After reading the IBA’s new set of regulations, the thought came to me that perhaps it would be more appropriate if they were applied to our politicians. That perhaps it is they who in truth need to be regulated and so I took the liberty of drafting a variation of the ‘guidelines’ that could be applied to them if there was an ‘Independent Commission on Political Comportment’

That they give details and a few days notice of what they intend to talk about, to whom they intend to talk to and for how long.

That they do not insult or inflame passions with a one sided view of the world we live in.

That they do not engage in character assassination, or address the population in a provocative fashion.

That they present a balanced view, taking into consideration the views of other political aspirants and members of society.

This makes me smile… why should our broadcasters have to abide by these new regulations – are they not entitled to the same freedoms as our politicians?

Perhaps we need an independent commission on independent commissions, after all how many people are employed in these commissions and what do they actually achieve? Perhaps they are well intentioned but among some of the results of their establishment have been:

Money for lawyers, more money for lawyers, a way of putting off decisions, a way of being seen to be doing something while actually doing nothing, a way of creating employment, a way of not taking responsibility or perhaps more sinisterly a way of stifling debate and a way of wielding power without being seen to.

We live on a small island where everyone knows each other or at least knows someone who knows someone else who knows the person or group of people who have vested interests at stake in whatever decision is being taken. Is it possible to have a truly independent commission in Mauritius short of asking people from outside the country to come in and decide for us? I wonder.

Police state

If anything the emergence of ‘independent’ or non-government radio in Mauritius has given us the chance to laugh at ourselves, to air our dirty laundry and bring attention to issues that need to be dealt with. It has allowed us to question, to air our questions and to expect answers. These radios have made the country and its institutions much more accountable. In a sense they are, as a whole, equivalent to any number of independent commissions. This is not to say that our private radio stations are bastions of independent free-thinking, they are commercial ventures and so do, to some extent, reflect the views of their directors and financial backers.

It is quite possible that we need even more private radio stations, a greater variety of points of view, and sources of information. The more the merrier so that between them we as a society and as individuals can find a balance and come to our own conclusions. This attempt to muzzle our private radios by an‘independent’ commission is perhaps a dangerous step backward.

I remember being shocked that it took literally days before the MBC broadcast any information regarding the outbreaks of unrest that followed the death in suspicious circumstances of the singer Kaya. I began to wonder if we were living in a police state where information is strictly controlled. I for one do not want to go back to this state of affairs. I do admit that there is perhaps need for a watchdog but we have to be very careful when choosing an appropriate breed. There are thankfully various breeds to choose from:

1. The Rotweiler, of which everyone is scared, a moody dog whose mere presence instils fear even occasionally in its master. This dog costs a lot to feed, is not the most intelligent and is perhaps less of a watchdog and more of an attack dog, a dog used to suppressing any sort of dissent their master considers to be annoying. At present we seem to have in the form of the IBA a baby Rotweiler, still relatively harmless but one that is beginning to exercise it’s power and push us around. Now is the time to decide if we want to keep this dog before it grows up and becomes too dominating. Now is perhaps the time to ask ourselves if this dog is appropriate for our needs or does it perhaps pose a threat to our society.

2. There are other options. There is the Poodle or the Chihuahua, these are cute and cuddly and like their comforts but they can be very high maintenance. They like to live indoors or be driven in expensive cars and be treated like little princes and princesses. They don’t bite at all and if they do even the oldest of old ladies can pick one up and throw it out the window. They do however make lots of noise, will bark at anything and can give one a headache. They also have a tendency to fight among themselves disgracing their owners and to run away from bad smells. They are perhaps not the ideal breed for watchdogs let alone police dogs.

3. Perhaps the better option is the Teckel or Terrier. This is a small dog that likes to live outdoors. It does not cost much to keep, has an independent sort of temperament and has a good nose for sniffing out fair game. It is happy to stay within its set boundaries and contents itself to go after rats and rodents. It is curious by nature and will follow a scent to see where it leads, especially a bad smell even if it leads to under the master’s own bed! It is also a dog of manageable proportions, one that does not instil fear but one that is fearless and capable of going after something many times it’s own size.

Too much power

If we do need watchdogs in our society then we have to be very careful in how we select them. The IBA in their ‘guidelines’ are stating in so many words that they believe that the radio stations especially the private ones have too much power, that they are a danger to our society and that we need to be protected from them. That broadcasters on private radio stations are a threat and need to be severely constricted in their activities. Have they behaved so irresponsibly in the past so as to merit this sort of censure? I seem to remember instances of public outcry when some of our broadcasters seemed to cross the lines of propriety, instances when the public themselves redressed the situation by voicing their opinions on the very same radios and in the newspapers. On these occasions the public acted as their own watchdog and the stations had to take notice. Surely this is the most effective regulating system.

I am curious as to who is feeling threatened here, who is living in fear of private radio? Can’t we always just switch the radio off or change station or phone in and go on air to make our views heard? Aren’t the laws of libel and defamation not applicable to us all or do some people need to be doubly constricted? Is the Mauritian public living in fear of private radio? If not then who is? These are questions that I feel need to be posed and answered by ourselves. Are we so easily influenced, so naive as to take the words of our radio personalities as the be all and end all? Perhaps the real question is: Do we need to be protected from private radio or do we need to protect our private radio stations?

<B> Vince KELLY</B>