The Role of the Media in Governance

There is a considerable amount of material related to the specific role that the media, as a component of development communication, can play in good governance. The Media Matters publication for the Global Forum for Media Development provides a recent overview of current literature and debates. It demonstrates how there is a sound basis in traditional political science for the idea that the media matters for good governance. As Amartya Sen outlines “a long tradition of liberal theorists from Milton through Locke to Madison to John Stuart Mill have argued that the existence of unfettered and independent press within each nation is essential in the process of democratisation by contributing towards the rights of freedom of expression, thought and conscious, strengthening the responsiveness and accountability of governments to all citizens, and providing a pluralist platform and channel of political expression for a multiplicity of groups and interests.” Pippa Norris also highlights the importance of the media in promoting contemporary good governance. She maintains that the media acts as a watchdog over abuses of power, thereby promoting accountability and transparency; it acts as a civic forum for political debate thereby facilitating informed electoral choices and encouraging participation; and as an agenda-setter for policy makers thereby strengthening government responsiveness and promoting/encouraging capable governance.

To speak of the mandate of the media in a democracy is to assign a constitutional role for it. It is indeed to proceed on the assumption that the media is a constitutional instrument or phenomenon. Yet, in all Nigerian constitutions, the media is hardly mentioned in the manner in which the executive, legislature and judiciary on the one hand and the federal, the state and the local governments on the other are documented with legal instruments. Be that as it may, the philosophy of modern governance and especially of modern democracy conceives the media as a monumental force and as an institution similar to the tiers of government in Nigerian federalism and to the arms of constitutional government.

 Historically, the development of modern democracy as a product predominantly of the French and American revolutions in the 18th century acknowledged the media as the fourth arm or realm of constitutional and democratic government. In order words, it is difficult if indeed not impossible, to under-take a discourse on modern democracy and its practices without reference to the media.

 In the Nigerian experience, and without having to go into constitutional history, the media was mentioned only in section 22 of the 1999 constitution as part of the fundamental objective and directive principles of the state policy. We completely agree with and endorse the relentlessness with which Prince Tony Momoh among other press intellectuals and practitioners of the media in expanding the role of the media in strengthening democracy and good governance. In this connection, the obligation of the media as indicated in section 22 of the 1999 constitution, equally endows it with the duty not only to discharge its normal watchdog role in all aspects of governance and in guarding and advancing the frontiers of the people's liberties and freedoms but also the obligation to regard itself as "the policing institution over the fundamental objectives and Direct principles of state policy as well as the citizen's Fundamental Rights". The fact that the constitution imposes a duty on the media to monitor governance implies that it should undertake vigilance over the relationship between the people and the government.

 How the media discharges these grave responsibilities which involve unfettered access to information is an interesting subject matter that should engage not only the media itself but also indeed all civil society actors, both domestic and international.

 The point is that the media has a constitutional mandate in the advancement of the political and democratic process. It is equally true that the nature and character of the democratic process greatly impacts upon the performance of the media. It is in this sense that the nature and character of military regime can affect tremendously the performance of the media just as the nature and character of a democratic regime can do the same. Therefore, until it is fully researched and analysed, it is not enough to proclaim that democracy necessarily provides a much healthier environment for the media or that a military regime necessarily undermines or stifles the fundamental performance of the media. We have experienced in Nigeria's history instances in which government actors and functionaries within the democratic process had inflicted grave damage upon and constricted the press just as, naturally military rule generally had brutalised the press and journalism.

 Whether in a military rule or in a democratic regime, the media suffers a huge array of poverty and disabilities the elements of which include the political and business interests of its ownership or proprietorship, the extent of limitation of patronage and manipulation of market forces, location and cultural preferences, values of the target or readership audience, the work conditions and salary of journalists, and the staff of the industry all of which affect performance of the media in its relationship to the democratic process.