Press Freedom and Governance

Freedom House today released the results of our annual Freedom of the Press survey. Continuing the trend of recent years, the declines outnumbered the gains, with Asian, former Soviet, and Sub-Saharan African nations experiencing particular problems in 2007. The states featured in Countries at the Crossroads are by and large not particularly strong performers on press freedom. Indeed, only 1(!) out of the 60 countries analyzed in Crossroads, South Africa, is rated as a Free country, while fully 31 are rated Not Free. The remaining 28 are designated Partly Free.

The relationship between press freedom and a nation’s broader quality of governance varies significantly, but there several basic categories in which many of the Crossroads countries fit. To a significant degree these categories overlap with regions. One example is Latin America. With the exception of Venezuela, each of the 10 Latin American countries in the Crossroads survey is rated Partly Free in the press freedom survey. However, the gap between other basic measures of democratic governance, such as free and fair elections, and levels of press freedom is considerable. For instance, Colombia scored a respectable 4.5 out of 7 in the elections category of Countries at the Crossroads 2007, but barely achieves a Partly Free press freedom rating with a score of 59. Peru scored even higher on elections, 5.5 out of 7, but also received a mediocre press score of 44. In the Latin American context, a significant portion of this disconnect is related to rule of law problems, specifically, frequent attacks and intimidation against journalists that generally go unpunished. Nonetheless, the fact that there is even critical coverage to elicit such reactions presents a better picture than some other regions.

Another category of countries are those where both democracy and press freedom are improving but extremely thin and rather fragile. Sub-Saharan Africa provides the clearest illustration of this type of state. A number of the Crossroads countries, such as Mauritania, Mozambique, and Zambia, have made considerable democratic advances in recent years. Nonetheless, poverty, institutional fragility, and the relative newness of free elections make democracy’s hold tenuous in these states. Likewise, while the media has gradually shaken off some of the more onerous previous restrictions, poverty and illiteracy mean that media markets are thin, and thus vulnerable to government pressures, whether through defamation laws or administrative controls. Some of the less oppressive countries in the Middle East, such as Morocco, Jordan, and Tunisia, can also be placed in this category on the basis of slow signs of opening in the press, but the limits are often stricter and more systematically applied than in the Sub-Saharan countries. Similarly, even as these “lighter” authoritarian governments in the Middle East occasionally show signs of heeding calls for political reform, basic democratic openings that could lead to sustained governance improvements have been severely circumscribed.

Another set of countries is marked by political turmoil that has led to press restrictions. Asian countries such as Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Thailand fall into this group, as well as former Soviet states like Armenia and Georgia. In many of these countries, the political system alternates between somewhat more open phases and authoritarian crackdowns that often quickly undo painstaking efforts at governance improvement. The press is a microcosm in these cases: during periods of greater opening, journalists slowly push the limits of reporting, only to be treated harshly when anti-democratic forces push back.

Finally are the countries where both press freedom and formal democratic institutions are extremely weak. Of the many countries that fit this description, some, such as China, Iran, and Russia, are globally important actors where information circulates, but always under the state’s watchful gaze. A different class altogether are the states such as Eritrea, Laos, Libya, and Tajikistan, where insularity and political isolation have stunted the development of all independent institutions, which most assuredly includes the press.

The categories listed above are clearly imprecise, and there are certainly exceptions. Egypt, for instance, is generally considered to have moved backward in recent years in terms of its once anticipated democratic opening. However, some cracks in the system have emerged, and the press has pushed the limits enough that the country moved from the Not Free to the Partly Free category in this year’s press survey. Overall, press freedom is understood for good reason to be a fundamental element of improved democratic governance. For that reason, the results of this year’s edition are less than encouraging.