World Movement for Democracy in
Central and Eastern Europe and Eurasia
Spotlight on NGO Work in Central and Eastern Europe and Eurasia
Interview with Rastislav Kuzel, Executive Director of MEMO 98 in Bratislava, Slovakia, and a participant in the World Movement for Democracy
Q. Please tell us when and how your organization was established, and what its mission is.
MEMO 98 was launched with support from the US-based National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI) in June 1998 to monitor systematically the Slovak media prior to the parliamentary elections in 1998. Over the course of six months, and with the help of approximately 35 monitors, MEMO 98 monitored the broadcast media and five national newspapers and regularly released the results to the general public, the media, political parties, licensing bodies, international observers, and others. MEMO '98 quickly became widely respected as a fair judge, and its reports were anxiously anticipated and widely broadcast in the media. Over the course of five years, MEMO 98 became one of the most respected civic organizations in Slovakia. As the only media-monitoring organization in Slovakia, MEMO 98 regularly presents the results of its research to the public. Unlike many other NGOs in Slovakia that largely contributed to the fall of the undemocratic government in 1998 and are not fully accepted by both the ruling coalition and the opposition as independent organizations, MEMO 98 remains non-partisan and has not changed its objective and critical tone towards the ruling powers and therefore enjoys general acceptance from a wide spectrum of political parties and the general public.
The mission statement of MEMO 98 is expressed in the slogan, "Ensure that all citizens have free access to balanced public information," and is being fulfilled by a consistent monitoring of the Slovak media and issuing periodic reports with special foci on the hot issues in society. Based on the success of its projects in Slovakia, MEMO 98 has been approached by a number of international organizations to share its experience worldwide, in particular in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and the Balkan countries. Within the framework of a number of international organizations, such as OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), United Nations, Pro Media, International Foundation for Election Systems, and National Democratic Institute, MEMO 98 has conducted media monitoring projects in Belarus, Ukraine, Tajikistan, Hungary, Czech Republic, Kyrgyzstan, Serbia, Montenegro, Croatia, Moldova, Guyana, Uganda and recently Armenia. The main goal of MEMO 98 in 2003 is to maintain its position as the foremost media monitoring institution in Slovakia as well as in Central and Eastern Europe, and to continue helping to improve basic human rights worldwide.
Q: What do you see as the main connection between MEMO's work in media monitoring and democracy building?
I believe that no democracy can function without a truly independent media. Media monitoring is an effective tool to hold those who are supposed to be the controllers and watchdogs to account. As the "fourth estate," the media indeed possesses powerful tools to influence public opinion. In developed democracies the media usually points out unhealthy phenomena in the society, watches over the management of public affairs, and last but not least, provides information about all the important developments in a society as well as unbiased analyses of the context in which the events occur. Having said that, I believe that the biggest enemies of media in the 21st Century are political and economic elites and the media that serve the partisan interests of particular individuals rather than being accountable to the citizens.
In transitional democracies, the media, the state media in particular, invariably becomes the mouthpiece for the ruling powers. It does not provide the general public with an unbiased, objective, and fair portrayal of public affairs. A partisan presentation of facts or the omission of important opinions reduces the quality and standard of newscasts. An unbalanced piece of news is not only inaccurate but also biased, because it offers a distorted, partisan, and confusing view of affairs or problems. Deliberate misinterpretation of information by political entities using media to promote their own objectives increases public distrust towards the political process and undermines the authority of any government ascending to power though such means. Ultimately, this may lead to divisions between politicians and citizens who naturally grow skeptical, because the loss of confidence in an actual political entity can make them turn their backs on politics as such. Consequently, people lose their interest in public affairs, become passive, and fail to cast their ballots. As a result of low election turn-out, the quality of the overall election outcome becomes undermined. Therefore, it is very important to make sure that the general public is offered fair, unbiased, objective, and balanced information about political affairs on which basis citizens can make qualified decisions.
Media monitors serve as "watchdogs" over media, ensuring fair and unbiased coverage. This function is vital even in those countries where a long-term tradition of freedom of speech, press, and information provides self-controls and codes of conduct that reduce the possibility of bias. However, in transitional countries, where such mechanisms are less developed, it becomes even more important to gauge the media's behavior in accordance with internationally accepted standards. This is why monitoring of the media by citizens, to observe and question its compliance with those standards, is a crucial part of the political process.
During elections, media monitoring reports provide the media, the political contestants, and the citizens with benchmarks by which to judge the fairness of the whole election process. The basic question citizens should ask while conducting a media monitoring exercise is whether information available through the media is adequate for voters to make an intelligent and well-informed choice at the ballot box.
Q: What were some of the challenges that your organization faced at various stages, and how did you address them?
It has been a quite intensive five years of work since 1998. The biggest challenge in the beginning of MEMO's existence was to build up its credibility, respect, and reputation among citizens, political players, and the media. The year 1998 was, in many aspects, crucial for Slovakia in the short history of the country since the majority of the population clearly expressed its position about the future development of the country. In their vote, the Slovaks openly demonstrated their willingness to become fully integrated into the western world and articulated their dissatisfaction with an undemocratic and authoritarian system of governance. The latter was among the most important benchmarks at the beginning of MEMO's existence because the core staff of the organization consisted of university students grouped around an experienced National Democratic Institute expert who launched the media monitoring project in Slovakia.
While MEMO 98 was among the most successful projects of the 1998 parliamentary elections in Slovakia, another big challenge for us was to continue our work after the elections given the fact that NDI did not have a plan to support the project beyond 1998. The third crucial benchmark for us was the year 1999 when we were approached for the first time by the OSCE/ODIHR to participate in their international election observation missions as media experts. Ever since, MEMO has taken part in election and media related projects in some 15 countries. One of the biggest strengths of our work is that we have always worked as a good team - three people out of four in the current management are the founders of MEMO 98. In addressing various challenges and issues in the organization, the team atmosphere has always been among the most effective tools.
Q: Over the years you have conducted media monitoring, especially during election years, in many countries of Central and Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and the Caucuses. What would you say have been the leading challenges facing those countries, and how can those challenges be best addressed?
The situation in the former Soviet Union bloc varies a lot. While the Central European and Baltic states have clearly expressed their willingness to join the family of democratic countries, some countries in Eastern Europe, but mainly in Central Asia and the Caucuses, still have a long way to go.
The experiences in Slovakia, Serbia, or Croatia, demonstrate that strengthening civil society enable countries to accomplish important achievements in transition to more democratic systems of governance. However, the experiences from Belarus and other former Soviet states also show that it is impossible to "export" the same models from country to country and expect the same short-term results. The situation in each country is different given its history, culture, and democratic tradition and that is why each country must surmount its own hurdles and obstacles before fully developing a democratic system.
On the other hand, the vast majority of the former Soviet Union countries are members of OSCE and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. By signing various international documents and treaties, these countries voluntarily decided to follow the basic principles of human rights and freedoms, such as freedom of speech; freedom to receive, retain and disseminate information; freedom of assembly; etc. While the basic rights and freedoms constitute part of each country's constitution or other relevant laws, they are invariably not respected in practice. To address the challenges in each country more effectively, the international community should be more united behind a common approach. The democratic institutions (judiciary, media, etc) in these countries must become more developed. The citizens should be able to demonstrate clearly and openly their resistance to undemocratic governance.
Q: How do Memo's media monitoring activities help encourage civic responsibility while engaging citizens in public matters?
I believe that by releasing regular reports and raising our voice each time someone "crosses the line," MEMO succeeds in raising public awareness and encouraging journalists to observe the standards of balanced reporting; to provide citizens, journalists, media regulatory bodies, and the international community with an independent assessment of the fairness of media reporting; to motivate citizens to learn how to view and accept information; and to inspire positive changes to the electoral and media legislation in Slovakia in such a way that the public media became independent of any political pressure.
Q: How do you envision the future work of your organization?
As mentioned earlier, the mission statement of MEMO 98 is "Ensure that all citizens have free access to balanced public information." We would like to continue fulfilling it by continuing the consistent monitoring of the Slovak media and by issuing periodic reports with special focus on the hot issues in society. Based on the success of its projects in Slovakia, MEMO 98 will continue to share its experience worldwide with a special focus on the CIS and Balkan countries. The main goal of MEMO 98 in the future is to maintain its position as the foremost media monitoring institution in Slovakia, as well as in Central and Eastern Europe, and to continue helping to improve the basic human rights worldwide.
Q: What would be your advice to fellow democracy activists who would also like to establish a media monitoring service for their region?
I believe that the most important questions to ask prior to starting a media-monitoring project are: why is it important to monitor the media? What do we want to achieve? Therefore, general considerations before starting a media monitoring exercise are the following:
- Is state media free to play an impartial, fair and objective role in covering activities of all candidates and political parties, or is there a selective approach to providing information on selected events where topics are chosen not by their information value, but to portray a favored party in a positive light and its opponents in a negative light? Is there any preferential treatment in favor of/or against a particular candidate or political party?
- Is there any intentional manipulation of the privately owned media by its owners or other partisan forces?
- Is anyone imposing direct censorship?
- Are journalists forced to adjust their comments or criticisms to what is considered acceptable by the authorities? Are they engaged in self-censorship?
- Are any media or journalists penalized or harassed in any way for broadcasting programs or publishing articles merely because they are critical of government, its policies, or ruling powers?
- Are journalists ready to "cross the line of objectivity" in return for money or other personal benefits?
- Are journalists competent and responsible enough to have adequate resources before releasing any information?
- Is there any prejudice in reporting based on racial, ethnic and religious hatred?
The objectives of a domestic media-monitoring project could be as follows:
- To provide the media, the political contestants, the international community and the citizens with benchmarks to judge the fairness of the election process.
- To inform voters on whether mass media provides them with a fair and balanced picture of the campaign, and alerts them to the need to question their sources of information prior to the elections
- To raise public awareness and encourage journalists, editors, and media outlet owners to observe the standards of balanced reporting in the broadcast and print media focusing on specific important political issues.
- To motivate citizens so that they learn how to view and accept information. For many citizens, this could be the first unique opportunity to understand better what should be the actual role of the media in a democratic and free society.
- To advocate for positive changes to the media laws so that public media may become independent and provide balanced reporting.
- To document and raise public awareness of all cases of administrative restrictions, intimidation and harassment of the media by state administration or a political party.
Thank you very much. We wish you and MEMO 98 continued success with your work.
|
