The Democratization of Communication

OTHER RELATED ARTICLES

The Contribution of the U.S. Social Forum: a reply to Whitaker and Bello's debate on the Open Space By Thomas Ponniah

U.S. Social Forum: Visions to Build, Reasons to Hope, By Dan Berger, WireTap

From: sah bittu <sahbittu@cacim.net>
To : ceos@openspaceforum.net
Subject : [CEOS] The Democratization of Communication
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007

The Democratization of Communication
Osvaldo Leon & Sally Burch
"There is no democracy without democratizing communication," this affirmation, this catchphrase, spread across Latin America in the early 80s, particularly in those Southern countries that were coming out of the shadow of dictatorial regimes toward constitutional frameworks. It was a simple idea, but impressive because it was universally accepted that democracy's vitality depends on citizen participation, and that, for this reason, it is fundamental that the different social groups are properly informed and able to express their particular points of view to all of society. And that is something that can be guaranteed only when the democratization of communication is brought about.

By that time, there was a general awareness that to a large extent the mainstream media were either central in bringing about the dictatorships, or else had accommodated to them, whether through censorship or self-censorship. They could thus benefit from a tacit understanding that enabled them to establish monopolies, in exchange for favours that were implemented, though never mentioned, such as the silencing of the dissenting voices from opposing political forces or social movements.

But this catchphrase also incorporated the voice and aspirations of countless alternative initiatives and experiences, springing from popular, grassroots, community or other such roots, covering a hybrid mix ranging from counter proposals in areas of media production, through to anti-hegemonic solutions at the global level, but sharing a common denominator: the legacy of the former movement for "national communication policies" which fuelled the demand for a New World Information and Communication Order (NWICO).

Although this issue won the support and sympathy of other organized social forces, the fact is that these others failed to take steps to adopt it as their own; it was as if this issue only concerned those directly involved in the communication field, when in reality it pertains to everyone, as a condition for participation as citizens. Subsequently, it became one of the pending matters of social struggles. Nonetheless, a contingent of collectives has persevered to keep it current and, little by little, has kept pushing ahead so that the fight for the democratization of communication achieves the place that it deserves within contemporary social struggles.

With regard to the development and diffusion of concrete hands-on solutions, what was achieved through the late 70s and early 80s by alternative, popular, dialogical and horizontal communication initiatives largely fell to pieces under the brutal impact of neoliberal policies, which undermined the very notion of social organizing, with the individualist premise, "save yourself if you can." Without doubt, these were difficult times, but the embers were kept alight.

What place for society?

With the recent rapid advances in information and communication technologies, not only has a new scenario emerged in the field, but they have also had profound repercussions in various spheres of social relationships. In this context, the media have accumulated so much power that they have come to occupy virtually all of public space, which allows them to implement their own political and economic agenda, dictating what is or is not considered socially relevant. This is so much so that, with the disarray affecting establishment political parties, the media have largely taken on a leadership the role of these sectors, at times acting as quasi-parties. All this is happening in the midst of intense market competition which is seriously distorting the public service role and social responsibility of the media, going hand in hand with efforts to dismantle any legal regulation that might restrict corporate control over the sector.

We are therefore seeing a growing demand for a broad public debate concerning media's role in contemporary democratic societies, media ownership rules, the nature of public media, freedom of expression, etc. This has been especially emphasized by those who are pushing for recognition of the Right to Communicate and media democratization.

Sean O'SiochrÃº, from the Communication Rights in the Information Society Campaign (CRIS),(1) in reference to the different stages in the communication process in society: creation and ownership of knowledge, processes and media for broadcasting and communication, communicating for the achievement of political, economic and social goals; and who exerts control over each stage, indicates that: " The imminent danger is that each moment in the cycle is becoming harnessed to the needs of capital and of the market. The ultimate danger is that the cycle of society's social communication process is interrupted, the process of social learning becomes ever more feeble, and in the end the process of creativity is transformed and reduced to short-term, unsustainable, generation of profits for a small minority." He brings up "communication rights," as a concept and as praxis that "potentially has the depth and breadth to critically assess and understand these dangers, and to help us organise integral solutions to tackle them."

This is an appropriate moment to reclaim the concept of communication as a human right, crucial for active citizenship, in order to redirect the debate that has recently erupted in Latin America concerning freedom of expression â€“ particularly as an outcome of the decision by the Venezuelan government to assert its sovereignty by legally denying the television channel RCTV the renewal of its broadcast licence â€“ given that it has tended to polarize the debate between the commercial media and the government, as if they were the only actors.

Through the occupation of public space, the media are systematically trying to anoint themselves as society's representatives. But it is by no means clear that the majority of people feel represented by them, given that they generally only refer to the populace as victims of disasters or the perpetrators of crime and social violence. What about freedom of expression for these sectors and their right to have their proposals, demands and criticisms heard? What mechanisms exist to defend the right to information for the citizenry in the face of the dominant and increasingly monopolistic control of the sectors of economic power in the field of communication?

The re-emergence across the hemisphere of organized social struggle for the democratization of communication is helping to reframe this debate. Two recent achievements include the approval of a community broadcasting law in Uruguay, and the Supreme Court decision in Mexico to declare parts of the so-called "Televisa Law" unconstitutional, which was fostering a private monopoly in television. Expressions of this struggle range from networks and campaigns working toward the recognition and implementation of rights and legal frameworks, through to alternative and community media looking to open up citizen expression, added to which is the analysis by researchers supporting these issues. Initiatives like these and the links being woven between them and other social justice movements are laying the groundwork for the democratization of communication to become reality. (Translation: ALAI.)

(1) Ã“'SiochrÃº, Sean, "Los Derechos de la ComunicaciÃ³n y la CampaÃ±a CRIS", AmÃ©rica Latina en Movimiento, ALAI, No 399-400, Quito, 12th September. 2005.

Text published in the magazine AmÃ©rica Latina en Movimiento, ALAI, No 421, "ComunicaciÃ³n: democratizaciÃ³n, ciudadanÃa, medios comunitarios", Quito, June 2007.

http://alainet.org/active/18241

In depth I The right to communicate

ADD YOUR COMMENT >>

@ http://www.choike.org/nuevo_eng/informes/1215.html

As Alain Ambrosi (President of the World Forum on Community Networking) points out, the right to communicate is a demand that has always been at the heart of social struggle, no matter whether the issue has been "inventing" democracy, defending its original principles, or transforming them into concrete action based on citizen participation. As times change, geographical contexts evolve, and technology progresses, this right has been given different names: freedom of opinion, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, the right to information, and, now, the right to communication. Nonetheless, the right to communication remains a part of all freedom struggles for greater dialogue, pluralism, tolerance, and participation - and against all forms of authoritarian, exclusive, and excluding power, be it religious, aristocratic, male, State- or market-controlled.

The struggle for the right to communicate has taken on a new dimension because communication itself has become a central issue in establishing a new world order. In accordance with neoliberal market logic, the "communications era" cannot be dissociated from economic, political, and cultural "globalization".

It is not enough simply to redefine the right to communicate and to entrench it in constitutions and international charters (for example, by amending Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights); instead, it must be ensured that all social actors can effectively make use of this right. Neither is it enough merely to master new technologies from a technical standpoint; there must also be a guarantee that they can be socially appropriated and made to serve democracy. Therefore, civil society organizations face a great challenge - only by aiming their innovative practices at the long term, learning lessons from past struggles, and pooling their efforts will they be able to make use of the right to communicate that they themselves have helped to define.

VersiÃ³n en espaÃ±ol