Taking strong exception to the EC move, PCN boycotted a Master Training of Trainers (MToT) which was conducted by the constitutional body.
The EC has argued that there can be a conflict of interest if PCN undertakes a media monitoring project on the implementation of the election code of conduct as well as take action against media organizations that violate the code of conduct.
On the other hand, PCN has maintained that media monitoring is not the job of the EC, which is responsible for conducting elections and other poll-related activities.
EC officials have said that the commission will allow professional experts to carry out media monitoring. [break]
Republica on Thursday caught up with Election Commissioner Ila Sharma, who is also coordinator of the media monitoring committee at the EC, and Chairman of PCN Borna Bahadur Karki, to talk about the dispute between the EC and PCN.
Excerpts of the interview with Karki:
PCN boycotted the MToT conducted by the EC. Does PCN want to stay away from the entire media monitoring process?
We do not want to stay apart from the media monitoring process. What we want is that PCN must be allowed to undertake the media monitoring project on implementation of the election code of conduct. The EC move to bypass a legal body is erroneous and wrong in principle.
What do you say about the EC argument that there can be a conflict of interest if PCN undertakes media monitoring as well as its action against media organizations that breach the code of conduct?
The responsibility of PCN is not only to carry out media monitoring on implementation of the code of conduct but also to take action against media organizations that violate the code of conduct. It will be a wrong precedent if the EC starts undertaking media monitoring on code of conduct implementation.
Are checks and balance not necessary among the legal bodies of the state?
Press freedom is a must. Only PCN has the right to undertake media monitoring on implementation of the code of conduct just like only the Judicial Council can monitor any irregularity in the judiciary. PCN is the only official body for carrying out media monitoring on implementation of the code of conduct.
What could be the reason behind EC´s decision not to allow PCN to carry out the media monitoring project?
Though I do not have any evidence, but there are rumors that the EC has taken the decision under the influence of external forces that gather information about the country and expend lots of money here for the purpose.
So, how can the dispute be settled with the November election looming?
We have been requesting the EC to scrap its decision, which is 100 percent wrong. What can the EC do if media organizations refuse to accept monitoring carried out by the commission?
Excerpts of the interview with Sharma
The Election Commission´s decision on media monitoring project has been dragged into controversy as Press Council Nepal (PCN) boycotted the Master Training of Trainers (MToT). What do you say about this?
Any non-cooperation from anybody, including government or statutory with the Election Commission in carrying out our work, renders them liable for action. It is the sacred duty of all to cooperate and it is unfortunate that a body like PCN does not realize it´s responsibility. Period.
The commission had allowed PCN to undertake the media monitoring project during the last Constituent Assembly Election. Why does the EC not want PCN undertaking media monitoring project on implementation of the election code of conduct?
For several reasons, this is not a case of wanting or ´not wanting´, it is because of many a sound rationales.
One, because PCN as the watchdog for journalist´s code of conduct, considering them the perfect body to carry out actions against violators of our Election code of conduct, we have entrusted them with executive functions. We believe PCN is good at taking action against violators of journalist´s code of conduct which is their regular job-or at least they ought to be. That is where they figure in EC´s framework guidelines-when EC has to execute its actions against violators.
We have an Action Execution Committee where the Chair of the PCN, the DG of information department, our joint secretary of the legal section and head of our monitoring unit along with a Commissioner sit together to execute the decisions of the EC.
Second, If the same body conducts monitoring function, produces reports and analyses, recommends action as well as takes action, where is the separation of powers -it is not the ideal situation. To be able to achieve the higher goal of ´sanctity´ of electoral process, we must build such mechanisms into our processes. Sanctity of the electoral process is made up of these little bricks.
Election Commission´s media monitoring function is something very sensitive as it feeds into our Election code of conduct monitoring and actions. Outsourcing it was a one-time event in the absence of a better option. It is not the international best practice, rather such a practice is an exception. Besides, EC must build its own competence and not start from scratch every time there is an election. Although there is a report at the PCN, EC has absolutely no institutional memory and I repeat NO institutional memory of what was done last time!
Is the EC not interfering with affairs of PCN which is responsible for conducting media monitoring and taking action against media organizations that breach code of conduct?
PCN´s primary job is to monitor Journalist´s code of conduct and take action against violators. It should pay attention to what is its first and foremost duty and do it in a responsible manner.
As far as interfering is concerned, what is happening is the other way round. EC is perfectly capable of deciding how best to conduct its own functions, to build its competence and to institutionalize its functions, to build mechanisms that contribute to the sanctity of the electoral process. That´s a promise and we will do our best.
The idea is to gradually bring about a culture of non-violation, of deterrence, a culture of ethics and professionalism by enabling the media not to violate Election code of conduct. We have no intention of playing a headmaster with a cane forever.
There are many first times in EC this time round. We have worked very hard at institutionalizing in EC-for the first time we have an Observer´s policy and relevant strategy and guidelines, a Gender and inclusion policy, a communication policy, a communication strategy and guidelines for our Press office, Media centre and media monitoring and many other such frameworks. It is having a vision and doing the groundwork which is most difficult but then we are looking at building an institution, constantly improving on our legacy and not letting our country down.
Media monitoring of the electoral process is a relatively new concept and was pioneered by Medialine in 1999 elections. That work was not commissioned by EC, rather was a DFID project. I was a part of that team. To the credit of the forward looking vision of Commissioners and its officers, EC in the 2008 elections at least recognized its importance and outsourced it. The work was carried out by a team with the some members coming from the pioneering team. This time round, we have internalized this function at EC and are trying to build competence -within EC and by capacity building among the media.
PCN chairman Borna Bahadur Karki has accused some EC commissioners of taking the decision for economic interests. How do you defend the move?
There is no need to defend on our part as there is no argument-they simply don´t have a case! No locus standi. If he, being the chair of PCN himself indulges in baseless slander and libel against a constitutional body, how does he intend to monitor Journalist´s code of conduct and take action against violations which is the sacred and foremost duty of PCN?! The less said about the bile and venom he is exhibiting, the better.
As EC has already decides not to allow PCN to undertake the media monitoring project, which organization will do that job?
Just as last time, we put together a team of experts and institutions-it will be more or less the same team as before. The only difference is that we have the proper legal framework to institutionalize this function in the EC this time round. We have improved on the methodology part as the media has proliferated in past years. We will be building our own competence as well as the capacity of monitors we pick from the media. Hopefully we will have contributed to institutionalizing this discipline in Nepal and next time we will not be faced with absolute lack of institutional memory in the EC and shortage of trained monitors.
We must remember that media monitoring requires a very specific set of skills even among experienced journalists and there are not so many people trained in it. It was possible to put together a team of monitors in the last elections only because a professional journalist of high repute himself was the Chair of PCN. Even then they had to put together a monitoring team, engage Nepal Press institute and its facilities to carry out all the regional work. There is no ´single´ organization in Nepal currently which has the capacity to deliver work of this quality and magnitude singlehandedly.
Will the commission review its decision on the media monitoring project?
EC does not have time to waste.
What will EC do if PCN does not take action against media organizations that breach code of conduct?
As I have already said, EC can take action against anybody, statutory or otherwise, who do not cooperate with us. If they do so they become liable for action to be taken against them. Besides, EC can take action against violators directly through the Information ministry and GON.
Related story
PCN to make monitoring of election code of conduct more effecti...
