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.

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.