The current democratic process in Africa has brought not only multipartism, but also a sort of media pluralism. In almost every country, the number of private newspapers increased dramatically with the clamour for more representative forms of democracy in the early 1990s. In 2004, fourteen years into the second liberation struggles, most countries have opened up the airwaves as well. More and more countries are opening up to satellite television, with little indication of any large-scale efforts by governments to regulate its reception even though satellite television is known to threaten public broadcasting by pulling away audiences and available advertising funds. Digital, flexible, global and quality broadcasting is now a reality, thanks to satellites hovering above the continent. West Africa has experienced a boom in private, local or commercial radio stations.

Southern Africa has equally witnessed an explosion in community radio stations. In South Africa alone, for instance, more than 100 licences have been granted. It is estimated that there will be over 200 community radio stations in the near future. Although, according to veteran community broadcaster Zane Ibrahim of Bush Radio Cape Town, a proliferation of stations is not necessarily a good thing, as those likely to benefit most ?are the ?consultants? and the many new broadcast equipment supply companies? who are more likely to be ?laughing all the way to the bank? than serving any community interest. He is equally critical of government involvement with community radio; as it can only be detrimental to ?communities not overly friendly with the ruling party of the day?.

Although the media have seen themselves, and have been seen, as key players in the democratic process, they do not seem to be doing enough to promote democracy. There is little evidence that they have undertaken systematic voter education during campaigns nor explained the voting process to voters. These shortcomings may be due to bias but also to lack of professionalism and other factors. But placed in perspective, such shortcomings are hardly surprising, given that the task for the media has been rendered extra difficult if not impossible, by the failure almost everywhere to give democracy an ?identity? relevant to the experiences and marginalized value systems of ordinary folks.

If the private press and private radio stations of Africa are often independent and critical of government, they have not always succeeded in displaying a similar attitude vis-à-vis the opposition or other pressure groups and lobbies. Thus, instead of seeking to curb intolerance, fanaticism, or extremism of all kinds in accordance with the logic of liberal democracy, some of these media have actually fuelled them.

<B>Sacrificing truth</B>

In Kenya, for example, the ethnic violence that occurred in Laikipia and Njoro in January and February 1998 exposed the press as keener to promote ?hate journalism? through exaggeration and politicisation of ethnic tensions than accurate and responsible journalism. While the tendency was for the private press critical of government to portray the Kalenjin (former President Moi?s ethnic group) ?as the villains in the clashes? and the other ethnic groups, the Kikuyu especially, as innocent victims, the state-owned Kenya Broadcasting Corporation and pro-government print media focused on the Kalenjin as victims. As a whole, the press ?settled on politics as the cause? and whipped up ethnic or political emotions, often without bothering ?to venture into the battlefront?.

In most countries, journalists are ordinarily perceived as mouthpieces for competing political pressure groups. The pressures on them to please those for whom they work or with whom they belong are such that they cannot report fairly on all sides of an issue in the most attentive and self-critical manner, suppressing personal prejudices and sticking to the facts. The private press pushes everyone else to the wall with its half-truths or blatant lies, claiming infallibility. Although very hostile to negative criticism of their manière de faire, the private press journalists do not hesitate to judge, instruct, moralise and condemn others. Headlines like ?Kill this Man? in the front page of The Messenger by the editor-in-chief himself, referring to the governor of the South West Province in Cameroon, are common currency and refresh memories of the atrocities in Rwanda. In the name of freedom and the right to inform, the media have abused certain human rights.

In South Africa, the tendency is for newsrooms to reproduce ?prior metanarratives of social schisms, even when those narratives may be radically inappropriate and counter to available evidence?. It is often a case of much talking without listening and of an exaggerated sense of self-righteousness on the part of most journalists, who often do not hesitate to sacrifice truth for ?a good story?. This tendency of ?twisting or falsifying the supposed news to fit a journalist?s opinion about where the truth really lies? is not exclusive to Africa. It is also ?typical of much of modern British journalism?, as demonstrated by Lord Hutton?s recent inquiry into a report by Andrew Gilligan, defence correspondent of BBC, which accused the government of having deliberately ?sexed up? an intelligence-based dossier on Iraq?s weapons of mass destruction to justify going to war. However, the tendency among African journalists and media to serve ethnic, religious and regional interests is also indicative of their predicament as professionals and institutions expected to fulfil liberal democratic functions in a context where people are clamouring, as well, for recognition and representation as cultural, religious and regional communities. Such competing claims for their attention explain the apparent contradictions, hypocrisy and double standards when their actions are appreciated from the standpoint of liberal democracy.

<B>Politics of belonging</B>

Ethnicity and an obsession with belonging remain active forces on the African political scene. It is my view that rights articulated in abstraction do not amount to much. Political, cultural, historical, and above all, economic realities, determine what form and meaning the discussion and articulation of citizenship and rights assume in any given context. Having rights is something individuals and groups may be entitled to in principle, but who actually enjoys rights does not merely depend on what individuals and groups wish, are entitled to under the law, by birth, or in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

In Africa, like elsewhere, there is a growing obsession with belonging along with new questions concerning conventional assumptions about nationality and citizenship. Customary African values, policies of inclusion and a mainstream philosophy of life, agency and responsibility that privilege wealth-in-people over wealth-in-things, are under pressure within the struggles and politics of entitlements in an era of sharp downturns and accelerated flows of opportunity-seeking capital and migrants. The situation is complex and the choices often unclear for the various actors involved, the media included.

It is my conviction that the media reflect as well as shape African societies marked by continuities, interconnections, convivialities and creative marriages of differences that are not always adequately stressed. Competing for the attention of the media are liberal democracy and popular ideas of democracy informed by African notions of pluralism and social action. If the media are sensitive to these apparent contradictions as they are expected to be, their content should reflect ongoing efforts to negotiate conviviality between competing traditions, influences and expectations. Equally, how well they are seen to excel in their role as mediators would depend on the indicators of democracy used and on how sensitive to the predicaments of ordinary Africans those indicators are.

However, liberal democratic rhetoric has dominated the struggle for democracy in Africa. Within this framework, if the political and legal cultures of the larger society are not democratic, it is highly unlikely that the media will be any different or that they will have the political and legal freedom to endorse or pursue any democratic agenda. The media can only play an effective role, in this regard, if the law and its application are democratic.

Conducive political and legal environments, important as they may be for press freedom, are hardly enough to guarantee liberal democracy if the media operate oblivious of the need to be ethical and professional in their approach to journalism. For the conventional mass media to be meaningful in the process of empowerment of civil society in Africa within the current liberal democratic framework, they must acquire and live the virtue of tolerance.

<B>The need for relevance</B>

I firmly believe that on its own liberal democracy is much too parochial for Africa?s sociality, negotiability, conviviality and dynamic sense of community. The greatest shortcoming of liberal democracy is its exaggerated focus on the autonomous individual, as if there is anywhere in the world where individuals are capable of living their lives outside communities or in total absence of relationships with others. Although in principle liberal democracy promises rights to all, not everyone who claims political rights is likely to have them, even when these are clearly articulated in constitutions and guaranteed legally.

If there is an illusion of democracy and participation in communication in the West, the situation is even more critical in Africa where, in most cases, the media are the privilege of a relative few. In some countries the electronic media, both satellite and terrestrial, mean very little in language and content to the bulk of the population that is rural and has a limited understanding of the Western languages of local broadcasts. The term mass media in Africa is often a misnomer; given that literacy in French, English, Portuguese or Spanish serves as a criterion for accessibility and participation in the media, a privilege too remote for both rural and urban illiterates.

The future of democracy in Africa or anywhere else for that matter lies in our recognising and providing for the fact that societies are and have always been cosmopolitan and multicultural. Although we are living in an age of growing uncertainties and anxieties, we cannot hope to succeed through narrow and abstract definitions of rights and citizenship, nor in a preoccupation with the politics of exclusion and difference within and between groups, local or foreign. Governments, the media and other social institutions must therefore allow individuals and communities the creative interdependence to explore various possibilities for maximising their rights and responsibilities within the confines of the economic, cultural and political opportunities at their disposal. Inclusion, not exclusion, is the best insurance policy in the face of the uncertainties to which individuals and collectivities are subjected under global consumer capitalism.

The media can find in this philosophy the inspiration needed for a vision and coverage in tune with the predicaments of their audiences, be these individuals or groups, minority or majority ethnic communities, citizens/nationals or immigrants. The challenge for the media is to capture the spirit of tolerance, negotiation and conviviality beneath every display of difference and marginalisation, beckoning for acceptance as the way forward for an increasingly interconnected world of individuals and groups longing for recognition and representation.

<B>The role and responsibility of the media in forging a democratic culture in Mauritius</B>

This is a very rare opportunity indeed. The organisers of the conference must be congratulated. I know the hard work they have put in bringing together the professionals of the region. The tallest order has probably been to bring together Mauritian journalists. Most of us believe we have nothing to learn.

The Mauritian media is certainly not ready for self-criticism. There is a strong unwillingness to acknowledge our deficiencies and we almost never expose those of our peers however shocked we may be personally by their practices. Mauritian journalists belong to the only family where there is no dirty linen!

Having said that I start by stating my claim. I strongly believe that some of the thematics that are being raised in many parts of the world on Media and Democracy are of limited relevance to the local scene. This is a country where there is a tremendous public trust in the media. We are far from the ongoing debates in many western countries where the role, the power and the ethics of the media are being questioned. We are not saying that issues of independence, manipulation, accuracy, fairness as well as problems of ownership and controls are of no significance to the Mauritian media. I am only pointing to the fact that, for all its failings and weaknesses, the media in Mauritius still enjoys a very high degree of public trust even though it has operated so far without any watchdog overseeing its ethical decisions and practices.

I believe this credibility is based on the fact that the Mauritian media throughout its 230 years of existence has played a unique role in promoting participative democracy in Mauritius.

The written media in particular, diverse, pluralistic and fiercely independent has strongly contributed to nation building and to the promotion of social cohesion, fostering national consensus in favour of development strategies and policies.

From its early beginnings the press has played an economic role. The main purpose of the first paper ever to be published was clearly indicated by its title. On the 13 January 1773 the first issue of Annonces, Affiches et Avis divers pour les colonies des îles de France et de Bourbon was published by Nicholas Lambert. This first newspaper was more or less an official economic journal. Later, as from 1832, with the creation of Le Cernéen and La Balance, an independent and free press was to become an influential player on the national scene in the context of debates and struggles for the political and economic emancipation of the population. Numerous newspapers were created voicing the conflicting political and economic interests of an already diverse nation. Even since, the written media has remained the preferred medium of communication of all participants in the democratic process. Private commercial radio stations are now playing an increasing role in giving to the voiceless a powerful means of communication.

This essential role of the Mauritian media is fully recognised by the nation. The circulation of newspapers, both dailies and periodicals averaging a 66% readership during weekends is one of the highest in the world. Recent surveys have indicated that Mauritians consider the media to be the single most credible institution of the country. The March Media Focus of Nelson Taylor-Sofres shows a massive support of 87% of good opinion in favour of the media. What is a rather unique feature is that contrary to what is taking place elsewhere, the credibility of the Mauritian media is strengthening. Five years ago, a similar survey indicated a 71% of ?bonne opinion? in favour of the media. The media is considered to be the most credible institution before the Civil Service (59%) and the Judiciary (56%). I should add that the state owned television and radio stations scored 52% of ?bonne opinion?.

The Mauritian media is highly regarded because of the strong reputation of most journalists from the mainstream newspapers as independent professionals and active participants in the national debate. Throughout their history, newspapers in Mauritius have been managed primarily by professional journalists free to determine the editorial content of their papers. Owners of publishing houses whether through public companies or family businesses have no say unless they also happen to be journalists. In Mauritius, the press is the business of journalists. A few journalists are also businessmen but their business is journalism.

The freedom of expression enjoyed by individual journalists in practising their trade has produced a vibrant, competitive and pluralistic media, which is playing a key role in enhancing the strong democratic culture of Mauritians. Modern democracies thrive on the abundance of information, the open expression of diverse opinions, including those of small minorities and ethnic groups, as well as instant access to news and opinions. This is very much the case here. The media tradition of openness, debate, active interest in political, social and economic issues as well as international affairs, has contributed to a large extent to the Mauritian?s strong awareness of development issues and ownership of the national agenda.

For the most part, Mauritian journalists have been keenly aware of their responsibilities in promoting a healthy political debate. They are also very active proponents of Mauritianism, practising a brand of civic journalism, exposing their readers to the cultural plurality of the nation, bridging the gap of cultural differences, supporting the values of tolerance and secularism.

At the same time, the role of journalism in Mauritius has evolved to make of the institution the most powerful watchdog of the government, exposing abuse of the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens and denouncing the wrongs and the corruption of officials. However, a few critics from specific quarters, promoting their own agendas, have tried of late to find fault with the national newspapers, which are sometimes accused of ethnic bias and cultural prejudice. There is absolutely no objective evidence to support the charge. The main newspapers are viewed by their readers as being independent. Readers come from a well-balanced cross section of the population and opinion leaders are generally well regarded. Ours is no ?age of suspicion? although some may be tempted to fabricate what I will call a strategic suspicion for reasons that have little to do with the role of the media itself.

Broadly speaking, the responsibilities of the Mauritian media in promoting a democratic culture in the country are shouldered by two categories of press organisations.

There is a first group of publishing houses, owners of the main newspapers and commercial radio stations, which are run on a commercial basis by managers but where editorial content has always remained the absolute prerogative of their editors. This historical legacy is explained by the fact that those newspapers were founded by journalists and, from the early days of nation-building, journalists, some of them militant intellectuals, have played an active role in the democratic process initiating political debates, raising issues of social relevance and adopting a critical and investigative approach.

There is a second group playing a no less vital role although the media concerned may not be widely circulated and are sometimes of a dubious standard. They are run by small and devoted groups of lobbyists who call themselves journalists but who are propagators of specific cultural, ethnic, or political views. They do not pretend to observe the rules of the game; in fact they have no code of conduct and are openly biased. Still they play their part by bringing into the open issues that are often ignored by mainstream journalism.

The Mauritian media has thus participated immensely in bringing about an informed citizenry, a very open, nearly transparent and accountable style of government: this is a media which is the ?ears and eyes of the citizens?. So it is no surprise that journalists, editorialists, or even cartoonists are frequently criticised by both the government and the opposition.

The unfinished business however is the lack of self-regulation. Given the central role of media in our democratic society, there is a need to monitor and report on media quality.

The greatest danger, for the press itself and for democracy, is that it could get carried away by its success; from a powerful and respected counterbalance, it may come to see itself as a fourth authority. The Mauritian press must beware of this perpetual and potential danger. Because of its inherent role, and of the enormous trust the public puts in it, and of its daily responsibility, the press should subject itself to strict rules of good governance and transparency at least as strict as those it expects from all other institutions.

Because of too much arrogance, too much individualism, too much division, the profession has been unable up to now to reach the necessary consensus that would have given birth to a professional Code of ethics and a Press Council. This is a serious omission. The Press must be held accountable for its choices and practices. It must accept criticism. It is not in the interest of democracy that a small group of citizens without any particular legitimacy should thus take upon itself the right to shape the opinion of the nation, without the corresponding duty of transparency. An extremely positive outcome of this seminar would be the opportunity of reviving the debate on professional ethics and answering the unresolved question: ?If journalists are to be watchdogs, who then watches the watchdog?? Maybe, as it has happened elsewhere, the university can spearhead the project of a Press Council, a self- regulatory institution, which confirms democracy, that is in all circumstances, the right of citizens to question everything. The right to question even the ?questioners? themselves.

<B>by Francis B. Nyamnjoh</B>