by Alexis Gnonlonfoun, Benin, November 1997
THEME = MEDIA
At the beginning of October 1997, the
weekly "Mauritanie Nouvelles"
was banned for three months. No explanation.
The weekly Mauritanie Nouvelles will not be available for its readers until after the presidential elections of December 1997. And for a good reason!
This decision - fallen like a knife blade on the head of the managers of this periodical, - brings up the problem of Press freedom in this country. Yet the Constitution of 20 July 1991 recognises the right of citizens to freedom of information. But how can one judge the state of the Press in Mauritania? It is reputed to be free, but in fact it does not appear to be in the best of health.
It is a known fact that the government usually takes refuge in Article 11 of Press Regulations which permits censorship of writings which are considered to be "contrary to the national interest". In Mauritania, this raises a whole series of complex problems without offering any real solutions. What are the precise limits of the liberty available to journalists in the exercise of their profession? To what extent is the government involved in the overzealous activities of some of its civil servants? These basic problems have been the subject of heated debates and contradictory opinions for nearly five years.
At the moment there is an attempt to get control of the situation; but it must be admitted that some colleagues leave themselves open to criticism. What is needed is an irreversible decision of the government which has now to make a choice. It is faced with a political problem, and must take up a position on some newspapers presumed to be in favour of political involvement by the Opposition.
This situation leads to a distinct lowering of credibility regarding news items reported in the Media. In the first place, it is a result of the great number of news items reported, and secondly, of the fact that the Media does not accurately reflect public opinion.
This lack of credibility also has other causes, like the twisting of reality, mixing news and opinion, biased reporting, too much sensationalism and sentimentality in reporting events. The contact of Mauritanian people with the Media, the widening of their field of knowledge and their curiosity about social matters has greatly increased.
In six years, more than 140 new titles have appeared in the country. Today, only a few papers are published regularly. Whence the distressing fact: no sooner is the door opened than it is closed again. Logistics have not kept pace. Capital is very inadequate. This kind of situation favours disloyal competition and divisiveness which is fostered by politicians. Journalists have no option but to live with this dangerous situation. It is a lamentable state of affairs.
The period 1993 to 1996 saw the birth of the Union of Professionals of the Independent Press (APIUM) which is close to the party in power; of the Association of Independent Newsmedia (API) whose members are dissidents from the National Association of Independent Press (ANPI). They were to end up before the courts because of internal quarrels.
Besides, the Association of Newspaper Owners (APP), founded in 1994, does not speak the same language as the ANPI which was founded in October 1991. What interests the owners most is not political solidarity but increasing their influence through the Press. They misrepresent the real aims of the struggle of journalists (whom they treat as employees) for political ends.
The weakness of some newspapers arising from the economic damage caused by their failure to appear, is assessed in different ways. The most censured papers are L'Eveil Hebdo, Al Akhabar, Mauritanie Nouvelles. Before that the weeklies, La Verité and Al Bouchra closed down and never rose from the ashes.
In this context, to soothe the difficulties, ANPI is trying to overthrow the order of things, without however succeeding as yet. And among trade union circles, ideas are being put abroad that Press freedom cannot become a reality unless the Mauritanian press embraces a revolution of juridical as well as economic structures.
The route taken by wage conflicts is also to be deplored. They refuse to have recourse to the competent institutions where these matters among social partners should normally be solved.
Doubtless, recognition by the government of the right of citizens to freedom of information has enriched the work of the Press, but has also made it more difficult. In spite of everything, the work of the independent journalist in the large newspapers, is increasingly important.
It is crucial that journalists need training not only from a professional point of view but also on the ethical level. The problem is global but the solution has to be at a regional level. The ANPI still has much work to do, to face up to this important task. The government itself has often succumbed to the temptation of distinguishing in its own way between "good" and "bad" press, according to the editorial content of some newspapers.
At the Ministry of the Interior, where over-reaction is often in vogue, the "little bosses" are a law unto themselves by opposing the publication of commentary which does not please them. That is to say, they intervene unilaterally in the work of journalists. They consider interventions of this kind to be inherent in the legitimate exercise of "power sharing". Public opinion, on the other hand, does not understand the reason for the censorship measures adopted by the Ministry of the Interior.
In the present circumstances the conclusion is obvious: the fewer troublesome newspapers there are, the more easily the existing political system can rest on its laurels. In this way we are witnessing the return of the old demons. That is part of the political game. So the ideal is that journalists exercise self- censorship, to ensure that there will be less absence of stimulating influence of the written press.
END
PeaceLink 1998 - Reproduction authorised, with usual acknowledgement