Freedom Of The Press, Democracy, And Democratization - Term Paper Example

Freedom of the Press Freedom of the press is the constitutional right to communicate and express oneself spontaneously through the electronic media and published materials without the control of government or other bodies of potential domination. As evident from the definition, freedom of the press demands absence of governmental control and its implementation requires constitutional backing. Thus, the legal environment and the political climate determine the degree of this freedom. Though in most government distinguishes which information is public, or protected from disclosure to the public based her classification of information as sensitive and secret, unrestricted freedom of the press as implemented in some countries, such as Sweden, guarantee the implementation of other fundamental human rights and promote responsibility on the part of government and the citizens. Indeed, the political rights, which encompass the right to participate freely in the political process, depend on how freely communication and expression through the electronic and printed media is guaranteed. Freedom of the press also makes political leaders and public office holders to be responsible and accountable to the citizens. Furthermore, the civil liberties that allow for freedom of expression and belief, associational and organizational rights, rule of law, and personal autonomy without government control are intrinsically linked to the degree of freedom of the press. Thus, the political stability of any state is strongly dependent on freedom of the press and as a result, freedom of the press is a politically relevant issue. The political rights, which include the right to vote and be voted for, depends on the degree of freedom of the press. The right to vote and be voted for is the distinguishing factor between democratic governments and their undemocratic counterparts. Democracy involves free, fair and regular contestation for political offices and freedom of the press is an implicit requirement for free and fair elections (Sachs, 2007, 2). For an election to be free and fair, the electorate must communicate and express themselves freely without fear, favor, threats or domination from government and other parties of potential domination. Indeed, freedom of the press ensures free communication and expression that eventually leads to free and fair elections. It is noted that governments that suppress the media are notorious for conducting flaw elections. This was the case with the Iranian government. In fact, the Iranian government aggressively crackdown on the media in the wake of its flaw presidential elections. Furthermore, authoritarian states such as Russia and China notorious for their molestation of journalists in the bid to restricting the flow of information and thereby maintaining the political structure are also excellent examples of states that conduct flaw elections (Karlekar, 2010, 1). In addition to promoting political rights, freedom of the press ensures that the elected government officials and other public office holders are responsible and accountable to the citizens. This is particularly true in states that have freedom of information legislation, an extension of the freedom of the press. Under this legislation, request can be made of government to make public, information otherwise classified as sensitive or secret. This promotes openness and responsibility on the part of government officials since they will be requested to provide information on how the government is run. Over 85 countries have implemented some form of the freedom of legislation. There is a good-to-excellent correlation between corrupt governments and countries that do not have this form of legislation. For instance, countries such as Sweden, Denmark, and Norway that have some form of the freedom of information legislation (Staples, 2007) have been consistently rated as the world most corrupt-free states. While African and Middle East countries that do not have forms of this legislation have consistently be rated as corrupt states. Thus, freedom of legislation promotes responsibility not only on the part of government officials but also on the part of the citizens. Freedoms of the press also guarantee the civil liberties of the citizens. Government violation of freedom of expression and belief, associational and organizational rights, rule of law, and personal autonomy is very common in states that crackdown on freedom of the press. Indeed, this is not farfetched given that civil liberties are intrinsically linked to freedom of the press. For instance, associational and organizational rights can be violated where there is no freedom of expression or communication. This is so because the rights of persons or groups in coming together to share information, as in a church, mosque, or even in a professional gathering, can be limited if there is a restriction on the constitutional rights of the citizens to express themselves. Indeed, China is an excellent example of a state where gross violation of civil liberties occurs. The Chinese government succeeds in these violations because of its success in controlling the press. Free flow of information by the press will expose government atrocities against its citizen and ultimately embarrass and weaken the political structure. Furthermore, most Middle East countries that have restricted freedom of the press as is implemented in China have the worst human rights records. Conversely, countries, such as Sweden, that guarantee unrestricted freedom of the press have excellent human right records according to Freedom House (Karlekar, 2010, 1). From the foregoing, it is apparent that freedom of the press goes hand in hand with other fundamental human rights. Indeed, it is the free flow of information that guarantees the human rights. Recently, the WikiLeaks reports have made some top government officials to claim that “leaks” of government secrets pose threats to national security and danger to lives (Calabresi, 2010). This claim suggests that some government officials fail to understand how government should be run. Government exist to guarantee the security of its citizens and to provide certain services, which the individual cannot afford independent of collective effort. Any responsible government in a civilized state carries out the function with respect for her citizens and her international neighbors and friends. Besides the mutual respect, all government dealings should be carried out with transparent honesty. When respect and honesty form the basis of government transactions and dealings, then the question of “leaks” of government secrets posing “threats” and “dangers” becomes irrelevant. In fact, it is only when governments are irresponsible in their dealings that “leaks” represent “threats” and “dangers”. Thus, free flow of information does not present “threats” or “dangers” to any state or person in as much as mutual respect and honesty form the foundation of government dealings. In fact, undemocratic governments that are notorious for restricting information do so because release of the secrets exposes their irresponsible behaviors and dishonest dealings which ultimately lead to threats to the political structure and danger to their lives of these politicians. Thus, it is not the unrestricted freedom of the press that lead to the “threats” or “dangers” rather it is the irresponsible dealings of governments and government officials. In conclusion, unrestricted freedom of the press must be guaranteed by the constitution of any civilized state as it ensure stable political structure through promotion of political rights and civil liberties in addition to ensuring responsible behavior on the part of government officials. This government can do by engaging the press and the people in dialogue to initiate laws that protect the press. In addition, government can also pass laws that encourage people to demand information from government officials while place the burden of proof on the government official. References Calabresi, Massimo. “WikiLeaks’ War on Secrecy: Truth Consequences”. Times. Thursday, Dec. 02 2010. Karlekar, Karin Deutsch. “Press Freedom in 2009: Broad setbacks to global media freedom”. Freedom of the Press 2010. Freedom House. Sachs, Natan. “Freedom of the Press, Democracy & Democratization”. Annual National Conference of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, April 2007. Staples, William. Encyclopedia of privacy. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press. 2007 p. 240. Read More