20th Century was dominated by historic shifts in political demographics of the world order. Kingdoms collapsed and suffrages were established in countries being ruled by colonizers or tyrants for centuries. The list of countries that underwent drastic changes includes Spain, India, South Africa, Chile, Argentina, Finland, Sweden, Portugal etc. Although the list is very dynamic and long, there are nations stuck in the myriad of authoritarianism till date. In his book “The End Of History And The Last Man Alive” Francis Fukuyama proposed that ‘Liberal Democracy’ would be the end point of humankind’s ideological evolution and it will eventually replace every other political ideology including Hereditary Monarchy, Fascism and the most recent failed experiment of Communism.
With every passing year of the 21st century, this proposition is being proved legitimate but with certain exemptions. Some countries still prefer to romance with authoritarianism with freedom of expression kept as a priority in their hit list. In non or semi-democratic regimes, media is not allowed to endorse itself as the 4th pillar owing to the lack of checks-and-balances practice. But rather, it manifests itself as a mechanism to disseminate information and propaganda. Although, their presence is highly monitored and suppressed, independent media, if present, acts as a medium to democratize the politics in such countries with covert and investigative journalism. Critics of the state in non-democratic countries are often charged with treason and represented as impediments trying to alter the political system. Their work is banned and they are compelled to take asylum in alien countries. Seldom, being critical costs them their lives. A contemporary example of this savage monitoring can be traced in Jamal Khashoggi’s assassination in October 2018. (Discussed in a later section).
The second decade of the 21st century saw a technological shift in media terrain with the proliferation of new media and Internet across the globe. A survey conducted by Statista reveals that 50% of the world population has access to mobile phones today. Inadvertently, the internet has penetrated to countries with monarch heads as well, barring a few like North Korea.
With lesser restrictions, new media has opened a new landscape to dissent and objectivity in these countries. Although, an opposite narrative also suggests that new media and Internet strengthens authoritarian rulers if they skillfully use it for surveillance of users.
Media In China
When Pu Zhiqiang, a student activist in China in the 80s wore a paper that read “We want freedom of newspapers, freedom of associations…” he was unaware of the repercussions he and other fellow activists with similar demands would trigger. A brutal suppression by the Chinese Government to be inscribed in History as the infamous Tiananmen Square Massacre followed the protests which demanded an end to one-party rule and freedom of speech and expression. Two years prior to the incident in 1987, Chinese statesman Zhao Ziyang acknowledged media’s supervision role and said that supporting mass criticism of the party is essential for highlighting its mistakes.
The ghost of Tiananmen square still haunts the citizens who are shrouded with restricted information accrediting to the “Great Firewall Of China” a legislative measure to slow down or restrict cross-border internet traffic. They have their own version of YouTube and WhatsApp called Youku and WeChat respectively. In hindsight, China’s rank in the World Free Press Index conducted by Reporters Without Border has been tremendously poor. In 2018 it ranked 176 out of 180 countries.
Wars, Religion and Media – Middle East
On August 7 1979, armed Islamic revolutionary guards stormed into Ayandegan’s office and barred access to its staff and editors. Ayandegan, an independent daily newspaper along with Ahangar, a satirical weekly was reportedly shut down by the government of the newly formed Islamic Republic Iran. As Ayatollah Khomeini overthrew Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, a ruler from the Shah Dynasty of Iran, the country transitioned from a liberal ally of the United States to a confined theocracy, imposing severe restrictions on a plethora of activities including criticism of the government. In effect, as Iran became an Islamic Republic, free speech died. Media in Iran today is heavily restricted. Issues like country’s nuclear programme, discriminative laws against women, economic sanctions are banned from discussion. As one of the two powerhouses in the middle east (other being Saudi Arabia), it’s often involved in the unsolicited intervention in neighbouring countries, which goes unnoticed by the media because of the censorship laws.
Role of Media is instigating and stopping wars – Yemen Vs. Vietnam
Similar parallel can be drawn in Saudi Arabia, historically a hereditary monarch where traces of Salafism, an extreme form of Islamic Rule of Law can be seen. Article 39 of the Basic Laws of the Kingdom states that any act by mass media leading to disorder and division affecting the security of the state and it’s public relations, or undermining human dignity and rights is prohibited. Evidently, restrictions in the country are severe which is also visible in the way they treat journalists when they try objectivity over propaganda in reporting.
On October 2 2018, a Saudi based journalist, Jamal Khasshogi working for the Washington Post was assassinated in the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul, Turkey. Jamal was a notorious dissident for the Kingdom’s “integrity” for a while. In 2015, he became the director of a newly funded Al Arab news channel which vowed to practice objective journalism. A day after it started, it was shut down. After Jamal wrote an article criticising Salafism in 2010 in the newspaper Al Watan, where he worked as an editor, he was sacked from the position. In January 2006, Saudi Arabia started the circulation of its first Malayalam Newspaper owing to a proliferating Malayali population who migrate there for work, but the free flow of harsh and critical editorials is still a luxury in the oil-rich desert.
As mentioned earlier along with Iran, Saudi Arabia is a powerhouse in the Middle East. It seldom exploits its power against weaker neighbours to ascertain dominance in the region by getting involved in proxy wars with Iran. A living example is its intervention in Yemen. Since 2015, a civil war is going on in Yemen which has explicit involvement of Saudi forces, positioned there to drive out Houthi rebels, alleged to be supported by Iran.
Now, had Saudi been a democracy and media a free tool to hold the government accountable, the 4-year long war could have shaped differently. A justification can be found in American Press’ involvement during United States intervention in Vietnam in the ’60s and ’70s. Under pressure from the public which came as an effect of overwhelming media coverage of the war and the death of American soldiers in war, president Richard Nixon called off the Vietnam War in 1973.
On the contrary, most Saudi media is doing to affect the war is publishing editorials to cleanse the blood-soaked hands of Saudi Arabia’s Government.
The Internet: A Loophole In Monarchy
In 2013, Masih Alimejad started a movement in Iran to get rid of the strict provisions of wearing Hijab in public. The movement got public attention on social media as it soon took forms of compelling hashtags on Twitter and Facebook. MyStealthyFreedom, WhiteWednesday, MyCameraIsMyWeapon grabbed the eyeballs of global spectators. The anti-hijab protests gained momentum in December 2017 when a girl named Vida Movahed stood on Enghelab Street in Tehran, tied her hijab to a stick and waved it in front of a crowd. As the image went viral on the Internet, similar incidents followed in Iran.
In a similar undertone, a Saudi-based street artist Saffaa started a campaign called ‘I am my own Guardian’ to protest against barbaric laws of the country that bars women to take any important life decision without involving a man. The IAmMyOwnGaurdian got more than 15,000 signatories on Twitter.
With such small but effective steps, internet and new media have aided the citizens of these authoritarian states highlight issues that were easily suppressed by mainstream licensed media historically.