Press freedom, political repression and the

spread of terror

February 18, 2015

Isis fighters, pictured on a militant website
The anti-LTTE war in Sri Lanka took a considerable
toll on local media freedom. Between 2005 and 2014, national security was
seen by the relevant government as an over-riding consideration in
running the country and the media were expected to operate with this in
mind. Since defeating the LTTE militarily took prime place in state affairs,
media freedom and other liberties came to be seen as disposable and
inessential.
Sri Lanka is the 165th out of 180 countries in the World Press Freedom
Index rankings, thanks to the political repression which was rampant in
this country over the past ten years. Formulated by the Paris-based
Reporters Without Borders press watch dog organization, some of the
criteria on the basis of which a countrys ranking in the index table are
determined are: media pluralism and independence, respect for the safety
and freedom of journalists and the legislative, institutional and
infrastructure environment in which the media operate.
It is, of course, no secret that quite a few Sri
Lankan journalists have lost their lives or have
disappeared over the past two decades. Whereas
one would expect those local organizations which
espouse the cause of media freedom and the
legitimate interests of journalists to persistently
impress on Sri Lankas present rulers the need to
investigate the deaths and disappearances of the
local journalists in question with the aim of bringing all the relevant wrong-

doers to justice, this is yet to happen. Accounting for this near deafening
silence on the part of local media organizations and connected institutions,
is as difficult as knowing the facts and circumstances pertaining to the
deaths and disappearances of the journalists under reference. To the
relevant media bodies we say: Speak up and carry out the
responsibilities which are expected of you.
Needless to say, media freedom is integral to the democratic way of life
and if the media in Sri Lanka are compelled to operate within restricted
space, the conclusion is inescapable that the relevant freedom is absent
or is severely limited in this country. In other words, democracy in Sri
Lanka could be seen as being under threat. It is up to the Maithripala
Sirisena administration to prove that this is not the case.
The anti-LTTE war in Sri Lanka took a considerable toll on local media
freedom. Between 2005 and 2014, national security was seen by the
relevant government as an over-riding consideration in running the country
and the media were expected to operate with this in mind. Since defeating
the LTTE militarily took prime place in state affairs, media freedom and
other liberties came to be seen as disposable and inessential. Thus, was
Sri Lankas democratic development stymied. And to the extent to which
democratic growth was undermined, to the same degree was Sri Lanka
converted into an authoritarian state.
These developments proved fatal. Democratic freedoms and national
security were seen as antithetical to each other, whereas in countries
which have achieved democratic maturity, democratic values and security
come to be mutually-reinforcing. Under the latter situation, there could be
no trade-offs between democratic development and security. They operate
in tandem.
Glancing through the World Press Freedom indices, it could be seen that
Brazil is at 99, up 12 places. This should be considered a notable
development. What are the factors that enabled Brazil, one of the BRICS
and much studied for its economic dynamism, to come-up the Press
Freedom ladder so dramatically? Sri Lanka, at the bottom of the heap,
needs to scrutinize this success story with some studiousness because
this exercise is certain to reveal the path to economic advancement, while
protecting basic democratic freedoms.
In contrast to Brazil, the US is at 49th position in Press Freedom standings,
down three places and UK at 34, down one place. This should be cause for
concern for particularly the US. It would need to find out whether

democratic development is suffering some erosion at home. Unknown to

the majority of US citizens, may be, the press is compelled to place some
curbs on its perceived freedom. May be, security considerations, which
weigh heavily on the state, are compelling the media in the US to place
restrictions on themselves, when reporting and commenting on issues
which relate closely to national security and defence. It could also very
well be that some journalists are up against threats of one kind or another.
These questions need to be probed by quarters concerned with the
countrys status as regards Press Freedom and connected issues.
On the face of it, though, the observer should not be surprised if some
freedoms and values which have been considered central to liberal
democracy are currently suffering some erosion in the West. This comes in
the wake of what some sections refer to as rising Islamaphobia in the US
and other Western countries. For instance, commenting on the murder in
the US recently of three Muslim students, the Secretary General of the
Organization of Islamic Cooperation was quoted saying that the US
government should take measures to protect society from negative
images, discrimination, and stereotyping that contradict the core values of
American society.
The murders referred to were apparently carried out by a person who was
quite openly opposed to faiths of any kind. Accordingly, the student
murders could be said to have been carried out by an individual driven by
religious hate, which is, of course, antithetical to the spirit of democracy,
and should be condemned as a species of terrorism.
But terrorism, whatever the motivation, is sharply on the rise worldwide. A
most recent outrage of this kind comes from Libya, where religious
extremists of Egyptian origin have reportedly brutally beheaded scores of
Coptic Christians. Another act of butchery occurred in Peshawar, Pakistan,
where Taliban militants attacked a Shiite mosque, killing over 20
worshippers.
The backdrop to this dramatic escalation in terror, is the US-led military
campaign against the IS in Iraq and Syria and Pakistans efforts to contain
the Taliban militancy in our part of the world. There is also Boko Haraminspired terror in parts of Africa which needs to be considered. Immediate
threats to law and order anywhere need to be managed by states through
the adoption of military measures but such initiatives usually lead to a
spiral of violence which tends to grow out of the control of states and their
law-enforcement agencies. The current splurge of terror in parts of the
globe is the evidence of this security conundrum facing states and law-

and-order agencies.
In the medium and long terms, it is conflict-resolution measures based on
democratic values that would help states and publics in their efforts to
contain terror. The OIC has made a valuable input to this discourse,
quoted above, which needs to be studied and acted upon.
Posted by Thavam