Democratic Anti-thesis: Information Desert in Sri Lanka
04 Nov, 2000 · 428
N. Manoharan suggests a way out of the unjustifiable censorship in Sri Lanka
Media is the main information source for civil society and provides an excellent feedback, in a democratic set-up. If the ‘Fourth Estate’ does not enjoy freedom then checks and balances on the other three organs of government are disturbed. Hence, undue restrictions on the media are looked upon as undemocratic and it has been accorded constitutional guarantees. But the media is the first victim of any restrictions by governments “to protect political, social and moral order”. The Sri Lankan case is instructive, where censorship has been used as a sword rather than a shield.
Sri Lanka
are intended to curb activities designed to encourage terrorism, inimical to national defence or disrupt the normal life of the people. The Ordinance provides for a Competent Authority (CA) vested with powers to regulate the media, especially news pertaining to the security forces. The CA is also empowered to seize property and vehicles, stop sale and distribution of newspapers seen contravening national security interests and shut down printing presses.
Colombo
. It is said the anti-Tamil violence broke out because of rumours that the LTTE was advancing towards
Colombo
to take over the government, and that the water supply had been poisoned by the Tigers. However, this was part of a long-term strategy devised by the rioters to arouse ethnic sentiments and instigate violence. News inimical to maintaining ethnic harmony is bound to face the scissors. Censorship is also exercised during elections on the excuse of preventing poll-related violence.
Sri Lanka
has turned out to be a propaganda tool. It is good if it is targeted against terrorists. But, it is unacceptable when used against the whole community to which the terrorists belong. At the same time, media restrictions are also used by the ruling regimes to counter the Opposition, especially during the elections. An unhealthy precedent was set during Jayawardene’s time, who in his desperation to win the presidential elections in 1982, used the PSO to divest the Opposition leader, Mrs. Bandaranaike, of all civil rights, including the right to contest elections, and barring papers supportive of her party.
Invoked from time to time under the Public Security Ordinance, media restrictions in
It is argued that censorship is primarily to control rumours by the LTTE as part of their ‘psyops’. The fear is that the war front, if presented in a form favourable to the rebels, could affect the morale of the soldiers and the people. Thus, the government had to opt for a lesser evil—restriction on freedom of expression--than to face rumours. A classic example cited is the 1983 riots in
However, are these justifications in tandem with realities? Is the censorship doing good to society or only some influential members by ridding society of ideas considered offensive to these members? Similarly, is the state aiding society or helping to propagate that it is always right? If analysed objectively the truth is very different. Rather than preventing “unwanted rumours” censorship in
Thus, the media, which is a powerful means of social communications, has been thwarted by a centralised system of governance. It is sad that it has to operate under the guidelines and the environment provided by the authorities. If this is the case, the provision for “freedom of speech and expression including publication” made in Article 14 (1) (a) of the Lankan Constitution becomes meaningless? While censorship may be necessary, it is imperative to use it only as a last resort. It is also necessary to keep in mind the practical realities of the present situation. In this context, it is suggested that the “biased” and “state-centric” CA should be abolished in the first instance and would give judiciary given a major role in media restrictions. In the Sri Lankan case, this modality may not be effective, as the judiciary is not absolutely free from executive hold. Moreover, the judiciary will also get over-burdened by litigations related to censorship.
Hence, the solution lies, not in removing the CA, but in making this monitoring body more objective. There is a proviso under 5(1) of the Ordinance to appoint two or more persons as Competent Authority. Why should the government not consider the appointment of one member from each ethnic group, the media, judiciary and the government to constitute the body? Apart from gaining wide acceptability, this would provide the whole issue of censorship a ‘society-centric’ rather than a ‘state-centric’ dimension.
POPULAR COMMENTARIES
