The decision to bring the state broadcaster, Rupavahini, under the purview of the Ministry of Defence just a few weeks before presidential elections have raised eyebrows in many quarters.
Despite the proliferation of television networks, Rupavahini to its credit has maintained its status as the country’s premier broadcaster. It is also the broadcaster with the utmost reach in the country, its signals being received in the furthest corners of the land. It follows that it is arguably the most influential television station on the island.
Therefore its ‘takeover’ by the Ministry of Defence is concerning. Previously, it was under the Ministry of Mass Media, under the purview of its State Minister, Ruwan Wijewardene.
For decades, state broadcasters and other state-owned media outlets in this country have been known to be partial towards the government in office. Such resources have been abused unashamedly before elections to drum up support for the incumbent government. While opposition parties have cried foul about this practice, these same parties repeat the offence when they assume office!
When the ‘yahapalanaya’ government came into office in January 2015, their mandate included a pledge towards media freedom. That was because there were serious threats to media freedom during the previous regime. That the names of the less fortunate Lasantha Wickrematunge and Prageeth Ekneligoda and the relatively more fortunate Upali Tennekoon, Keith Noyahr and Poddala Jayantha have become household names in the country is because of that threat.
This government has had a roller coaster ride in the past four and a half years. That is because it was a political experiment with the President and the Prime Minister being from opposing political parties and also because the two parties which were arch rivals for nearly seven decades in post-independent Ceylon and later, Sri Lanka, came together to form a coalition for the first time.
As would be expected from such a partnership, the government had its significant achievements (such as enacting the 19th Amendment to the Constitution and restoring the independence of the judiciary) as well as its spectacular failures (such as the bond scam at the Central Bank and the security lapses that led to the Easter Sunday attacks). Despite its many shortcomings, disappointments and inefficiencies, the one issue on which this government could not be faulted on was media freedom.
Media, both state owned and private, print and electronic, have enjoyed unbridled freedom under the present administration. Some private television networks in particular have embarked on vilification campaigns against leading personalities in the government. Yet, they have not faced any consequences and have had their licenses renewed without issue.
In fact, President Maithripala Sirisena himself has lamented publicly that he has been the victim of vicious slander in the media but has said with great equanimity that he wasn’t unduly perturbed because he knew that being a politician and the holder of the highest office in the land, it was all part and parcel of the job description.
Most importantly, no media person has been threatened, terrorised, abducted or murdered over the past four and a half years. The fear psychosis that engulfed the media during the previous regime has been replaced by a culture of freedom, which some in the government would argue has amounted to freedom of the wild ass.
The eleventh hour move is baffling therefore. Even the naïve would not believe that there is a security reason to bring the state television station under the purview of the Ministry of Defence, as is being argued in some quarters.
The nation had a recent glimpse of what could happen when media institutions become pawns in power struggles. That was during the constitutional crisis late last year, when loyalists of the previous regime stormed Rupavahini, the Independent Television Network (ITN) and the Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation (SLBC) and offices of the state owned print media when they believed that their masters had returned to power. The status quo was only restored following the Supreme Court’s declaration that the purported transition of power was unconstitutional.
Whether a country has a free and vibrant media is often an accurate benchmark of how robust its democracy is. Since 2015, this country has, by and large, enjoyed that freedom. To try and stifle it now would be an insult to all the promises that were made during the 2015 election campaign.
The events of October 2018 demonstrated that this country is a mature democracy. At that time, even those not allied with the United National Party (UNP), rallied around Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe to defeat what they thought was an undemocratic course of action.
That is why those wanting to have Rupavahini under their thumb need to be careful. If this is their idea of media freedom before assuming office, one can only imagine what it would be like if they do assume office - and that may well give voters food for thought before they exercise their franchise.