With the question of fair election coverage by the state media in particular becoming a cause for concern among many against the backdrop of the current presidential election campaign, the task of acquiring conceptual clarity on a number of ‘media issues’ is likely to shape-up as a vital public need.

To begin with, it needs to be recognized that it is not only the state media that could open itself to the allegation of unfair coverage, on the basis of practices that could be seen as questionable. The same could apply to some other sections of the media too and it is of the utmost importance that the media are guided by a sense of fairness.

In the days ahead it would prove important for all sections of the media, with the participation of the relevant state authorities, such as the Commissioner of Elections, to agree to a set of norms and principles that would ensure fair media coverage of election-related developments.

In view of the recurring abuse of state resources, such as the state media, by those wielding authority over the latter, at particularly election time, a special obligation is cast on the Elections Commissioner to ensure that such anomalies do not occur. These and many more safeguards would need to be put in place to ensure that the democratic process continues unhampered and unimpaired.

However, it needs to be placed on record that disruptive attacks on the media, state-run or otherwise, from wherever they originate, are flagrantly violative of the democratic ethos and have the effect of undoing all that could be said to have been achieved in this country in terms of democratic development. Likewise, verbal and other forms of intimidatory onslaughts on journalists carrying out their professional duties, by those entertaining illusions of personal grandeur on account of some perceived clout, political, business or otherwise, stand vehemently condemned by us.

Ideally, self-regulation by the media should take effect on the question of fairness and connected issues, with no state compulsion, but the media too need to see that responsibility is the other side of the coin of freedom, and that one could not exist without the other. This home truth needs to be learnt afresh in view of the current justifiable calls for more ‘media freedom’.

Besides, there is an urgent need to take the terms of this debate farther than the concept of ‘freedom’ in view of the need to find out whether the ‘freedom’ in question really empowers the people and thereby helps spur democratic development.

The media, news papers for instance, become an intermediary between the people and sources of information but it needs to be ascertained in what ways this information gathering and disseminating function of the media could be further strengthened.

This point needs to be pondered on, on account of the fact that, besides the freedom of expression and thought, the right to information is part of the supreme law of regional heavy weights, such as, India and Pakistan. Sri Lanka, however, lacks a Right (Freedom) to Information Law and needless to say, this glaring lacuna in Sri Lanka’s rights provisions, could further hamper its democratic development; an important measure of which is people’s empowerment.

It should be clear that people would be decisively empowered in degree to which they possess information and knowledge which have a strong bearing on their ability to fulfill their most vital needs. If, for instance, the Samurdhi beneficiaries’ food entitlements are increased by the state and they do not receive these from the relevant local quarters, the beneficiaries could call on the latter to provide them with the relevant government circulars to point out to the relevant authorities that they are being deprived of necessities they are perfectly entitled to, if a Right to Information Law is operative in the country. In the event of this demand falling on deaf ears, they could use the circulars in question to expose this irregularity of the local authorities to the state and thereby make a strong bid to win their entitlements. If the necessity arises they may even go in for court action.

Under a Right to Information Law, state and local government officials are obliged to provide the people with the information they need. Thus are people’s rights further strengthened.

In instances where state funds disbursed in grass roots development projects are not effectively and conscientiously utilized, the people of the relevant locality, if they are empowered by a Right to Information Law, could call on the local authorities to provide them with the necessary records of spending to ascertain whether the funds allocated for the projects have been used in accordance with state instructions and in keeping with the aims of the projects, or otherwise. In other words, the people could hold the local authorities to account.

It goes without saying that the potential of a Right to Information Law could be exploited to the fullest only by a community which is fully ‘organized’. For, it is only strong collective action by the people which could help yield the total benefits of the Law. This is already happening to a degree in India and there is need for popular advocacy for the formulation and implementation of such a law in Sri Lanka.

Seen in the light of the foregoing, ‘media freedom’ as such could be seen to be of somewhat limited scope. A free press, for instance, captures a good part of the essence of the democratic ethos, but it is the people’s right to information and knowledge that gives further substance and meaning to the freedom of expression because such a law would strengthen the media’s right to obtain relevant information from those public sector sources which have access to and hold information which have a close bearing on the people’s legitimate interests.

The media need to be ‘free’ in a governmental system which claims democracy status but such ‘freedom’ could be said to be most meaningfully practised only in so far as it is used to further the public good and a Right to Information Law, effectively used, could help in this task.

It is beyond the scope of this comment to exhaustively set out the provisions of a Right to Information Law, but the following extracts from India’s The Freedom of Information Bill 2002, should help in enabling one to grasp the essence of such much needed legislation.

The above Bill was introduced as one which provides ‘freedom to every citizen to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, consistent with public interest, in order to promote openness, transparency and accountability in administration and in relation to matters connected therewith or incidental thereto’.

Section 2 (c) defines the "freedom of information" as the ‘right to obtain information from any public authority by means of:

1. inspection, taking of extracts and notes;

2. certified copies of any records of such authority;

3. diskettes, floppies or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device;’

Under section 4, a public authority is obliged, among other things, to ‘publish all relevant facts concerning important decisions and policies that affect the public while announcing such decisions and policies’ and ‘give reasons for its decisions, whether administrative or quasi-judicial to those affected by such decisions’.

It is clear that legislation of this kind, if scrupulously implemented, could empower the people and set the stage for transparent governance. The potential of the law for people’s empowerment, makes right (freedom) to information a foremost right which could greatly contribute towards democratic vibrancy and health.