Our vernacular newspapers, television channels and radio stations are arguably among the most raucous in the world. Often, in the muddle generated by competing news stories in different media outlets, it can be hard to discern fact from fiction. Political parties, according to newspapers on the same day, can be both 'very close' to an agreement or still 'polls apart'. The new constitution, once again, has been 'foiled' by the four agitating parties and caucuses, according to one TV channel. The same constitution is 'sure to be promulgated' in the next one and a half months, according to another. Thank god! These competing narratives and the state's belief in the discretionary powers of the consumers of mass media are, in fact, at the heart of the democratic process. Otherwise, as happens in autocracies like Saudi Arabia and North Korea, the mass media, inundated by repetitive reports of His Highness inaugurating a new bridge or graciously observing a military parade, has only one use: to put you to sleep at the end of a long day. But, apparently, some of our political leaders, endlessly lampooned in the popular press and TV, have had enough of the noisome media and would like to put a kibosh on it.Why else would the four party leaders, the signatories to the recent 16-point deal, look to curtail, through back door, the freedom of the media in the new draft? According to the draft, the freedom of the press may be suspended in case of emergencies. The provision of "full press freedom" in the Interim Constitution has been chiseled down to "press freedom" in the new draft. Even the constitution of 1990, with the king as its protector, was more liberal towards media. Clearly, the main drafters of the new constitution are afraid that free and independent media will put up needless obstacles as they work for the benefit of vested interests in the future. Autocrats have, over the years, resorted to all sorts of wooly logic to limit press freedom. Consider this gem from Lee Kuan Yew: "Freedom of the press, freedom of the news media, must be subordinated to... the primacy of purpose of an elected government." Pace the Singaporean strongman, it would be no less interesting to hear our four party leaders on the rationale behind the proposed media restrictions.
The importance of free and independent press for a country at Nepal's stage of development cannot be emphasized enough. Take the recent media reports on mismanagement of aid, both money and material, pouring into the country in the aftermath of the Great Earthquake. The shortcomings of our big bilateral and multilateral donors, the NGOs they sponsor in Nepal, and most importantly, government agencies working in relief and reconstruction, have been repeatedly highlighted by Nepali media. This has forced these stakeholders in post-quake recovery to be more accountable and open. It would be dangerous to compromise on this vital role of free press, that of an impartial watchdog. Again, Nepali media is far from perfect. But there also could be no bigger folly than trying to hammer it to perfection.
Related story
Desperate search for missing girls as nearly 80 dead in Texas f...
