|Protestor at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, U.K. (Protestor questions the idea of American press freedom. Is the American corporate press really free?)|
Too much freedom leads to a plutocratic state in which the most powerful economically and politically dominate. Not enough freedom leads to a communist like state in which the most powerful politically and likely economically dominate. In the FDA's opinion, optimal democracy comes from a balance of freedom and equality.
The article below by Frida Ghitis is a good example of an unsound, corporate media narrative on democracy. I challenge some of the assumptions and criticism in the article:
1. Freedom is the "essence and soul" of democracy.
True or false?
Questionable. Democracy is comprised of several tenets: freedom, equality, fairness (and likely more). No one tenet can stand alone and still be democracy. For example, freedom with no other equality than freedom itself leads to a Darwinian state. The American democracy experiment fails to understand or ignores that the French Revolution was not just about "liberty", but also, "fraternity" and "egalitarianism".
2. Freedom House is a credible source.
Questionable: The U.S. State Department is the principle financial source for Freedom House. Freedom House promotes exclusively the false narrative that freedom is the sole basis of democracy. Freedom House thinks that the United States is the freest country, and the most democratic country.
Russia's imprisonment of Pussy Riot:
Disturbing the peace, hooliganism, trespassing, instigating hatred are not exclusive to Russian law.
Ironically, despite the criticism in the article below, there is no evidence that the Russian government tried to suppress the Pussy Riot story.
Chavez came to power in 1999 through the ballot box; in 2002 the Venezuelan private media aided blatantly the attempted coup da e'tat on Chavez's government. The Venezuelan private media with links western governments has been promoting hatred and violence. There are limits to freedom of expression.
The difference between the Venezuelan private corporate media and the American private corporate is that the latter is working hand in hand with the U.S. government. FDA Report on Venezuela's electoral system including media (Shortly, the FDA will be publishing a report on the U.S. federal electoral system including media analysis.)
Iran is a theocracy. Freedom of expression is limited by Shira and Islam, and the government. FDA Report on Iran
The Mubarak 30 year dictatorship was supported financially by the U.S. government. The ouster of Mubarak did not mean the ouster of all his cronies. The Muslim Brotherhood won the Egyptian presidency and control of the parliament, but the Mubarak establishment is denying the Muslim Brotherhood rightful rule of Egypt: Egypt's Power Struggle
FDA Report on Egypt's Electoral System under Mubarak
FDA Executive Director
New 'democracies' failing if speech isn't free
By Frida Ghitis (a world affairs columnist for The Miami Herald and World Politics Review. A former CNN producer/correspondent)
How free are you to say what you think and what you believe? How free are you to hear the views of others, of those who challenge widely held beliefs or dare to criticize the powerful?
That's why today we have more conclusive evidence that democracy is faltering in Russia and why we see alarming signs that the revolution in Egypt may lead not toward, but away from, the democratic path.
It's also why we have reason to feel encouraged about the prospects for change in Myanmar (formerly known as Burma) and why we know that, despite populist claims, democracy in places such as Iran, Venezuela and Ecuador -- the country that offered asylum to WikiLeaks' Julian Assange -- is either dead, dying or suffering a serious illness.
And it's why we know that China has not a shred of democratic rule.
When Russian authorities decided to throw the book at three punk-rock performers from the provocatively named group Pussy Riot, the issue was always democracy or, rather, lack of it.
Prosecutors charged the three -- Maria Alyokhina, Yekaterina Samutsevich and Nadezhda Tolokonnikova -- with hooliganism and religious incitement after they staged their iconoclastic show earlier this year in Moscow. The three burst onto the altar of the city's Cathedral of Christ Our Savior, wearing their trademark face covers and brightly colored balaclavas, and spent 40 seconds chanting their song "Mother of God, Cast Putin Out," which later became part of their YouTube hit "Punk Prayer."
The performance was meant to shock. But, more than anything, it was an act of protest. Like others in Russia, they were taking on the increasingly authoritative rule of President Vladimir Putin. And, in this case, they wanted to draw attention, they said, to the church's growing role in politics.
Normally, the disruptive show would have received a fine, charges of disturbing the peace or disrupting a religious service. But in today's Russia, you cannot take on the president without serious consequences.
The women of Pussy Riot gained notoriety partly for the name of their group and their colorful antics. But their case is only the most highly publicized of a number of terrible abuses of the law against critics of the president.
Alexei Navalny, one of the most popular of Putin's detractors, has been charged with embezzlement on what many people believe are trumped up charges. Kremlin critic Mikhail Khodorkovsky remains in a Siberian prison, where he has been since 2005 after daring to challenge Putin's authority. Countless Russian journalists have died mysterious deaths, as have anti-corruption crusaders, such as Sergei Magnitsky. Opposition leader Garry Kasparov, the former chess champion, has come under physical attack.
Attacking the opposition, imprisoning one's critics is one way to tighten one's hold on power. But there is no better way to maintain the perception of democracy than by controlling what the people -- the voters -- are allowed to hear and read and think.
That's why restricting freedom of expression, especially media freedoms, is the favorite sport of authoritarian governments that want to preserve the appearance of democratic legitimacy.
Winning an election could confer democratic legitimacy. But what happens when the opposition doesn't have access to the media? What happens when journalists are not free to criticize the government?
That's when democracy dies, even if it lives in a zombie state, with leaders elected by voters with access only to views in support of the regime or where the president's critics are smeared, ridiculed and maligned, as happens in far too many places.
In Egypt, which has its first elected president, there is evidence of a move to stifle criticism and bring a single point of view to the public.
When the newspaper Al-Dustour ran a list of accusations against the Muslim Brotherhood, from whose ranks President Mohamed Morsy rose, authorities removed every issue from the stands. The paper's editor, Islam Afifi, is one of several journalists charged with insulting the president. Afifi says the Brotherhood wants to "silence any opposition to their policies."
The Upper House, dominated by Islamist legislators, just hand-picked 50 newspaper editors for state-owned publications. Morsy named a Brotherhood activist, Salah Abdel Maksoud, as information minister, adding to fears among many journalists that Islamists will gain control of the media.
In Ecuador, the country whose democratically elected president has embraced WikiLeak's Assange, a self-described champion of freedom of expression, journalists say President Rafael Correa has launched a campaign of fear and intimidation to stifle criticism.
Ecuador's mind-boggling media law prohibits reports and even editorials that "have a bearing, in favor of or against a specific candidate, proposal, option, electoral preference or political thesis."
The Committee to Protect Journalists calls it "coerced pre-emption" and says it adds to a program of smear campaigns and defamation laws aimed at producing self-censorship.
Self-censorship, of course, is the ultimate desired result. When the government doesn't have to imprison or harass its critics anymore because no one dares criticize it, then democracy is only skin deep, no matter how free elections appear.
Then, few dare to criticize the government, and voters are exposed to glowing reviews of their leader's prowess and wisdom. It's easy to win elections that way.
Ecuador is following the model put in place by Venezuela, where President Hugo Chavez imposed the Law on Social Responsibility in Radio and Television, complete with multimillion dollar fines and shutting down of outlets that run afoul of the government.
To keep a patina of democratic freedom, some opposition is allowed to function, but the playing field is sharply tilted.
Those tactics are much more subtle than Iran's, where the government has thrown scores of journalists in prison.
The regime has not only imprisoned and tortured journalists, it has also shut down newspapers, blocked websites and jammed satellite signals. The government now says it plans to stop using the Internet by 2013 because it is "untrustworthy."
Sadly, restrictions on freedom of expression, one of the most fundamental of all human rights, are much more widespread than most people realize. According to Freedom House, a human rights advocacy group, only 14.5% of the world's people live in places with true media freedom.
The encouraging news in all of this is that the efforts of authoritarian regimes to silence their critics highlight the power of words, the power of free expression and the importance even they place on having democratic legitimacy.
That remains a powerful incentive for advocates of democracy to keep up their fight.
If they lose the battle to pry open the flow of ideas, they will lose the struggle for democracy, because even when a president is elected, if the people are not free to criticize him and his policies, then democracy is a mirage -- and so is freedom.
Question to Readers:
What narrative on press freedom do you believe, and why?