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

This article is second in three-part series focusing on digital rights, access to the Internet, and Internet affordability in Malawi. This part specifically looks access to the Internet,  what it is and what it entails

Access to the Internet

By definition, access means having an ability to connect to the Internet. Dhanaraj Thakur of Alliance for Affordable Internetobserves that access requires that people have the ability to connect physically – as in living in an area with Internet coverage – as well the resources to use the internet.To have access users, of the internet must have certaincomponents – among these an internet-enabled device, the cost for data and electricity for charging the device.

The costs of the Internet enabled device, the power needed to run the device and the Internet data all have costs that must be met by the would be Internet user. It is therefore, very possible that Internet may be available, meaning that the Internet coverage is there in a certain area but people in that area would still not have access to because it is beyond their financial means.

Thakur notices that one of the most significant barriers to accessible internet is the high cost of the internet. Malawi is no exception. While the number of people with access to the internet in the country has improved from 9.6% in 2016 to 13.1% in 2018, the number remains significantly low. The country has lowest internet access comparison with regional neighbours such as Zambia where those with access to the Internet are more than twice that of Malawi.

The Inclusive Internet Index 2018 report revealsthat out of the 86 countries assessed in the report, Malawi has an overall rank of 85^th in the world, only one position ahead of the worst ranked country, Democratic Republic of Congo. Malawi is ranked 83 out 86 on internet availability; the country is ranked 84 out of 86 in the world on internet affordability; and it is ranked 79 out of 86 on Relevant content.

Paradoxically, the report reveals that Malawi has performed relatively well on internet Readiness. Readiness “examines the capacity to access the internet, including skills, cultural acceptance, and supporting policy.” Under readiness, other issues measured are literacy—to assess the preparedness to use the Internet as well as trust and safety, this measures internet safety and cultural acceptance of the internet. It also measures policy, to assess the existence of national strategies that promote the safe and widespread use of the Internet.

The readiness ranking shows that Malawians are ready to embrace the Internet if the right environment is created for affordable access to the internet. It shows that the current low internet access rates in the country have nothing to do with Malawi’s cultural environment or users technical skills, but people have no access to the internet mainly due to contradictory policies as well failure by the government to implement conducive policies currently.

The policy and regulatory framework indicates that Internet in Malawi is treated as luxury even at the time when international community is waking up to the reality of the Internet as key to socioeconomic and national development. In fact, the aim of the Inclusive Internet Index is to “measure the extent to which the Internet is not only accessible and affordable, but also ‘relevant to all, allowing usage that enables positive social and economic outcomes at individual and group level.’”

Regulatory and policy framework is crucial in overcoming the problem of access. One key factor is building infrastructure and ensuring that average Malawians can afford devices and tools for internet connectivity, particularly in the rural areas where a huge majority of Malawians live but the areas are unattractive for investors and commercial service providers because people living in rural areas have less spending power.

Article 157 of Communications Act of 2016provides for Universal Services and Access to telecommunication. Article 158 (1) states: “The Universal Service Fund shall be used for purposes of implementation of universal service and universal access”. Article 158 (2) adds that is shall be done without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), the proceeds of the Universal Service Fund shall be used to:

1. offer subsidies on a competitive basis to licensees in order to provide them with incentives to provide universal access in areas that are not economically viable or that are marginally viable without subsidies.

Article 156 (b) (d), and (f) respectively, gives mandate to Malawi’s telecommunication regulator, Malawi Communications Regulatory Authority (MACRA) to “set out the operations to be undertaken to ensure universal service”; “to define, plan and co-ordinate the implementation and monitoring of the universal access and universal service.” MACRA is also mandated “to ensure that the provision of universal services is made on affordable tariffs that are accessible to all.”

In conclusion, currently the Internet is priced beyond the reach of the majority of Malawians. The portion of the Malawian public that has access to the Internet often experience poor quality connections, that is Internet connections that are unreliable, sluggish, and sporadic. Implementing the provisions of Universal Service Fund would be a practical and good start in ensuring accessible internet in the country. There is also a need to draft and introduce a legal and policy framework, which clearly recognises that the internet is not a luxury but a necessity and emphasises the government’s duty to ensure that its citizens have affordable access to it.

The series of articles are made possible by support from the DW Akademie. For more information visit http://malawi.misa.org.

Be Afraid of Governments Condemning Social Media “Misuse”

2019 has hardly taken any shape, yet there has already been a succession of Internet shutdowns across Africa. These shutdowns have come as governments attempt to narrow and shutdown spectrums of acceptable opi§nion and freedom of expression. These shutdowns have been affected either as citizens demand justice, better service delivery, human rights and free and fair elections. One can only fear more Internet shutdown as Africa expects 14 more elections this year.

It’s a critical year to test freedom of expression and political tolerance in the region. The main reasons for Internet Shutdown, everywhere is because open Internet offers a platform where ordinary citizens can freely express themselves as well as having mechanism to monitor the abuse of power and malpractice during elections. This is what increasingly authoritarian governments on continent do not like. It is challenges their authority.

Malawi is among the countries holding elections later this year; it is a tripartite election where a new president, members of parliament and local councillors will be chosen. Given the growing wave of Internet shutdowns on the continent, I find the recent pronouncementsby Malawi’s Minister of Information and Communication Technology, Henry Mussa that it has become clear that there are people that are “misusing” social media indicative of what could be laying ahead.

According to a news report by Nyasa Times, the minister thinks social media “might have the potential to create chaos” in the May tripartite elections. Maybe it has the potential; maybe it does not, we will come to this later. First we must be mindful that Africa has a rich history of benchmarking – what happens in one African country always reappear in another African country in one disguise or another. Internet shutdowns are the in thing at the moment and it starts with statements like Mussa’s, this is why such statements need to be challenged right away.

The sad thing for Malawi is that there are many people in the country – including those that are expected to know better who would agree with the Minister’s position entirely, never mind the vagueness of the Minister’s language. Mind you, the Minister is a politician and his comments/ views are not value-free. What constitutes to “misuse” of social media? Who determines/ defines it? The thing with such vagueness is that it provides room for authorities to abuse their powerful positions when it suits their economic and political interests. If social media has issues that need, addressing, such issues have to be stated in law and regulations, and it is a duty of the courts to interpret such laws, not politicians.

It is easy for anyone to find and pick cases indicating that people’s rights and dignity are violated and hate speeches have been uttered. These issues have to be checked and it is also true that it will always be there, it part of the society – on and offline. Yet, the solution is to have laws that can be enforced to punish the culprits not shutting down that Internet because doing so would be violating other people fundamental rights. Experience shows us that governments in Africa and elsewhere often use this as a ploy to censor and closedown voices they disagree with.

Internet, through various forums, including social media is a key tool for freedom of expression, which does not only allow people to express themselves freely but it also allows them to hear the opinion of others; it provides a room for open and free deliberation of ideas so that truth could be determined and policies could be drawn on correct information. These are fundamental issues in democracy, without which democracy itself is compromised. It is the duty of government to find means of protecting its citizens without undermining rights and freedom of others.

It is important to realise that social media is not only used in Africa – people have issues with it everywhere but only African government are eager to shutdown the Internet or make threats about it as if our corrupt leaders and governments have any moral higher-ground when it comes to promotion of human rights and protection of civil liberties. Why are these leaders only worried about the plight of their citizens on social media while majority of their citizens can hardly afford three meals a day if at all?

It is very instructive to realise that no government in Africa has ever shutdown the Internet or condemn social media “abuse” at a time when that government has a lot of support from its citizens. So it is incumbent on the rest of us citizens to be proactive and ensure that political leaders and government make decisions and policies that are in tandem with the law, which is designed to uphold and protect people’s freedom and democrat rights.

Social Media is Alright

The question of whether social media should be regulated is steadily getting traction on the continent as well as here in Malawi. The issue gained even more attention in recent weeks following the arrest of Malawi Congress Party (MCP) members who were subsequently charged with treason over a WhatsApp group conversation.

What is fundamental here is a move to limit the space of unacceptable opinion and instilling fear in people that they are constantly being watched: panopticon. The equivalent of the Big Brother idea: Those in the Big Brother house always have this sense that they are being watched at all times even when no-one is watching, therefore, you must regulate your own behavior at all times. It is antithesis of democracy and civil liberties — an effective weapon for authoritarianism.

The ironic thing is that among the key features that social media has brought is the decentralized forms of communication. Social media is social equaliser, giving voice to the voiceless, letting common people whose voice is always represented into the mainstream media; the voice of the people who only make news when they are victims of hunger, domestic violence etc.

Yet, it is understandable that social media is making groups of individuals, government organisations and others uncomfortable. Changes in society always threaten the status quo—it has always been the case. Those in a position of authority and power always fear change and new developments because they must protect their own privileged position. An informed society is a very difficult society to manage and govern for those whose primary goal is to steal from the common folk.

It makes sense then when it is government calling for regulation of social media, they do not want decentralised networks of communication; they want the top-down traditional centralised systems of information flow in which they are in total control. Yet, it makes very little sense when it is journalists asking whether social media should be regulated or not. I have come across such conversation on social media. Journalists seriously arguing for social media regulations—something they should all be defending.

Never mind the important question of who is to police the social media. But you must always be careful what you wish for, you might get it. It is a world of possibilities. There is a common defence slogan when journalists and their work is under attack—often from the powers that be: “do not shoot the messenger”. Journalists calling for social media regulation argue that there are a lot of lies and false stories on platforms such as Facebook and WhatsApp, yet these platforms are used by people, if anything, the blame lies with the users — not the platform. You do not shoot the messenger, remember?

People lie every day, all the time, including those in journalism and all the gatekeepers. How do you regulate a lie anyway? There were lies before social media and there will be lies whether social media is regulated or not. There are laws protecting innocent people from such lies, you do not need to regulate the media. Why would a journalist call for social media regulation? Surely, no journalist would be afraid of enlightened society.

If anything journalism in its traditional form of finding news, editing, fact-checking and report is important more than ever in the day of social media because those discussing issues on social media are not professional journalists.

Yet, this does not mean journalists have monopoly over information. The earlier journalists realise that no-one, including them, has monopoly over information the better. Instead of calling for social media to be regulated, we should instead be calling for more social media—it is good for democracy.