7/31/2019 Presentation - Yangon 19-03-12

1/3

Conference on Media Development in Myanmar, Yangon, 19-20 March 2012

Role of media in empowering communities

Steve Buckley, media development advisor and former President of AMARC

Good morningMay I start by thanking the Ministry of Information and UNESCO for the invitation to

speak at this important conference on media development. That we are here today, with

an impressive list of participants to face such a challenging agenda, suggests to me the

potential for our work to be a landmark in building democracy in Myanmar.

I have to admit this is my first time in this country. I am a seasoned traveller and

communication rights observer, but I come here as much to learn as to share what I

have learned from elsewhere. From the early 1990s I have been a member of the board

of AMARC, the World Association of Community Radio Broadcasters - an

organisation with members in 130 countries community radio stations - for whom I

had the great privilege of serving, until recently, as international president.

I continue to work with and draw inspiration from AMARCs global network of

grassroots activists. Extraordinary people and communication projects which I have

visited in rural villages of India and Nepal, in marginalised urban communities in

Bangkok, Beijing and Jakarta, in disaster affected areas of Aceh, Tamil Nadu and Bihar

and across the world in Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and in the Americas, where

community radio - by, for and with the people - first emerged in the late 1940s.

I want to talk first of all about media development in times of political transition - not

only for the obvious reasons that we are here, but also because I believe there are

lessons to be learned from other experiences of the transition towards democracy.

Twenty years ago, the end of the Cold War and the demise of the Soviet Union were

accompanied by a wave of revolutions and political upheaval not only in Eastern

Europe but also in many African countries. Among the demands of pro-democracy

activists then were calls for freedom, plurality and independence of the media. In the

broadcasting sector, state monopolies were the norm, with state radio and television

serving essentially as a means of propaganda and a mouthpiece of government. State

control of print media was also widespread. In the political reforms that followed, the

broadcasting environment opened up to new actors and a model for media reform in

transitional countries emerged that has developed into a set of normative standardsrecognised in international declarations and encouraged by international agencies.

UNESCO has been at the forefront of this work since the Declaration of Windhoek on 3

May 1991, the anniversary of which is now celebrated by the United Nations as World

Press Freedom Day. The Declaration of Windhoek stated that establishment,

maintenance and fostering of an independent, pluralistic and free press is essential to

the development and maintenance of democracy. But it also noted that moves towards

multi-party democracy could provide the climate for media freedom to emerge. Those

observations are as relevant in Myanmar today, as they were in Namibia in 1991.

In more recent times, UNESCO has codified a set of international standards for mediadevelopment, called the Media Development Indicators, or MDIs for short, a process

7/31/2019 Presentation - Yangon 19-03-12

2/3

for which I had the honour of assisting on the international experts group. The

constitutional and legal pillars of this normative model of media development consist of

guarantees of the right to freedom of expression and the right of access to information;

freedom of the press within a self-regulatory framework; and a three tier model of

public service, private and community broadcasting overseen by an independent

regulatory body.

At the heart of the MDI framework is the role of media as a platform for democratic

discourse. It is underpinned by the idea that freedom of expression is not just a right of

the rich and powerful but is a right that must be available to all parts of society,

including rural communities, marginalised urban populations, and minority languages

and cultures.

When people have the capability to speak out for themselves and to be heard, they are

not only intrinsically better off with a heightened sense of dignity and self esteem

but they are also able to participate in the democratic process - to defend their rights

and their livelihoods, and to hold to account those in positions of public authority,enabling better governance and deepening democracy.

To achieve this goal means not only providing access to the existing media, but also

opening up the rights to establish local newspapers and for civil society organisations to

be able to use the radio spectrum to operate community broadcasting services.

There is a growing body of evidence, gathered by UNESCO, AMARC and other

organisations, to demonstrate that community broadcasting, in particular, can contribute

to social and economic development, assist to reduce conflict and increase social

cohesion, and enable the diversity of languages and cultures to flourish.

Let me touch on some examples in the near neighbourhood.

In the Asia Pacific region the development of community broadcasting has been uneven

but it is widespread in South East Asia, especially in Thailand and Indonesia and it has

a growing presence in South Asia, notably in Nepal where community radio stations

such as Radio Sagarmatha in Kathmandu have played a crucial role in defending

democracy - and more recently in India, where thousands of community radios are

anticipated by government officials, since the introduction in 2006 of a national

community radio policy. In 2010 the government of Bangladesh confirmed that it

would proceed to allow community radio licensing and the first such stations are nowstarting up. They are seen as having a vital role in supporting rural economies and

contributing to disaster preparedness especially in flood prone coastal zones.

Now moving on to the wider picture, it is clear the UNESCO MDIs, together with other

international norms and standards for media development, provide plenty of guidance

as to what a democratic media environment should look like, but rather less to inform

us of the best strategy for getting there. In other words the question: How to achieve

media reform in real world conditions.

Over the last year I have spent a great deal of time working with civil society activists

and public officials on media reform in the Arab world. For a recent conference on

7/31/2019 Presentation - Yangon 19-03-12

3/3

media research, held at Cairo University I tried to compare experiences over the last

year in Tunisia, Egypt in Libya.

I noticed four distinct strategies for change one is an ideal type scenario in which

change is sequenced according to a classic model of rule of law - with constitutional

reform first, followed by elections, then new laws and regulations. But on its own, andin real world conditions of political transition, this seems scarcily realistic. A second

strategy is adopted by revolutionists, for whom some core demands are too important to

wait the results of an extended process of democratic development and for whom the

revolutionary moment provides an opportunity to create new facts on the ground.

Some governments, and Tunisia is one example, have pursued a third strategy which I

call proto-normalisation, by adopting some changes new policies, laws and

procedures that begin to address major deficits in the media environment alongside

the broader process of democratic and constitutional reform. There are some indications

that the current Burmese leadership is committed to this approach - enough to give us

reason to be cautiously optimistic.

Finally there are those, both within and outside the political elites, who are inevitably

determined to adopt a regressive strategy that seeks a return to the status quo ante -

either because they see the old ways as the most reliable means of getting things done,

or because they feel that change is a threat to their current powers and privileges.

While there have undoubtedly been encouraging developments over the last year in

Myanmar, it is equally clear there is very much more to be done.

Here are six important steps that need to be taken:

1. Repeal outdated censorship laws and end restrictions on reporting and the internet.

2. Welcome and facilitate the return of exile media organisations, such as Mizzima and

Irrawaddy, which have courageously carried the torchlight of media freedom.

3. Implement media reforms in accordance with international standards on freedom of

expression and media freedom, including opening up the broadcasting environment.

4. Reform state media along public service lines, with full editorial independence and a

pluralism of content that reflects all sections of society including the weakest.

5. Enable private and community broadcasting services to access FM frequencies, under

the oversight of an independent regulatory agency for radio and television.

6. Invest in training and capacity building for the establishment and sustainability of a

community media sector that can contribute to social and economic development andthe protection of cultural diversity and linguistic expression.

Finally, let me conclude by conveying the international solidarity of media rights

activists and community media practitioners to our good friends and colleagues in

Burma. Across the world and in this region in particular there is a great deal of know

how and expertise in building democratic media environments. If we can contribute in

some small way to your important work in building a new Myanmar, then we of course

stand ready to do so. Thank you for listening.

Further information:

Steve Buckleye. steve@cmso.co.uk