Information and Democracy in Zambia

Informed debate is the lifeblood of democracies. It is however impossible to engage without the requisite information readily available and accessible.

Political tensions, insecurity, threats of violence and crises within a country have a significant impact on access to information.

The achievement of democratic governance goals requires that information be widely available. It is imperative that citizens receive timely information especially at a time when government is trying to achieve true economic diversification.

Poor and vulnerable groups often lack information that is vital to their lives – information on basic rights and entitlements, public services, health, education, work opportunities, public expenditure budgets, etc. They also lack visibility and voice to enable them to define and influence policy priorities and access resources.

Freedom of information and democracy have a mutual relationship. One cannot exist without the other. When governments are dominated by dictatorship, facing major political clashes, or involved in illicit activities, relevant groups seek to wield the media to control citizens and continue with partisan policies. And, conversely when the media fails to fulfill its role, illegitimate policies and parties find it easier to gain traction.

Democracy can only function when there is an independent and liberated media that will provide the public with unbiased information. Illegitimate governments, partisan policies, and organized criminality will happily continue in their course in the absence of freedom of information. Thus, this unjust suppression on information providers must not go unnoticed because we too – not just the journalists – are deeply involved.

The underlying governance principles of an access to information approach are transparency, active participation, responsiveness and accountability.

Freedom of expression and the free flow of information and ideas include the right to information, but the right to official information is a more narrowly defined concept, which requires specific legislation

Effective legislation is a key element in any strategy to promote freedom of expression. Legal and regulatory frameworks that protect and enhance community media are especially critical for ensuring vulnerable groups’ freedom of expression and access to information.

The purpose of the Access to Information law is to increase the capacity of ordinary citizen’s participation in the governance of our country through making informed decisions on matters of public interest upon information that will be made available pursuant to disclosure procedures to be complied with by holders of public office.

This will in turn enhance the transparency and accountability of Government for the betterment of all Zambians.

Better information flows and a greater range of communication channels are needed to meet the information needs of the poor and to advance pro-poor perspectives in policy dialogue. This will require creating and/or strengthening networks between media and Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) at both national and local levels.

The promotion and protection of both access to information itself and flows of information that exist between constituents, government, parliament, community groups, civil society organizations and the private sector are of equal importance. It is essential to create and strengthen communication mechanisms that enable poor people to influence national and local government policy and practice.

The Access to Information (ATI) bill was first presented to Zambian parliament in 2002 but still, fifteen years later it has not come to fruition. Since then the contents of the bill have not been made public, which makes it impossible to create awareness or allow all stakeholders to take part in the process. Successful ATI legislation is dependent on strong political commitment.

Subsequent ministers of information have failed to even re-introduce the bill in parliament or call for analysis and further proposals from other stakeholders. It is therefore a question of whether the ministers are inept or are part of a long held conspiracy to deliberately keep citizens misinformed.

The reluctance of governments to grant access appears to be largely motivated by a keen sense of self-preservation and a prevailing culture of secrecy and lack of transparency.

ATI has a very real significant to play in sustaining a robust democracy. The unwillingness of government to enact laws has been influenced by the perception that ATI legislation fuels antagonism between the government and its citizens and availing certain information to the public might be a threat to the country’s security.

The role of the minister of information and broadcasting is critical in maintenance of a free and democratic. However, people who are appointed to the role spend most of their time as government spokespersons with very little time spent on communicating policies related to their ministry. This could explain why there is very little energy on the ATI front. The responsibility of the minister of information and broadcasting needs to be redefined such that their role isn’t only to give government statements but also facilitate unfettered access to information and promote the independence and development of local media.

Adoption of the ATI legislation will be a litmus test for the Patriotic Front’s commitment to an open and transparent system of governance; anything short of that will be mere rhetoric.