By Samuel Byamugisha Kamanzi.
THE MEDIATIZATION OF POLITICS.
In the Article “ The four phases of Mediatisation: An Analysis of the Mediatisation of Politics”,Jesper Stomback examines the concept of Mediatization from a theoretical perspective, while Kim Christian Schroder,and Louise Phillips, in “The Everyday Construction of Mediated Citizenship”, present significant findings of a field study ,about Mediatization of Politics in Denmark, conducted between 1999 and 2004. These findings are in sharp contrast with what happens in Developing countries, such as my country Uganda.
Stromback defines “Mediation of politics” as a situation that obtains when the Media in any society becomes the main source of information for the rulers and the ruled. In other words, it acts as a mirror, through which Governments and their Citizens learn about each other.
Much of the article is about “Mediatization of politics”, which he defines as “changes associated with communication Media and their development”. He then presents the four perspectives of Mediatisation of Politics as: (1). “The extent to which the Media constitutes the dominant form of information on politics and society”. (2). “The extent to which the Media is free from political interference and the politics of Media ownership”. (3). “The extent to which the Media is governed by political logic”. (4). “The extent to which political actors are governed by political logic or media logic”.
One aspect of his argument that “in advanced countries, the Media is the most important source of information” agrees with the findings of Kim Schroder and Louise Phillips, in their recent study in Denmark, where they concluded that both the lowerly, and highly educated citizens, rely on the Media, including the Internet, for information.
I entirely agree with him when he says that “Mediatisation of Politics” in any society depends on the political environment in that particular society. In my country Uganda, between 1986 and the Mid 1990s, the then progressive Government of President Museveni, adopted affirmative action in favour of Media growth, through deregulation policies and passing other legislations aimed at promoting Media independence. The results were indeed impressive, as the country moved from one State Controlled Radio Station to 150[1], one State controlled TV Station to 13, and one State controlled daily News Paper, to a number of privately owned newspapers, most of which are published in English. These include The Daily Monitor, which now circulates at 25,000 copies daily.[2]
To effectively compare the “Mediatization of politics” in Uganda, with the “Mediatisation of Politics” in Denmark, as presented by Kim Schroder and Louise Phillips, it is important to have an idea about the conditions of the common man in Uganda. According to official figures, the population of Uganda now stands at 28 million, 89 % of whom live in rural areas, most of which are not easily reached because of poor infrastructure. 35 % of these people live in absolute poverty, while 31 % are illiterate. Less than 10% of the total population have access to electricity.
This kind of backwardness leaves the Ugandan ordinary citizen outside the “Globalised Media” and their benefits. TV and News Papers are outside their reach, because of the expenses involved, and other preconditions for access, such as electricity supply, and ability to read English. Obviously, the internet and Mobile phone communication Technology are out of question as less than one percent of the total population of Uganda has access to internet. This leaves Radio as the most appropriate source of information for rural Ugandans. In fact current studies suggest that about 52 of Ugandans use Radio as a source of information.[3]
So how do the majority of Ugandans get information to help them shape their destiny, especially in terms of developmental advice, and critical political decisions, such as national elections? The statistics above reveal that unlike in Denmark, the majority of Ugandans are trapped in underdevelopment. They are ill informed, and largely dependendent on self seeking politicians for direction. Even the majority of private Radio Stations that operate up country, are owned by powerful politicians. Thus, it is common for selected individuals, such as opposition leader Dr Kiza Besigye, to be denied forum on these Radio Stations.
Other forms of Media control include the dictatorial turn around of the very Government that had initially encouraged Media independence. In the last ten years, the Museveni Government has matured into a traditional African dictatorship, completely intolerant of opposing opinions. It is now masking itself in a “Democratic costume”, if democracy only means holding of regular elections irrespective of their conduct.
It exercises control over the Media through intimidation, arrests of Journalists, withdrawing operational licences, and passing draconian legislations such as the 2002 Anti – terrorism Law, which imposes a death penalty on any Journalist deemed to have published reports the Government considers as “promoting terrorism”. Thus, in October 2002, the independent Daily Monitor was closed down for 10 days for allegedly publishing a story that was considered to favour “terrorists”.
Similary, in August 2005, a popular Radio Station owned by Monitor Publications called KFM was temporarily closed down and one of its editors, Andrew Mwenda, was arrested for “sedition”. He has since resigned his job, citing direct persecution by the Government and indirectly, through the majority share holder in the Monitor publications Ltd, the Agah Khan. The Agah Khan had a few months earlier, ordered his suspension for writing a critical article on one of President Museveni´s loyal Cadres, who died mysteriously in 2007.
In conclusion, the Mediatisation of politics in Uganda is characterised by State control, and the politics of Media ownership. Radio, as a source of information, covers the whole country, but even then it is not free from control by the owners. It is only the urban based elites (10 %) of the population, who use the media as their main source of information. This is in sharp contrast with the findings of Kim Shchroder and Louise Pillips, who concluded that in “Denmark all citizens are able to fulfil their perceived needs for information required in everyday life and for democratic purposes”.
________________________________________
[1] Source: http://english.peoplesdaily.com.cn/200701/04/eng2007104/338255.html
[2] Source: http://www.stanhopecentre.org/training/EA/Uganda
[3] . Ibid.
