Free Speech and Democracy By Michael Shank News International[WEBSITE VERSION] June 30, 2007
A disconcerting trend is making its rounds among democratic nations. Countries are closing their doors to one of democracy's key tenets, that of free speech. The United States paved the way in Iraq by closing newspapers that failed to report favourably. Now US allies Egypt and Pakistan are following suit, shutting down blogs and censoring coverage of the armed forces and judiciary, respectively.
Presidents Mubarak and Musharraf, the top two recipients of US foreign aid after Israel, should perhaps consider alternative footsteps in which to follow. US efforts to limit free press in Iraq and Afghanistan seem to imply that it does not want to lead by example.
Furthermore, America's poor performance in Freedom House's 2007 Global Press Freedom Rankings --standing 20th after a long list of primarily European nations -- and its pitiable positioning in the Economist's 2007 Global Peace Index ranking -- 96th, one slot ahead of Iran -- sets the bar low for Mubarak and Musharraf in terms of expectations and precedent.
Consequently, if both presidents want to leave a legacy of democracy, as they both claim, they must rise above historical western precedent.
In Egypt, numerous bloggers face lawsuits issued by a government-backed legal system. Judges allied with Mubarak accuse bloggers of defaming the country while Mubarak's security officials publicly denounce bloggers, claiming they are in violation of communication and media laws. Bloggers may soon find themselves victim to a similar sentencing treatment received by Al Jazeera journalist Howaida Taha last month, six months in prison and a fine of 20,000 Egyptian pounds.
In Pakistan, though Musharraf recently and smartly rescinded his decree to give the state broadcasting authority the power to close television stations, there will be censorship by other means. At Musharraf's request, the Pakistan Broadcasters Association is drafting a code of conduct to, in the words of Information Minister Mohammad Ali Durrani, "ensure decency in coverage and respect for national institutions like the armed forces and judiciary." If one wonders what the parameters on decency and respect look like in terms of censorship, see Dr Ayesha Siddiqa. Her book Military Inc. which exposes the army's stranglehold on the country was immediately banned by the government.
The irony, of course, amidst all the democratic stumbling in Egypt and Pakistan is that the supposed democracy watchdog America is keener to point fingers at Venezuela's President Chavez than at Mubarak or Musharraf. Never mind the fact that Venezuela boasts a freer press than Egypt and Pakistan combined -- as the majority of media is privately owned by the anti-Chavez opposition, constitutionally protected, and uncensored.
Therefore, since the US is not consistently finger-pointing among Presidents Chavez, Mubarak and Musharraf -- partly because its venom against Venezuela has to do with Chavez's resistance to capitalism and partly because it is reluctant to chastise two critical allies in its war on terrorism -- Egypt and Pakistan must rise above the ethical imbalance.
This asks much of Presidents Mubarak and Musharraf, perhaps too much. But the results are worth it. Further censorship will only make heroes out of the censored. Dr Siddiqa's book, for example, since its release and subsequent ban in early June, is now receiving global attention -- a publisher's dream. Thank Musharraf for that. Banning bolsters the opposition, it doesn't demoralise it. The way to undermine the opposition is to take the wind out of their sails. Give them no reason to criticise. And in the case of Egypt and Pakistan, that means pushing for more democracy not less.
The writer is a PhD student at George Mason University's Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution.