The Media Owners Association of Tanzania (MOAT), Trinity Group East Africa, and the EAC Secretariat jointly organised Tanzania Media Peace Forum 2015 at the Julius Nyerere International Convention Centre in Dar es Salaam recently. A SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT interviewed Tom Ndahiro, former Human Commissioner Heading the Department of Civil and Political Rights in the Rwanda National Human Rights Commission. He remains a human rights activist and a crusader against genocide ideology and denial. The rights man argues that bad words should be ignored because, the media can be a vector of hatred. Read on…
QUESTION: You were a key invitee in a two-day Tanzania Media Peace Forum 2015 held in Dar es Salaam, could you briefly tell us what was the key message?
ANSWER: They invited me to share the country’s experience and the role of the media in peace-building, conflict and genocide. My message was that the media can be used to build peace but also they can be used to spread hatred.
I emphasised that the words in the media can kill, as it happened before and during the genocide against Tutsi and Hutu with moderate stand in Rwanda. But, also the words can heal as it happened after that cataclysm. Therefore the most important thing is to use the media to heal and not to kill; to build rather than demolish.
Q: During election period, is there any harm for the media to report what candidates and their campaign managers say as they battle for votes?
A: The media should report what candidates and their campaigners say, but should not report everything they say. What should not be reported or emphasised on is unscrupulous words. Professional and mindful reporting must have the interests of society in mind. And that cannot be considered a restriction on freedom of the press or expression.
You can only quote a destructive speech when you are criticising it. There is no need to glorify what is not right. But otherwise candidates and their campaign teams deserve a space in the media because it is a form of education that helps society and the electorate to choose whoever and whatever they want. There are few who can know candidates through political rallies but others will not and those who do not can only judge through speeches and explanation they get from the media.
Q: Which country in East Africa plays a constructive role in peace building and development?
A: I find it very challenging to approach your question in a comparative way because challenges and policy responses are not always uniform. Suffice it to say, Rwanda emerged from the most extreme end. Genocide is the most horrible crime in the world which ripped-off our society.
Rwanda reached the lowest bottom you can go. But from there the country has risen positively. From hopelessness to visible development, from peace-seeking to peacekeeping and peace building elsewhere in the world. One good example is that Rwanda is the 5th largest contributor to United Nations peacekeeping operations around the world. That is to say peace building is a cross cutting shared responsibility. It is a going concern and no level of stability should cause complacency or indifference.
Q: What do you have to say about reconciliation in Rwanda?
A: The internal reconciliation process happened in incredible proportions. The country embraced the idea of getting together as the only means to stitch together a shredded social fabric. The genocide governments wanted to kill Rwanda, but their defeat kept Rwanda together. Rwanda understands the importance of togetherness. That was the essence of joining the East African Community, the Commonwealth and active partner in all regional and international organisations.
Q: New media tools such as smart phones can help bring peace but also convey inaccurate information and promote violent agenda. Do you think East Africans; especially the youth are using smart phones to promote peace and development in the region?
Q: I don’t think that the new technology we have is being used positively and effectively. Yes, it helps people communicate, but at the same time it has been a tool of propagating negative information. Most of the time false information is not countered and people with hidden agenda have managed to use social media to pollute socio-political air.
Nevertheless, the picture is not that grim. From an optimistic point of view, we should embrace this new technology to make sure that we use it positively rather than negatively. To sum it up, technology has helped people enjoy their rights with ease, but this comes along with a challenge on regulation. It is all about the thin line between rights and responsibility.
Q: What is your message to the media fraternity in Tanzania in peace building and social consensus as the country prepares for elections next month?
A: In other parts of Africa the media played a very negative role in spreading hatred; they facilitated genocide in Rwanda and the media triggered of and fanned violence in countries like Kenya. From those lessons, the media in countries like Tanzania which have enjoyed relative peace since independence, there is need to ensure that hate speech or bigotry does not penetrate into the Tanzanian society. Anything through the media, which can invalidate or tarnish the “Uhuru na Umoja” (freedom and unity) must be denied oxygen.
Q: Do you think those lessons have been learnt?
A: Unfortunately, the answer is glaring NO. You can see, especially on the internet and sometimes the mainstream media, the same discourse and style that contributed into the incitement of genocide. It is easy to see unchallenged hate speech and even direct incitement to genocide, and genocide denial.
This makes it possible for hate-mongers to enjoy impunity. I am not conversant with all that is happening in election campaigns. However, I see some signs of unhealthy reports and reporting in the local press, blogs and social media.
Q: Do you think the media in Rwanda specifically and East African region at large have played their part in peace building?
A: Certainly yes! When you educate, inform and entertain you are an agent of peace. The media has done that and continue to do that. The picture is that of hope. Rwanda and indeed East Africa have media houses and agencies that have contributed positively to peace building rather than fuelling violence. The negative media remain a fringe group.
Q: How do you define press freedom?
A: Press freedom is all about responsibility. It is a freedom to inform with a clear understanding of effects of misinformation and disinformation.
Q: Is the situation in Rwanda consistent with your definition of press freedom?
A: Yes and no. Yes because we have responsible reporting. But, we still have irresponsible reporting, writing or abuse of the freedoms. There are some people who allow lies in their publications and negative comments on their web pages.
When you allow such things you are in reality an accomplice to the crime of spreading hate discourse and facilitate the passage of falsehoods. So, despite the fact that we are in a country that experienced the worst crime in the world, people are still learning. Generally, the press has done very well with those few exceptions.
Q: Thomas Jefferson, the main author of the US Declaration of Independence, and the country’s third president, once remarked: “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a Government without newspapers or newspapers without government, I should not hesitate for a moment to prefer the latter.” Was Jefferson right in suggesting that journalists are more important to society than politicians?
A: I don’t entirely agree with him. I would feel very unsafe to live in any country without a government. There is a complimentary relationship that is required between government and press. Journalists cannot operate in a vacuum. They do their work in a certain political set up and framework. I believe that both journalists and politicians need each other.
Q: Do you believe that there is irresponsible journalism?
A: For sure irresponsible journalism exists. Even what one would call criminal journalism! When you spread hatred you stop being responsible but a facilitator or a commission agent of a crime and that is not only being irresponsible, but unacceptable. You stop being a journalist but a propagandist of hatred. Odious discourse deserves no oxygen for its survival, and responsible journalists must refrain from that kind of discourse.
SOURCE: THE GUARDIAN
Leave a Reply