079). The emergence of this unique structure ensures competing versions of the truth, each claiming its validity by aligning itself with the larger public interest in a democratic setup.

‘Public interest' and ‘public consent' are sources of validation in a democratic setup. Ironically, it is this ‘public interest' that is generally referred to overcome any opposition to proposed policy or scheme by any government in modern times. It is in this context of the complex set of dynamics a democracy offers that the role of media assumes utmost significance. Media and democracy are therefore essential to each other’s existence having a symbiotic relationship. Without a free media that is accessible to and representative of all, there can be no democracy, and without democracy, media can never get adequate space for proper functioning. Historically, the State has had the tendency to see newer developments – social and political -- with a lot of skepticism. Particularly in nascent democracies, nationalist ideologues feel that unbounded and unlimited space to media can pose an existential threat to the nation-state.

The ultimate objective of all human institutions is to create a better society where individuals are allowed to pursue and excel in activities of their choice. Media also has the same objective. Democracy also has such exalted status as it creates a semblance of such a desirable place. However, the greatest, as well as the most complex thing about democracy, is that it works on behalf of its citizens and executes their collective will, if not exactly the same, then at least it claims to work on behalf of its citizenry and executes decision taken for the collective interests of society. Media of all shades makes a similar claim. It claims to represent the wishes of the masses and most often if not a popular will, then surely general will. Free press and humane democracy are compatible with each other.

But the representative democracy has its own limits. In the 21^st century, world powers from the global north claim to be operating on behalf of their citizens while their actions many times adversely impact other countries. However, the modern democratic system gives them the space that they have the consent of and therefore they act on behalf of their people. In this complex interplay between various dynamics of democracy, the role of media assumes further critical significance. In democratic states, governments are expected to act in accordance with the socially accepted norms and customs which could be national or international. The democratic governments need justification to act aggressively or harm others. Because of this media and its role again becomes very critical in balancing various directions that democracy can be manipulated into. Media has to assist democratic processes, at the same it has to ensure that democracy does not turn into a tyranny of the majority. 

Freedom of Press and Democracy

Freedom of expression constitutes a basic building block for an open and free society. It is necessary for the empowerment of citizens. It is necessary for the state, civil society and the international community to work for its protection. Though the freedom of the press has not been expressly provided in the Constitution of India, it is implicit in the Fundamental Right pertaining to the Freedom of Speech and Expression guaranteed to the citizens under article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India. And arguably, the vibrant press has played a crucial role of frequently criticizing governments, mighty and powerful. Freedom of expression means freedom to express not only one's own views but also the views of others and, by any means, including printing (Basu, 2001, p.103). In recent times, a number of media outlets expose and sting operations provided the public with the information which would otherwise have remained hidden from public sphere but for the press. And undoubtedly this had a powerful impact on checking corruption, restricting politicians and officials from misusing official power and contributing to the strengthening of the ongoing democratic process. As compared to other countries of South Asia, the media in India continue to play this role of deepening and defending democracy. However, it is important to note that this freedom of speech and expression is increasingly coming under gradual attacks in a variety of ways. This attack is coming from both within and outside the media trajectory.

If we look at the media landscape from within, what unfolds is a phenomenon of unabashed corporatization of the media. Increasingly newspapers, magazines, television channels and news websites are designed as pure business enterprises with the sole aim of the media tilting towards profit-making at the cost of public interest. As the corporatization of media increases every passing day, instead of providing a forum for public good and voicing public concerns, a large section of Indian media today represent the interest, aspirations and concerns of rich people. Though an integral part of democratic process, the Indian media is evolving in a corporatized and anti-democratic direction, in turn, deeply compromising it’s functioning for public interest, betraying its own rationale and undermining its credibility (Bidwai, 2011).

 But the assault on media freedom and journalists is also inflicted by the State and non-state actors. The right to freedom of speech and expression implicit in the Constitution of India is subject to restrictions under subclause (2) whereby this freedom can be restricted for reasons of "sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, preserving decency, _­­preserving morality, in relation to contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offense.” 

However, the legal system has quite often been used by powerful vested interests to curb freedom of speech and expression. More and more journalists have come under attack for pursuing their stories against government, powerful section of society or political parties, resulting in severe restrictions on their functioning with freedom. While uncompromisingly pursuing their stories, many journalists investigating reports against the powers-that-be have been killed, media offices have been attacked, ransacked and journalists have been assaulted with criminal defamation cases filed against many of them. Many journalists are facing trial, others have had contempt of courts cases slapped against them, Parliament and state assemblies have issued breach of privilege motions against many others, while cases are also filed using Official Secrets Act, sedition and outdated notions of obscenity (Sharma, Tomlinson & Finn, 2009).

 The freedom of media in India's conflict zone appears to be further compromised, particularly in areas like Kashmir, part of northeast Manipur and part of central Indian states of Chattisgarh, Jharkhand and others where journalists are routinely caught in the crossfire between state security forces and militants or extremists of different hues and other non-state actors (Shutler, Chapman & Dobhal, 2011).Thus the attack on the freedom of speech is under assault both from within and outside.

Media, Public Opinion and Public Sphere

In a democracy, the most important voice belongs to the citizenry. The role of the individual citizen is extremely insignificant, but collectively their opinion is extraordinarily significant. Democracy has been conceptualized in such a manner across the world that governments should reflect the interests of the larger population and work for the betterment of all. Public welfare essential is at the centre of all of this. A government can pursue draconian policies against other nations and against a section of its own population if public opinion demands it or expects this undemocratic behaviour from its leadership or permits it.

In the struggle for power individuals and political institutions, means political parties, remain more than eager to pursue any agenda which might fetch votes for them. That is why the role of human discretion will never end, irrespective of the progress human societies make. Democracy cannot be automata. It cannot be by default position in any society. This constant challenge to exist as a democratic state and pursue policies in the best interests of people has always been understated. The government should act according to the public onion, but at the same time democracy also needs checks and balances. Independent judiciary and media have a responsibility to act as a watchdog. Shape and evolution of public opinion are essential for the evolution of a democratic society.

Habermas argues that during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the emergent Western European middle classes created a public sphere. It is a communicative space where rational-critical debate could take place. For Habermas the creation of such a sphere where real debate could take place led to something unique in human history – namely for a brief period, political action was driven by authentic public opinion. (Habermas, 1989, p. 160)

 

The emergence of new media gave a hope that the same public sphere will emerge again due to the technological advancements, but it could not happen yet. Western societies are facing newer challenges of post-truth, post-fact, fake news and fabricated news through the new media platforms. Hopes of free, independent, impenetrable public sphere are no longer visible.

Mass communication spreads manufactured, steered and manipulated public opinion. Effectively, Habermas suggests that, for a brief period, a type of ‘ideal communication' emerged – in the form of a perfect dialogue wherein status did not determine the outcome of the debate. Instead, this bourgeois public sphere allowed the best argument to win, based solely on the merits of the argument. (Louw, 2010, p. 45)

The role of propaganda is increasing as statecraft. It is able to able to mobilize a consensus among the elite, frame public debate within elitist perspectives and at the same time, provide an appearance of democratic consent (Thakurta, 2012, P. 43).

This role of manufactured public opinion has double implications, one at the level of a nation-state and other is at a transnational level. In the 21^st century, the hard power possessed by Western world might have been declined as many Asian countries particularly China has filled the gap between the economic might of west and east, but the situation has not changed much when it comes to soft power. American power is not totally dependent on the state machinery in the United States. Its soft power and cultural influence on the world community is more evident and powerful. American soft power means its ability to persuade others for co-option rather than command. It rests on intangible resources: culture, ideology, the ability to use international institutions to determine the framework of debate (Nye, 1990). For manufacturing consent and public opinion in any society hard power as well as soft is essential.

There are two origins of public opinion. In totalitarian regimes, the consensus is built from the top. Multiple stakeholders with divergent views do not get an opportunity to participate and influence the formation of public opinion. The totalitarian regime keeps strict control over all forms of mass media. They have to keep firm control over new media.

In democracies, exactly the opposite happens. Media plays a crucial role in the formation of public discourse. If it does not happen, then it seriously undermines the democratic culture and structure. Generally, it has been believed in Eastern societies that truth prevails and untruth loses in the face of free and fair debate. It is important to scrutinize the role of media here.

Changing nature of mass media has yet to replace the traditional role assigned to media in democracies. New media have not reached a significant portion of the population in the developing world in a meaningful way. Traditional mass mediums like newspapers and television are central to the Indian media ecosystem also. It has also been noted that messages and perspectives making rounds in new media platforms are generated in the traditional media outlets. People can have broader perceptions, but the common citizenry has no time to pursue and research the reality behind the western and national propaganda by the powerful forces working for objectives other than the larger public interest. India as a democratic nation needs to learn from western societies, but at the same time also ensure that we must not import the terrible falsehood and hypocritical practices and weaknesses of western media ecology.

The free and fair marketplace of ideas yet to emerge in India as has been by the

Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes who wrote in his dissent in Abrams v. United States in 1919, "the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market." In the digital world, this is even truer — the internet is amplifying the free exchange of and competition between ideas and opinions. (Pitruzzella, 2017)

Conclusion

Humanity is not following a predestined and pre-described path. It is a collective responsibility of human society that right values, right principles and a genuine sense of moral right and wrong must be inserted into our collective consciousness. Otherwise, life will be torturous and dehumanizing for the weaker among us. The world has seen enough injustice and brutality over the centuries by one set of homogeneous individuals over the other set of individuals.

Communication is the only weapon mankind possess to defeat the regressive forces. Free and independent media gives an opportunity to each individual to attack the extremes preached by society. A certain section of society might feel a sense of loss in dismantling their long-held beliefs on certain aspects of human life, but that sense of loss is misplaced. Societies have done it in the past. It is a continuous process.

As James Mill has said, “Ages are no more infallible than individuals, and every age having held many opinions which subsequent ages have deemed not only false but absurd; and it is as certain that many opinions, now general, will be rejected by future ages, as it is that many, once general, are rejected by the present. (Mill, 1859, p.45)

Media and democracies are interlinked with each other in many complex ways. Without democracy, independent, impartial and objective media outlets cannot be imagined. At the heart of democracy lies the liberty and welfare of citizens. All branches of government are geared to achieve this single objective. How to make the life of citizens bigger and better? How to make it more meaningful and fulfilling?

In developing nations, societies are walking on multiple paths at a single point in time. On the one hand, citizens are struggling for the right to pursue interests arising out of sexual orientation in a free and fair manner without any interference from the state. On the other hand, large masses are struggling for basic needs of life like food, shelter and clothing. In Europe, the economic needs of citizens have already been fulfilled. Citizens in developed states are demanding a different set of rights, which represents their evolved social realities.

In an ideal situation, media should present varied opinions. It cannot afford to function as a campaigner. If it continues to do it, it may lose its legitimacy as an impartial observer of contemporary history. Things have come to such a low as media, particularly mainstream, is trained to function in campaigning mode. Not necessarily for democratic goals or to make sure that truth prevails. It has historically acted as a propaganda tool in the western world. It already has no credibility in the East, but in the absence of choices and platforms to point at its follies, people in the developing world continue to tolerate the force-feeding of western perspectives. However, in India, mainstream media is neither liberal nor left-oriented. It is totally subservient to the larger corporate interests and power brokers.

Democracy can be strengthened only by encouraging media to remain free. It must not only necessarily pursue the narrow interests of the liberal elite, or narrow interests of the majority working-class or poor, but become the true and impartial career of multiple thoughts and perspectives.

Referencing

Basu, D. D., (2001). Introduction to the Constitution of India, New Delhi: Wadhwa and   Company.

Beteiile, A., (1999) Society and Politics in India: Essays in Comparative Perspective, New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Bidwai, P., (2011). Corporatization of Media and Loss of Credibility. Combat Law, Retrieved from http://combatlaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Corporatisation%20of%20media%20and%20loss%20of%20credibility.pdf

Choi, S. W., & James, P. (2007). Media Openness, Democracy and Militarized Interstate Disputes. British Journal of Political Science, 37(1), pp. 23-46

Deane, J. (2003). ‘Media, Democracy and Public Sphere,’ Retrieved from http://bibliotecavirtual.clacso.org.ar/ar/libros/edicion/media/16Chapter10.pdf

Habermas, J. (1989). ‘The structural transformation of public sphere: An inquiry into a category of Bourgeois Society’, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kumar, S. (2017, September 1). Escape from freedom, Frontline, p. 76 

Louw, E. (2010). The Media and Political Processes, New Delhi: Sage Publication.

Nye, J. S. Jr. (1990, October 3). No, the US isn’t in decline, The New York Times, p. A-33. 

Pitruzzella, G. (2017, September 15). Italy’s Antitrust Chief: The Case for Regulating Fake News Online, Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fake-news-regulation_us_59b97327e4b0edff97189fdf

Saeed, S. (2009) Negotiating Power: Community Media, Democracy, and the Public Sphere. Development in Practice, 19(5), pp. 466-478. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/27752087

Sharma, K., Tomlinson, A., & Finn, M., (2009). Freedom of the Press: Using the Law to Defend Journalists, New Delhi: Socio-Legal Information Centre.

Shutler, N., Chapman, N., & Dobhal, H., (2011). In Defence of Journalists, New Delhi: HRNL.

Thakurta, P. G., (2012). Media Ethics: Truth, Fairness, and Objectivity, New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Vanaik, A., (2007). ‘The Paradoxes of Indian Politics’, History Compass, 5(4), Pp. 1078-1090. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1478-0542.2007.00442.x/pdf