COUNTRIES AT THE CROSSROADS GOVERNANCE BLOG

Mexico's Media: Violence Not the Only Constraint

Photo Credit: Flickr user danielkaempfe

On August 26, Pablo Pasillas Fong, an assistant to the lead federal investigator in the case of Mexican crime journalist Armando Rodriguez, who was murdered last November in Ciudad Juarez, was himself shot and killed. This occurred less than a month after the former lead investigator met the same fate. Mexico’s problems protecting reporters from the violence raging between organized criminal groups are increasingly well-known. Over the past few years violence against journalists has become rampant. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists’ 2008 Attacks on the Press report, at least 24 journalists have been killed since 2000. The country’s National Human Rights Commission puts the death toll even higher: 46 killings of journalists over the same period, with an additional 7 journalists disappeared in the country since 2005. As conflict has intensified, Mexican journalists who cover such polemical issues as organized crime, the drug trade, and police corruption have been targeted by both criminal organizations and law enforcement agencies, which has in turn fueled a growing trend of self-censorship. The legal system has failed the victims throughout, with very few of these crimes investigated and prosecuted. As Reporters without Borders has argued, this impunity has been fueled by the widespread corruption of public officials, who are sometimes either directly involved in organized crime and drug trafficking networks or are bribed to look the other way.

In addition to the threat of violence, journalists must also contend with other unfavorable aspects of the Mexican media environment. The legal sphere is one trouble zone. While Mexico has promoted several legal initiatives geared towards boosting press freedom in the past few years, most of these reforms have been marred by either inherent inadequacies or half-hearted implementation. For example, in 2007, President Felipe Calderon promulgated a law that decriminalized libel, defamation, and slander at the federal level, rendering it impossible for journalists to face prison sentences for such offenses. Nevertheless, due to the fact that Mexico’s legal system operates on separate federal and state levels, the law’s impact was significantly constrained due to the fact that states are not forced to comply. At the time, the World Press Freedom Committee has reported that several Mexican states “possess some of the most stringent and restrictive defamation laws in the entire region.” While state governments were required to decriminalize their own defamation laws, this has not come to pass in most cases. ARTICLE 19 recently reported that criminal defamation laws remain in place in 21 out of 32 states. 

An effort to pass a constitutional amendment that would grant federal authorities the power to prosecute crimes against freedom of expression is more promising, but has dragged on for several years and is also likely to prove insufficient. On March 18, Mexico’s Chamber of Deputies passed the amendment to Article 73 of the Constitution, which would incorporate crimes “committed against freedom of expression exercised through the practice of journalism” into the federal penal code and impose prison sentences of up to 5 years in prison for such crimes, independent of existing penalties. The reform measure is currently awaiting approval by the Senate, which will review the law when Congress meets again this month. President Calderon has personally pledged his commitment to the project. While this represents a positive step toward a more dedicated response to the rising violence, several press freedom organizations have argued that the initiative falls short in various regards. ARTICLE 19 has suggested that federal investigators’ hands will remain tied as, among other problems, the amendment fails to provide federal officials with the authority to investigate cases covered by local jurisdiction.

Finally, despite featuring what is in many ways a vibrant media sector, the country’s economic and political environment restricts freedom in a different, though equally significant, way. Specifically, freedom of expression is limited by the dominance of two media giants, Televisa and TV Azteca, in the country’s television sector. The power that this duopoly wields over the Mexican television market has rarely been challenged. The 2006 Radio and Television Law, more commonly known as “Ley Televisa,” which ostensibly sought to modernize the country’s broadcasting infrastructure, effectively consolidated the duopoly’s control over the airwaves. In a positive 2007 development, the Mexican Supreme Court ruled that many of the law’s provisions violated the constitution along with the principles of “equity, competition, and democratization of the broadcasting spectrum” and subsequently threw those provisions out. However, the congress has failed to follow through with this judicial decision, and the Televisa/Azteca powerhouse continues to enjoy substantial political clout. Most recently, ties between Televisa and Enrique Pena Nieto, the PRI governor of the State of Mexico who most consider to be the frontrunner for the 2012 presidential elections, have come to light through journalist Jenaro Villamil’s book If I Were President: Pena Nieta’s Reality Show, which reveals that the image-conscious presidential hopeful used state funds to pay Televisa to expand his publicity and boost his popularity and image.

In some ways, the Mexican media is a microcosm other Mexican institutions, which are still experiencing growing pains subsequent to the country’s 2000 democratic transition. As with limitations to its democracy, Mexico is not a country where press constraints are obvious to the casual eye. Crime still gets reported (though without bylines for papers based in the conflict zones), diversity of opinion (especially in Mexico City newspapers) is strong, and the government does not actively censor. However, this freedom remains both thin and fragile. That the levels of violence have increased self-censorship is nearly indisputable. The weaknesses of the legal regime, both in terms of libel/defamation and the level of criminal impunity, means that freedom of expression still relies far too much on journalistic courage rather than affirmative protections. The power of dominant broadcasters like Televisa inhibits the growth of a competitive broadcast sector with the capacity to provide balanced, comprehensive monitoring and reporting. Reforming the state as a whole will inevitably be a long and difficult process. However, a dose of political will from the president and congressional leaders that translates to improved legal protections and economic dynamism could go a long way toward helping Mexico’s vulnerable press sector improve its capacity to play a positive role in the critical years ahead.

Heavy Hitters Face Hardcore Challenges in Haiti

 Photo Credit: Flickr users World Economic Forum and M-J Milloy

On August 11, Bill Clinton, the UN Special Envoy for Haiti, named Dr. Paul Farmer as his deputy. These posts were recently created by the UN in an effort to more effectively promote economic development in the turmoil-racked country. In recent years, both Clinton and Farmer have demonstrated their dedication to aiding Haiti, the Western Hemisphere’s poorest nation. As president, Clinton sent the U.S. military into Haiti in 1994 in order to return democratically-elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide to his post, subsequently turning the operation over to a UN force. While this effort was not successful in the long-run, Clinton remained committed to assisting the nation through other means, in large part through his foundation’s work to combat HIV/AIDS and support recovery efforts after 2008’s destructive hurricanes. Paul Farmer, the co-founder of Partners in Health, an international nonprofit that provides health care services to the Haitian poor and carries out research and advocacy work, has received international acclaim for the work he has done to provide free medical treatment and promote social justice in Haiti throughout the past 3 decades.

With these two heavyweights now serving at the forefront of Haiti’s international advisory team, it is possible that the country might have a greater chance at combating its monumental economic, political, and environmental troubles. Both Clinton and Farmer bring impressive skills and a strong sense of optimism to the table. In fact, Clinton has stated, “I think Haiti, notwithstanding the total destruction of four storms last year, has the best chance to escape its dark history in the 35 years I've been going there …What I want to do is help the Haitian people take control of their own destiny." Nevertheless, Clinton and Farmer have their work cut out for them. The most dire and pressing issue facing Haiti is the nation’s soaring poverty level, which is complicated by a severe food shortage and deteriorating health conditions, along with the destruction left in the wake of last year’s storms. Over 80% of Haitians live in poverty, with the unemployment rate hovering around a shocking 90%. As the island is highly dependent on imports, the 2008 global food crisis hit it especially hard and sparked intense protests. The health of Haiti’s poor is deplorable; the country’s child mortality rates are sky-high, and 6% of the population is infected with HIV/AIDS. These problems are exacerbated and complicated by the government’s poor governance record. Haiti suffers from an extreme lack of services, unsurprising given the country’s political instability, ailing rule of law, and rampant corruption. While the country has recently made some governance improvements that will facilitate Clinton’s and Farmer’s efforts to drive development, colossal challenges remain.

In a March 2009 report, the International Crisis Group stressed that a major focal point of the Haitian government must be electoral and institutional reform efforts. Since its independence, Haiti’s political history has been dominated by instability including foreign intervention, military coups, flawed elections, and multiple authoritarian interludes. Most recently, the 2004 re-ouster of President Aristide split Haiti and left it with no functioning political institutions. Nevertheless, the country has made some strides toward institutional rebuilding in the past few years. In 2006, Haiti elected Rene Preval, who has received international acclaim for his attempts to address unemployment and poverty during a previous term, to the presidency in a free and fair contest that was lauded as “a step toward political stability” and subsequently restored an elected parliament. However, yet another political crisis shook Haiti when Prime Minister Jacques Edouard Alexis was ousted from his post by a Senate vote in the midst of last April’s deadly food protests; the post remained vacant until September, when Michele Pierre-Louis was approved. Furthermore, congressional elections originally scheduled for December 2007 were postponed until this year, which resulted in Senate inactivity as the body was frequently inquorate. The country’s persistent state of institutional instability has effectively stymied any progress on the development of anti-poverty and healthcare programs, along with the effective use of foreign assistance. In fact, it has led most international donors to filter money through NGOs rather than the government – the lack of accountability within the country’s civil society sector notwithstanding.

The absence of effective rule of law in the country is equally troubling. As an ICG report explains, “The state is able to guarantee neither the security of its citizens nor the rights of defendants.” More specifically, lawlessness and crime have reigned supreme since the collapse of the police force following the events of 2004. Gangs have gained control of large areas and committed kidnappings, murders, and other violent crimes against helpless citizens. Unfortunately, these crimes are largely met with impunity due to the dysfunctional state of the country’s judicial system.  Nevertheless, according to the UN, the security situation has been moderately ameliorated. Crime rates are down following efforts by the Haitian police, with the assistance of UN forces, to dismantle the gangs and reinstate control over gang territories. In addition, the UN forces have succeeded in increasing the number of police from 5,000 in 2005 to 9,000 today. Nevertheless, as another ICG report argues, much remains to be done in order to consolidate effective security sector reform.  The report claims that the police force requires further professionalization and that the vetting and training process must become more transparent in order to address concerns regarding personnel guilty of human rights violations and corruption. Human Rights Watch corroborated this, arguing that kidnappings and other crimes persist at an alarming rate while both police lawlessness and a lack of justice continue unchecked. As such, the internal security crisis continues to undermine domestic and international efforts to implement anti-poverty and hurricane recovery efforts and attract foreign direct investment.

Finally, endemic corruption continues to be an especially pernicious problem. In its 2008 Corruption Perceptions Index, Transparency International ranked Haiti 177 out of 180 countries, with only Iraq, Myanmar, and Somalia in worse condition. Preval has made some efforts to eradicate corruption by requiring the disclosure of top government officials’ assets and purging corrupt police officers from the force, but the entrenched, pervasive nature of the problem will require a more systematic approach.

There is no denying the fact that Haiti and its new UN envoys have a long road ahead of them. The country continues to face substantial challenges in all realms of governance and as a result, sustainable progress on economic development issues will be slow. That said, Haiti’s institutions have been rebuilt since the post-2004 nadir and political stability and internal security have improved mildly. In addition, as the new UN appointments, recent U.S. trade legislation offering Haiti duty-free, quota-free access to U.S. markets, and international pledges of additional aid demonstrate, the international community, especially the United States, may have finally become more committed to encouraging development in the country. While UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon’s statement that “Haiti stands a better chance than almost any emerging economy…to prosper” may be somewhat hyperbolic, that he said it all symbolizes an important change in expectations for the country.