The single guiding principle underlying the role of the media in elections is that without media freedom and pluralism, democracy is not possible. This has been underlined in the decisions of numerous international tribunals. It has also been stated very clearly in the recent past by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, who went on to elaborate a series of steps that governments should take to guarantee freedom of media during elections.
There are a number of different dimensions to media freedom that are of relevance in elections:
- Freedom from censorship.
- Freedom from arbitrary attack or interference.
- Free access to necessary information.
- A pluralism of voices in the media.
The last of these is especially important. It is often interpreted to mean that the media should be owned by a variety of different interests, resulting in a "market-place of ideas". This is important, but it is only one aspect. For countries emerging from authoritarian rule, usually characterized by tight state control over the media, ensuring pluralism within the publicly funded media may be equally important. This is because often it is only a government-controlled national broadcaster that has the capacity to reach all sections of the electorate.
In order to ensure that the publicly funded media are not, in practice, government-controlled, a clear regulatory intervention may be required. This is the central paradox of the management of media in elections - the frequent need to establish a fairly complex regulatory system in order to enable the media to operate freely and without interference.
At stake are three interlocking sets of rights:
- the right of the voters to make a fully informed choice.
- the right of the candidates to put their policies across.
- the right of the media to report and express their views on matters of public interest.
Of course, these rights, which are essentially all aspects of the right to freedom of expression guaranteed in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, apply at all times, and not only when there is an election pending. But it is the very formality of the election process - the fact that it is conducted according to procedures that are clearly set out in law - that has stimulated the interest of those who are concerned with issues of media freedom. How far media freedom and pluralism are respected during an election period can be a fairly sensitive index of respect for freedom of expression in general - itself an essential precondition for a functioning democracy. Conversely, an election can be an ideal opportunity to educate both the authorities in their obligation to respect and nurture media freedom and the media in their responsibility to support the democratic process.
Looking at relations with the media from the perspective of the electoral management body, two other important principles come into play: transparency and confidentiality.
- Transparency means that the operations of the EMB are open to public scrutiny and hence accountability.
- Confidentiality means that the security of the EMB’s operations are safeguarded against those who have no right to unauthorized information and who may undermine the integrity of the election process.
Clearly these principles may come into conflict in practice. Complete transparency and confidentiality are clearly incompatible. However, establishing the precedence of these principles in any given case may be less difficult than it might at first appear.It will almost invariably be true that the plans and activities of the EMB should be open to public scrutiny. It will, without exception, be true that the vote itself should be secret. The borderline cases in between are likely to be few.
