Gorkhapatra and The Rising Nepal, the two state-published Nepali and English language dailies, are basically mouth pieces of people in power. And this was the very reason that popularized private print media in the early 1990s. [break]
At every revolutionary and critical moment in Nepal, GC’s publications have always betrayed us. For instance, during the1950 movement, they carried the voice of the then Rana government. Similarly, they eulogized Panchayat rulers and decried democratic forces in the 1990 struggle for democracy.
During the State of Emergency in 2001, GC again sided with the government. It did the same after the Royal take over post February 1, 2005. And they keep repeating the same mistakes.
The mechanism that compels GC to support those who have power over the Ministry of Information and Communication is the Gorkhapatra Corporation Act (GCA), 1963. This Act exerts GC to become the government’s lap dog instead of the society’s watchdog. GC’s anniversary is perhaps, the right time to rethink this Act.
The Act’s provisions
The Gorkhapatra Corporation Act was enacted on April 12, 1963. The preamble of the Act states that the main objective of the corporation is to involve the private sector in the management and publication of Gorkhapatra in order to improve its standard and make it more popular. The Act had also made provisions to float shares to its staff and to the general public, which no government had dared to do previously.
Since the official establishment of GC on July 9, 1963, the Panchayat and different democratic governments have amended the Act five times. Each time the amendments were superficial in nature because measures to monitor the government’s control over GC were never taken. Several requests were made to turn GC into a public organization. However, these demands have remained unheard and unfulfilled till today. The Act can be dissected into the following sub topics.
Popular Participation
Participation gives a feeling of ownership to people.
There are very few ways to bring about people participation in media organizations and their programs – namely providing feedback on programs through letters, phone calls, emails, etc. SMS polls and interaction programs on the television also allow people participation. Nonetheless, the participation is limited.
Full participation would mean the right to have a say in the media houses’ policies, plans and programs. Article 4 of the GCA has provided a medium for people participation with the provision of floating its shares to its staff and the general public. It has made it obligatory to distribute 25% of its shares to its staff and the remaining to the general people, with 50% ownership entitled to the government.
When the Panchayat government exercised this Act, the government could keep 60% of the total shares and sell the remaining to the public and cooperatives. The provision was revised to 51% government, 25 % staff and remaining to public in the 1971 amendment, which is still in implementation today.
Successive governments, however, refrained from selling the corporation’s shares. Why? What were they afraid of? The answer is simple.
If the government floated the corporation’s share, other shareholders would have a say in the management of the corporation. And the government wanted no interference from the general public or from the staff within the corporation. Other shareholders could have questioned the governments’ interference in GC, which the latter did not want under any circumstances.
Political Appointment of Executive Committee
The original Act enacted in 1963 had the provision of nine members on its executive committee (five from the government and four from other shareholders). However, when it was amended in 1971, the provisions were changed to a five-member executive committee comprising of three government officials and two other shareholders (staff and general public).
However, since governments were not floating GC shares, the Act automatically bestowed the government with the power to appoint members from the staff and public. Owning to the Act, the government has been appointing all members of the committee at its own will.
It is the reason why we see a change of the executive committee members with the change in government. Even journalists and editors are reshuffled when the government changes, which in turn has an effect on the quality of journalism. Journalists who hold political ideologies similar to that of the governing party make it to the committee.
Professional journalism is not possible under such conditions.
Even the 1992 National Communication Policy urges the government to float GC shares. But again, the process is linked to the executive committee.
If there had been a distribution of shares as the Act outlines, there would have been two members in the executive committee from the staff and general public. If so, there would have been a possibility of opposition against the government from those two members. This was a method to check and balance the governments’ actions within GC. However, the concerned governments never followed through on this by citing another provision of the Act.
Autonomy
The autonomy of an organization is a contentious issue. When does an organization become autonomous? Just introducing the term autonomous in any Act is not enough.
Article 3 of the 1963 Act defines GC as an autonomous organization. However, what the autonomy provides in this case is that it can only own properties and participate in legal activities but can do nothing to stop government interference. The same Article provides legal rights to GC to appoint agents and reporters.
It is thus ironic that GC, an autonomous organization, has to seek permission from the government to purchase, sell and mortgage property under some situations. According to Article 18 of GCA, GC must seek permission from the government before buying property worth Rs. 10,000,000 or more, to mortgage its properties for more than 10 years and to sell property worth Rs 5, 00,000 or more.
As a media house, GC must have the right to have business transactions and to think of its development. What we really need in practice is GC’s full autonomy rather than this limited excuse for autonomy.
What a problem!
It is time for the government to turn GC into a public media house. Various options have been outlined for the reformation of GC, two of which are considerable. The first one is to turn it into a cooperative organization that would allow the staff and general public to own shares. The second is to pass a charter for GC, which would make the Corporation responsible to the parliament and not to the government.
The High-level Media Suggestion Commission formed in 2007 also urged the government to privatize GC by selling its brand and wealth. But the government is ignoring such voices of reform.
The government is aware that the media is a means by which to exercise power. For that reason, it has been showing no willingness to leave its grasp over GC. Privatization would mean revolutionary for any government. Thus they will not agree on such a reform without huge assail from every quarter of the nation. However, even citizens can only pressure the government for action. It is the government that must act responsibly.
(Writer is associated with Martin Chautari.)
Related story
Govt mulls shifting for Gorkhapatra Corporation
