Digital Rights, Internet Accessibility, and Affordability in Malawi – Part I

22 years after the establishment of the country’s first Internet Service Provider (ISP), the country lags behind its regional neighbours in terms of the promotion and protection of digital rights mainly due to its legal and policy frameworks, which tend to treat the Internet as a luxury and therefore, a privilege of the few. This is despite the fact that the United Nations (UN) declared access to the Internet a human right in 2016. It is also becoming clear that the Internet influences the socioeconomic as well as political consequences of a country.

What are Digital Rights?

Digital rights enable and facilitate access to the Internet and all other forms of Internet based communications and tools. Conversations on digital rights in countries such as Malawi focus on issues around Internet affordability and availability of Internet coverage.

Digital rights are closely related to fundamental rights such as freedom of expression, access to information and privacy. This is because these rights enshrined in the United Nation’s 1948 Declaration for Human Rights now also find application online and are no longer restricted to the offline space. In other words, digital rights such as affordable Internet allow for the enjoyment of for example, the right to free expression online.

These freedoms are threatened online due lack of accessible Internet, Internet shutdowns, content removal, website blocking and filtering, among other ways. The issue of privacy has grown in importance in the recent years due to the increasing important of social media platforms in electoral processes; for example, the implication of Facebook and Cambridge Analytica in the last USA and Kenyan elections.

With increased penetration of ICT there has been increased mandatory data collection in places like Malawi through SIM Card registration as well biometrical data collection through national ID registration. These are happening in absence of any data protection laws. This means that people’s data could easily be exploit and this not only violates people’s rights to privacy but it also creates a chilling effect in that people may not be able to express themselves freely even in the comfort of their ‘privacy’.

The rights to freedom of expression are becoming more important, as we increasingly conduct ourselves online. Data protection is a crucial digital right, which ensures that users’ data is protected from commercial and political exploitation. It is important that Internet users understand the importance of digital rights so that they may demand such freedoms from their governments.

Malawi Context

Freedom of expression has emerged as one of the key issues online. In recent years, authoritarian leaders and states have resorted to Internet shutdowns and, most recently social network taxes in order to narrow the spectrum of acceptable opinion. So far, this has not been the case in Malawi, but the country needs to work on issues of privacy and protecting people’s data.

The Case Privacy and Personal Data Protection Law

Privacy is enshrined in article 21(1) of the Republican Constitution; while articles 72, 73, and 74 of Electronic Transaction and Cyber Security Act of 2016 provides for data protection.

Yet, close analysis shows that this is not enough. The country needs a specific data protection law, especially since there has been a rise in personal data collection on a massive scale. This includes mandatory SIM Card registration as well as biometric national identity cards registration, which are also a key to electoral voter registration. Similarly, national and multinational companies such as bank and telecommunication companies are also allowed to collect data of their own.

The importance of personal data and the risks associated with its manipulation are exemplified during the disputed 2016 elections in the USA. In that instance, it was believed that people’s personal data was used to influence the way people voted.

Government departments have Acts with stipulations on how to handle personal data, and most private institutions such as banks as telecommunication companies have data and privacy policies, but in the digital age, these measures are not enough and there remains a need for binding national laws. Malawi therefore, needs to introduce adequate data protection laws before embarking on mass collection of personal data – it cannot be the other way round.

It is encouraging that the Malawi government through the then Minister of Information and Technology Nicholas Dausi announced in 2018 hat the it would introduce Data Protection Act. The Minister said this is in response to the changing media and technological landscape. Government is encouraged to see these intentions through.

While doing a research on this issue, it became clear that the majority of Malawians do not fully understand the concept of privacy and the corresponding need to protect data from unjustified processing.

One reason why digital rights remain an abstract concept for locals is the language barrier. Digital rights concepts do not have the same meaning and connotations in local languages as they do in English. Privacy for example, privacy in one of Malawi’s main languages, Chichewa, could be translated as kuchita zinthu mchibisibisi, which roughly means doing things in secrecy.

It is important for local digital rights advocates and the media to come up with ways of discussing and explaining digital rights in ways that will be easy to understand for local community members. This education in digital rights cannot be done without the input and participation of the media. Such an educative and awareness raising campaign will ensure that the Malawi government or any other private entities do not take advantage of people’s lack of understanding on privacy and data protection laws.

This is article is the first of a three-part series that focuses on digital rights in Malawi. The series will discuss digital rights such as data privacy, access to the Internet, and Internet affordability. The series aim to show why it is important for all parts of Malawian society to get involved in the discussion and promotion of digital rights.

For more information visit http://malawi.misa.org. This project is made possible by support from the DW Akademie.

Media Freedoms Should not be at the Mercy of Politicians

“I am… for freedom of the press, and against all violations of the Constitution to silence by force and not by reason the complaints or criticisms, just or unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their agents.” Thomas Jefferson

It is always good when politicians pledge their commitment to protect media freedoms, especially in emerging democracies where such freedoms are often provided in theory but cannot always be guaranteed in practice. For Malawi, it is particularly interesting to have such assurances coming from the ruling DPP presidency given the part’s chequered record when it come to media freedoms in the country.

Addressing a political rally in Ndirande, Blantyre, DPP’s vice president for Southern Region, Kondwani Nankhumwa assured the media in the country that the Malawi government would protect media freedoms. Never mind that Nankhumwa was speaking at a political rally, not a government gathering, the crucial difference difficult political party in power and government is, unfortunately inconsequential in Malawi politics.

Quoted by Daily Times, Nankhumwa said:

“We want you to know that we appreciate the work you do. During the term of President Peter Mutharika, no journalist has been arrested; this shows that we appreciate the work that you are doing.”

Malawi is in campaigning mode as the May 2019 presidential, parliamentary and local government elections get closer. So Nankhumwa’s comments should in no small part be understood from this context. One should also understand Nankhumwa’s sentiments from the background that his comments came only days after MISA Malawi issued a statement demanding justice for journalists whose constitutional right to work freely in the country have been violated in the country and no culprit has been brought to book.  This context is very important, especially having in mind Nankhumwa’s insistence that no journalist has been arrested during President Peter Mutharika’s term of office.

The Daily Times ran editorial arguing:

“… while we say thank you to the ruling party vice president for the Southern Region for such soothing words, we want to see his words reflected in deeds of ruling party politicians. We want to see journalists operating without looking over their backs.”

All good and understandable, even though the editorial missed the context of Nankhumwa’s assurances. But here is the main with Nankhumwa’s problem: media freedoms should not be at the mercy of politicians; media freedoms must be guaranteed and promoted by legal framework and necessary procedures must be in place to ensure that such laws are protected. The duty of political leaders is to ensure conducive legal framework and procedures to allow journalists to work independently and free of all forms of coercion.

These are the basics of democratic process; it is in autocratic states where media freedoms and civil liberties are at the mercy of those in power.

Politicians like Nankhumwa can be congratulated for making progressive assurances on a political podium. Yet, Matters of policy should not be discussed on the political podium – there are procedures for it. What are we going to do next time politicians use the same podium to promote populist policies that are not progressive? Democracy is about institutions, not individuals and that is the only way democracies ensure continuity as well as protection of democratic freedoms and civil liberties.

Even With Access to Information, Malawi Needs Whistle-blowers

On 6^th August 2016 one of Malawi’s two dailies, The Nation newspaper reported that Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs had started an exercise that would result in all public servants taking oath of secrecy in all government Ministries, Departments and Agencies. The Justice Ministry did not speak to the media but the then Minister of Information and Civic Education, Patricia Kaliati confirmed of the development to the newspaper, telling the newspaper that Malawi government was trying to “bring about sanity and dignity to the civil service.”

It is not a public knowledge whether this has yet been effected but Kaliati then emphasised that this was a “normal” exercise, which indicates the eagerness of the government to see this being put into operation. Kaliati argued that this was a routine thing as “every officer when taking office takes an oath of secrecy.” Even ministers, added Kaliati, “also take the oath of service and allegiance and that is normal.”

The motive here is to criminalise whistle-blowing, while at the same time ensuring that spokespersons and public relations officers whose job is to airbrush and sanitise information is the first and last call for journalists, civil society organisations, academics and members of the public looking for government held information. Kaliati sought to defend this by questioning why would anyone want to get information from a driver or a Principal Secretary when the Information Minister is a government’s spokesperson.

Is Malawi really committed to providing access to information?

What Kaliati said seven months ago is more relevant today with the enactment of Access of Information (ATI) Bill into law. That ATI is now guaranteed is a big deal for Malawi. No doubt about it. And all the people and institutions that have doggedly fought for it over the years must be congratulated. But to understand what this actually means in practice it is important to look at it from historical perspective.

American dissident, the late Howard Zinn argued: “if you don’t know history it is as if you were born yesterday. And if you were born yesterday, anybody up there in a position of power can tell you anything, and you have no way of checking up.” As Malawians and those concerned are celebrating the enactment of ATI into law, Kaliati’s perspective makes you wonder: is the government really committed to provide access to information, or the enactment of ATI into low is a mere window dresser, just another piece of “good” public relations?

These are pertinent questions, especially given the fact that Kaliati emphasised that the oath of secrecy by public officials would remain intact even when the ATI bill became law – perhaps unconstitutional given that the republican constitution is the supreme law of the land but what Kaliati said shows the stance of the government insofar as government’s commitment to provide public’s access to information is concerned.

Kaliati said: “only responsible persons would have authority to release information to members of the public or media and not anybody else.” Of course there has to be a formal channel of accessing information and I know the ATI law provides for this but these “responsible persons” are surely not through government spokespersons and public relations officers.

What now?

Malawi journalism needs to adjust according to the changing times. The question of news sourcing is hardly discussed. Yet, it is crucial for journalism. Emily Bell, C.W. Anderson and Clay Sirky argued that journalism that really matters “exposes corruption, draws attention to injustice, hold politicians and business accountable for their promises and duties. It informs citizens and consumers, helps organise public opinion, explains complex issues and clarifies essential disagreements. Journalism plays an irreplaceable role in both democratic politics and market economics.”

For this to happen journalists have to go beyond the usual “he said, she said” reporting, which heavily relies on formal sources of information such as spokesperson and public relations officers. In Malawi journalists and public relations officers comfortably call each other as “colleagues”. Perhaps this is because the vast majority of spokespersons and public relations officers in Malawi started out in journalism before joining public relations where remuneration and conditions of service are considerably better.

Yet, journalists and public relations officers are not colleagues. The relationship between these is similar to that of a cat and mouse, whereby the job of the cat is keep the mouse out the house – the job of public relation officers and spokespersons is manage the kind of information that journalists can and cannot get from their institutions. Now that ATI is law, it should be easier for journalists to get information – bypassing gatekeepers. Yet this can only happen if journalists appreciate the cat and mouse relationship between them and public relations people.

We must appreciate that even with access to information granted, whistle-blowing remain very important for accountability and transparency. Journalists and those seeking public information still need whistle-blowers. You can only demand information if you know what is going on – you need tips from those with inside information. Whistle-blowers are paramount, good journalism thrive on this – not just access to information. This means that contrary to what Malawi government thinks, journalists must speak to drivers, Principal Secretaries and other civil servant – and whistle-blowing has to be encouraged and whistle-blowers legally protected if Malawi government is indeed committed to transparency and accountability.

Malawi Presidents and Press Rallies

Writing in 2000, Francis Nyamnjoh, professor of anthropology at University of Cape Town made the following observation on African media: “An examination of most legal frameworks in Africa, even after the liberalisation of media in the 1990s, reveals a craving to control that leaves little doubt of lawmakers perceiving journalists as potential troublemakers who must be policed.”

He added:

“The tendency is for new laws [in Africa] to grant freedom in principle while providing, often by administrative nexus, the curtailment of press freedom in practice. Although strongest in Francophone Africa, this use of derogable and claw back measures by the state to limit the right of the expression and press freedom is common through out the continent.”

I reflected on this following the recent fallout between media institutions in Malawi and Malawi government, led by the country’s two paramount media bodies, NAMISA and Media Council of Malawi. The media, mostly private owned are against the presence of political party officials and supporters, often in large numbers, at presidential press conferences. The role of these party members at presidential press conferences is not officially defined but these party members jeer and intimidate journalists who supposedly ask difficult, embarrassing or awkward questions. In essence, jeering journalists for doing their job.

The latest of such case was President Peter Mutharika’s press conference held at State House in Lilongwe to brief the country on his official trip to United Nations General Assembly.

The press conference was full of tension due to the President’s unexplained prolonged stay in America, a development that triggered rumors and speculation about his health. Yet, it is important to recall that such press conferences, or “press rallies” as others have called them are not peculiar to Mutharika government. Former president Joyce Banda held a similar “press rally” on her return from abroad when she anticipated tough questions from the media on what was then news revelations on cashgate in 2013. Before Mrs Banda the late president, Bingu wa Mutharika, held his own “press rally” as he returned from holiday in Hong-Kong in 2011.

So the trend is that these “press rallies” take place when state presidents are trying to avoid unwelcome questions – avoiding accountability. When faced with such a situation the tendency has, unfortunately, been to shift blame and portray journalists as troublemakers, as Nyamnjoh has observed. Meanwhile, these “press rallies” are not just aimed at intimidating and bullying the media into submission; it is also way of limiting freedom of expression while national legal frameworks permits it.

Noam Chomsky made a key observation on these tactics, arguing: “the smartest way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.” The government strategy is to allow journalists to come to the press conference in the spirit of freedoms of press and expression yet limiting them on what they can ask and say.

Unfortunately, the state machinery has completely misread the script. The once submissive local media that for 30 years of Kamuzu Banda’s dictatorship could only report what the governing authorities wanted has overcame the post-Kamuzu hangover. They now realise that they owe their allegiance to the nation, not the state and so demanding accountability and transparency is their key duty.

As it is, the onus is on the government to also realise that bullying tactics of the old will no-longer hold sway. Coercion is always futile in open societies where ideas work – this is why the government needs good public relations people in place. It should be clear for those who care to see that the genesis of the current standoff between the government and private media institutions as poor communication on the part of the government.

It is painfully clear that the Malawi government is oblivious to changes in communication systems and hence cannot adapt accordingly. Live broadcasting, especially television has been a game changer in political communication for some time now. The state machinery may not be aware of this, but live broadcasting is one of the key factors why from Bingu wa Mutharika, Joyce Banda to Peter Mutharika, presidential communication team always get agitated about press conferences.

A live press conference means that the public make up their own minds as the president respond to questions. The public does not have to wait for media institutions to repackage the information for them. In this case both the media and, crucially, the state lose control over information. This is difficult even for a heavily partisan state controlled institutions like Malawi Broadcasting Corporation to change people’s perceptions.

The odds here are against the state if intimidation is the way they want to go, as it seems the case at the moment. Instead of intimidating journalists and cursing freedom of the press and expression, the government could do well to have people in place who understand the increasingly changing communication environment. Being in control of communication no longer means having a spokesperson that can speak the loudest, it means understanding increasingly complex communication systems. Most importantly the government can just be honest, open and transparent – this way it doesn’t have to worry about media. As they say, it is better to light a lamp than to curse the dark.

Will Malawi media safeguard its freedoms?

One famous Russian writer and playwright Mikhail Bulgakov once said: “I am a passionate supporter of [press] freedom, and I consider that if any writer were to imagine that he could prove he didn’t need that freedom, then he would be like a fish affirming in public that it didn’t need water.”

The media throughout the world, especially current affairs and journalism have fought and continue to fight hard for freedoms of the press, expression and access to public information, among other freedoms and rights. In Malawi, freedoms of the press and expression are guaranteed by the country’s Constitution while the battle for freedom to access public information is still on.

Today, African countries are voting more than in any other period in history. If voting is anything to go by, democracy is taking root in Africa. Consequently, most legal frameworks on the continent have liberalised media laws to make room for freedom of the media. This is also in line with Article 19 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

In honour of these freedoms, May 3 was set aside as World Press Freedom Day. This year, the day is being celebrated under the theme: ‘Let Journalism Thrive! Towards Better Reporting, Gender Equality, and Society in the Digital Age’. Here in Malawi, the celebrations organised by Misa-Malawi are taking place in Mzuzu.

Malawi journalism, like elsewhere, still has a lot of challenges though, which means May 3 must be a day to celebrate media freedoms as well as a moment of reflection on persisting challenges.

Francis Nyamnjoh, Professor of Social Anthropology at University of Cape Town (UCT), South Africa observes that examination of most legal frameworks in Africa reveal a craving by governments to control, which leaves little doubt that lawmakers still perceive journalists as potential troublemakers who must be policed. The tendency, he adds: “Is for new laws to grant freedom in principle while avoiding, often by administrative nexus, the curtailment of press freedom in practice.”

These issues are real in Malawi as seen through the struggle to have Access to Information Bill debated in Parliament and passed into law. The bill was drafted 15 years ago and Malawi is now with a fourth president yet the bill is still gathering dust. However, it is important to point that these obstacles are visible mostly because they hinge on national legal frameworks. Thus, it is easy to accuse the government of abusing power and stifling democratic freedoms.

Less pronounced are equally pertinent issues of media’s overreliance on corporate world for funding—through grants and advertising. Powerful national and multinational corporations throughout the world wield more power than central governments. This is not new, USA’s The Nation Magazine observed this as far back as May 1873 in its editorial: ‘The Growth of Corporate World and Decline of Government Power’. Emerging from a dictatorship where there are no media freedoms, it is easy to see why Malawi media fraternity is much more concentrated on legal frameworks rather than corporate influence.

Corporations are making obscene profits at the expense of poor Malawians. Media have to question and explain these issues. It is not enough to report on profits declared and tax paid by corporations and their various donations across the country.

These donations are only a drop in the ocean, banks and mobile phone companies are making over 100 percent profits in this country—reported by the media of course through the dreaded ‘he said or she said’ way, with little critical analysis. Corporations pay public relations officers to do their bidding. Journalism must not do the same. Even in Malawi, journalists and PR folks are fond of calling each other ‘colleagues’.

Earlier this year there was a media ‘controversy’ when President Peter Mutharika gave K50 000 to each journalists he hosted at Sanjika Palace. These were senior journalists, some of whom hold managerial positions within their organisations. Some of the journalists returned the money because they felt pocketing it would have implications on their public image and trust.

Some donated the money to various causes while others kept it. But it does not matter who did what with the money. The point is, the money rightly polarised opinion because Mutharika is a politician, a public figure and the money was rightly seen as buying favours. Some of the journalists who received the money argued that they could not be bought by K50 000.

They are right. Studies have shown that most senior reporters are well paid; it is junior reporters who get peanuts. So, perhaps, Mutharika miscalculated the move or indeed he did not mean to bribe the senior scribes.

The furore that the money caused is understandable, yet journalists do not question corporate donations and sponsorship. Corporate world, like politicians, are interested parties. They too crave favourable coverage from the media. Their public image matters too, if not much more than politicians. When we talk about media’s watchdog role, it is not just politicians at question, private sector as well.

As professors of journalism, Emily Bell, Clay Shirky and Chris Anderson from Columbia Journalism School, New York University and The City University of New York, respectively noticed in 2012:

“Journalism exposes corruption, draws attention to injustice, holds politicians and businesses accountable for their promises and duties. It informs citizens and consumers, helps organise public opinion, explains complex issues and clarifies essential disagreements. Journalism plays an irreplaceable role in both democratic politics and market economies.”

The importance of this quotation is its emphasis that journalism is not just there to keep politicians on their toes, but business and commercial interests too. The genuine worries about politicians’ money within journalism must also apply to the corporate world.

Misa-Malawi is hosting a Press Freedom Day gala with sponsorship from the corporate world. Airtel has donated K3 million and there are various awards sponsored by corporations and business interests. Misa-Malawi may not be financially independent. Yet, one wonders if such donations and sponsorship should not also be questioned, as it was rightly the case with Mutharika’s money? As press freedom is celebrated, is it not important that we also reflect on these pertinent issues engulfing the industry?

It is important that freedoms of press and speech are guaranteed and guarded by the country’s legal frameworks. Yet, it is equally important to realise that such freedoms are endangered by powerful corporations, more so that media institutions are mainly dependent on corporate world for survival.

I do not have solutions to these issues, but it is important that the media fraternity in the country recognise and open up to these pertinent issues.

Media content is not just shaped by regulations, it is also shaped by ownership and economic interests, giving corporations enormous power on media content. Restrictive media regulations do not only hamper free press and freedom of expression, it also stifles democracy and good governance. The same is the case with unguarded corporate influence. Such corporate influence is what economist Noreena Hertz called ‘Silent Takeover’, in her 2000 thesis on Global capitalism and the death of democracy. Will Malawi media stand firm and guard its freedoms from monied corporations?