América Latina

Communication, Democracy and Social Movements

Osvaldo León

27/02/2013

Opinión

^-A ⁺A

The struggle for the democratization of communication – which under neoliberal policies almost became a lost cause – has reemerged today with exceptional vitality in tune with the political changes which Latin America has been living through for the past decade. We are no longer dealing with an issue confined to those who are directly or indirectly linked to communication, but rather a cause taken up by more and more social actors, since it brings to light the very future of democracy.

The democratization of communication is, above all, a question of citizenship and social justice, framed in the human right to information and communication. Equally, it is inherent to the democratic life of society, whose vitality depends on a citizenry that is duly informed and engaged in debate, able to participate and take responsibility in decision making on public matters.

Under neoliberal hegemony, this democratic aspiration becomes seriously constrained, since positioning the market at the centre of the social order implies diluting any sense of citizenship, and replacing it by the ever-present figure of the consumer, a process in which communication comes to constitute a key support. Through the accelerated development of technologies and techniques, communication is not just the object of substantial internal changes, but is also becoming one of the most dynamic sectors, with profound repercussions in all dimensions of social existence.

As a global project, the imposition of policies of liberalization and deregulation have become the order of the day, above all in matters of telecommunications, to eliminate any regulation or publicly-owned space that might hold back the expansion of the trans-national corporations; and with rules directed toward turning information and cultural production, once-and-for-all, into mere merchandise. And this is how a highly concentrated media and cultural industry evolves, governed by exclusively commercial criteria, among which profitability counts over and above the public interest.

In the heat of economic globalization, it is in the field of communications where the dynamics of business and transnational concentration have been unleashed with greatest virulence. This has given rise to mega-corporations – through the fusion of print media, television networks, cable TV, movies, software, telecommunications, entertainment, tourism, amongst others – with ramifications in every corner of the world.

Under these parameters, the media multiply their capacity to shape public space and the citizenry, through their greater influence on social contexts and daily life itself. The sway which they now hold over other entities of social mediation – political parties, professional associations, churches, educational establishments, etc. – is such that these need to turn systematically to the media in order to survive.

In fact, what we know is less-and-less from first-hand experience, and more-and-more from what comes to us from the reality constructed by the media; that is, the raw material which serves to configure the settings in which our lives unfold, the guidelines of the public agenda, which in turn determine the subjects on which to comment, with whom we feel identified or not, etc. So this media-construct is what assigns these matters their specific weight in society, and equally is what holds as much or greater importance for the silences which are kept and the mechanisms for making certain things invisible. Therefore, guaranteeing media plurality and diversity is a key issue for a healthy democracy.

The Right to Communicate

Since neoliberal policies seriously exacerbated the social problems which they were supposedly going to solve, the proposals for change brought forward by the social and political resistance find substantial backing from the citizenry, in spite of their being systematic discredited by the mainstream media. And thus, at the beginning of the new millennium, particularly in South America, a turnabout has taken place on the political map, characterized by commitments to further extend democracy, or even to advance toward participatory democracy.

This new context saw the “rebirth” of the demand for democratization of communication, which, not long before, even progressive sectors had set aside for reasons of “political correctness” (or in the hopes of maintaining at least the illusion of being taken into account, from time to time, by the media). It is useful to recall that in the 80’s, when the return to constitutional government was underway in a good part of the region, the proclamation: “without democratizing communication, there is no democracy” formed part of the platforms of demands, since the media corporations had secured their position with the favor and support of the dictatorships.

We should point out that, in an initial phase, several governments of this current of change practically left the issue off the agenda, due to their inclination, in practical terms, to come to “understandings” with the heavyweights of hegemonic media power. But as the changes entailed affecting interests of the de facto powers, these “understandings” were diluted, and at the same time it became evident that the mainstream media were taking on a coordinating role for the opposition forces, occupying the space resulting from the generalized set-back of traditional political parties[1].

In the particular circumstances of their respective countries, various governments have taken on the need to establish legal rules to democratize communication, coinciding with proposals put forward by a number of social players committed to this cause. One of their core demands is the implementation of mechanisms to regulate the media on the basis of a human rights paradigm, through public policies designed to foster pluralism and diversity of voices and to guarantee conditions of equal access to public debate, as well as to revert existing asymmetries. In other words, diversity and pluralism considered as basic propositions of the Right to Communicate.

The Right to Communicate embraces all the other rights acquired in historical evolution[2], while also extending to present-day requirements. There are two main ingredients which bear on this sphere: first, the consensus which has been established in the community of nations with respect to the imperative of extending democracy, with participation of citizens in decision-making, a question which relates to the necessity of maximizing diversity and pluralism in the realm of the media; and second, the dizzying development of new information and communication technologies, under the framework of digital convergence, which amongst other things establishes the operating conditions for interaction.

Democratizing Measures

The first country to take the issue in hand was Venezuela, where following the failed coup d’état against President Hugo Chavez (April 2002) the way was cleared for consideration of the “Law of Social Responsibility in Radio and Television” (known as the “ley Resorte” for its Spanish acronym) which was approved in December of 2005, and of policies to promote public and community media. The Law of Community and Alternative Media currently before the National Assembly, and which has been approved in first reading in November 2012, was presented with the backing of more than 26 thousand signatures making use of the Public Legislator facility, which permits the citizenry to propose new law bills.

Uruguay is where regulation of “Community Radio Broadcasting Services” has already been established, since the approval of Law bill 18232 in December 2007, which reserves at least one-third of the available frequencies in all radio and television bands, both analog and digital, for community broadcasters. Various executive decrees have also been approved on this matter, such as that issued December 31, 2012, which establishes that “The total [number of] subscribers of subscription television companies authorized to operate in the national territory will not be allowed to exceed 25% of the number of households in the country... ”. Moreover, it is expected that the government of José Mujica will present a proposal to Parliament for an Audiovisual Communication Services law, resulting from a process implemented under the mechanism of the Technical Consultative Committees, made up of representatives of social and business organizations.

In Ecuador, the new Constitution approved on September 28, 2008 contemplates the recognition of communication as a fundamental human right. The enshrined Communication and Information Rights establish an unprecedented framework for advancing toward a profound democratization of the sector. But the Law of Communication mandated to develop what is stipulated in the Carta Magna – dubbed by big business media as the “ley mordaza” [the gag law] before its review even began, and subjected to a multi-million dollar campaign never before seen – has been held up in the National Assembly.

The new Constitution of Bolivia also recognizes communication as a human right. In legislative terms, the “General Law of Telecommunications, Communication and Information Technologies”, no. 164, promulgated on August 8, 2011, provides, amongst other things, for the distribution of the radio spectrum in the following terms: “1. The State, up to thirty three percent. 2. Commercial, up to 33 percent. 3. Social and community, up to 17 percent. 4. Aboriginal Nations, intercultural and Afro-Bolivian communities, up to 17 percent.”

Following a widely-based debate at a national level which occasioned a broad social mobilization, on October 10, 2009 the Argentine Senate approved the “Audiovisual Communication Services Law”, which divides the radio spectrum into three sectors: commercial, public, and non-profit organizations. Owing to one component of the Law pointing to the de-monopolization of the sector, the powerful Clarín Group, seconded by other conglomerates, not only unleashed a devastating campaign but also has systematically resorted to legal injunctions to avoid conforming to the measure.

In Brazil, the democratization of communication is also in dispute. Following various months of animated debate amongst different sectors of society, from 14 to 17 December 2009, in Brasilia, the National Conference on Communications (Confecom) took place, and concluded with the approval of 665 proposals. Although the holding of Confecom was considered a victory for the social sector, because of the pedagogical character of the preparatory phase, its guidelines have been gradually diluted by the government of Dilma Rousseff, under pressure from big media to leave them to expire on paper. In this context, it is worth highlighting the campaign “To express freedom – A new law for a new time”, launched by the National Forum for the Democratization of Communications (FNDC).

Common Threads

Both in these countries and in others which are immersed along a similar course, the common denominator is the premise that what is at stake is the very essence of democracy: that is, whether it takes on a formal character, limited to voting from time to time, where the players are no longer citizens but rather consumers; or whether it defends a participatory and proactive citizenry with voice and vote in the decisions which are the backbone of their destiny.

And thus, the common threads of the agenda in dispute have to do with the need for public communication policies oriented toward promoting spaces for debate and encounter at all levels, stimulating social and individual initiatives, catalyzing proposals and points of consensus, delegating decision-making and establishing regulations, amongst others.

In this sense, confronting media concentration and the mind-set which privileges the interests of large economic groups is also on the agenda, in view of a restructuring which would put an end to monopolies and oligopolies. Concomitantly, there is a bid to retrieve the public nature of social communication, and its social-centeredness: a radical shift, given that only two actors have been contemplated in the past: the state and private business[3]. That is, to guarantee the active, critical and organized participation of society in all communicative processes; and as the central axis, the unconstrained defense of freedom of expression and the right to receive verified information from multiple sources; the right to rectify; etc.

In this perspective of change, one of the critical points has to do with the distribution of the radio spectrum – an unalienable and physically limited public asset that is not subject to prescription or embargo, – which belongs to humanity but which is administered by the State. In this matter, the criterion of three thirds is coming to the forefront: that is, the private sector, the public (or State) sector, and the community sector – a matter which acquires even greater importance with the approaching introduction of a system of digital frequencies.

Another issue relates to the institutional framework and the consequent definition and delineation of the governing body or bodies charged with regulation and control. The most usual figure is that of a National or Social Communication Council, though there is not necessarily conformity in the composition, role and degree of autonomy.

There is also a series of demands which, with variations, are common to the different countries, such as: local and regional production and distribution; the sustainability of public and community media; the precise character and composition of the public media; the practical derivations of social control and participation; access to the information of public entities (transparency), with the suggestion that the same should apply to all sectors; universal access to Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs); regulation of matters of promotion and publicity, amongst other points.

But beyond the specific demands, a new approach is also being proposed in which it is considered fundamental not just to establish norms with respect to the obligations of the state to Guarantee and Respect the body of legally sanctioned rights, but also its obligations to Protect and Fulfill the complete realization of Communication Rights.

The Mainstream Media’s Counter-Offensive

Faced with the new scenario, the mainstream media, much to their chagrin, feel obliged to open up space for talking about a banned topic: the social responsibility of the media. Although, rather than favoring a wide-ranging and diverse debate, they opt for digging a trench-line of propaganda and respond with multi-million dollar publicity campaigns, which, by the by, are very much interconnected, not just from having a common mold, but also through synchronizing moves and support lines: research institutes, observation centers and related entities, and obviously, the media corporations' guild, the Inter American Press Association (IAPA).

In order to sustain such campaigns, these same media powers proclaim themselves to be the defenders of freedom of expression, to the point where any initiative which attempts to open up new parameters contemplating the freedom of expression of the citizenry as a whole, is treated as an assault on their freedom. And yet this should be a prerogative of everyone and not just of those who own media.

Under the premise that in matters of communication, the best law is no law, the mainstream media contend that self-regulation is the ideal mechanism for preserving freedom of expression and that true control is in the hands of the reader, the listener, and the viewer, who at any moment may decide not to continue with one or another channel or program. This is to say, everything can be resolved in the market. Nevertheless, neither communication nor information should be considered as mere merchandise since they are essential and relevant assets for the life of a democratic society. And precisely because of this they merit protection under the legal order.

When the theorists of classical liberalism established the ideas of the "fourth estate" they did so under the presumption that free expression of opinion through the organs of an independent press constitutes the principal medium for guaranteeing expression of the diversity of points of view, for forming lucid public opinion and for vigilance over the abuse of state power. But today the abuses also come from the high concentration of media power. And because of that, as Thompson notes[4]: “A laissez-faire approach to economic activity is not necessarily the best guarantor of freedom of expression, since an unregulated market may develop in a way that effectively reduces diversity and limits the capacity of most individuals to make their views heard.”

It is worth keeping in mind that, distinct from Europe and North America, where the mass media developed side-by-side with industrialization, in Latin America they were put in place from those countries of the North – responding rather to the conditions of integration with international capitalism – and confined to power groups. And so this is what characterizes the predominant media system: large family groups which concentrate and monopolize the sector (with minimal variations amongst the different countries), organically connected to the body of de facto powers, highly imbued with proprietary criteria (which reduce the public interest to their own particular interests; so much so that the holders of radio frequency concessions tend to consider them as theirs in perpetuity) and following a rationale which establishes interdependence of the media with the free market as a pillar of democracy, to mention certain traits.

As Frank LaRue[5], Special Reporter on Freedom of Expression for the United Nations, notes in this respect, freedom of expression “is a universal right, a right of everyone and not just of the big media corporations… It is a right of society to be well-informed; it is a question of justice and citizenship linked directly to the principle of diversity in the media. And because of that, a monopoly over communication is precisely contrary to freedom of expression and the full exercise of citizenship”. And further on he specifies that: “In Latin America there is a common historical phenomenon because the whole structure of social communication is much more than that; it is a public service. There is no problem in its also being a business, no one is against that, but the spirit of service to the collectivity should prevail, undertaken with quality and independence, in an honest and objective form. That can only work outside the structure of monopoly, and within the principle of diversity and pluralism of the media”.

So what we have is, on the one hand, increasingly concentrated media power, which plays equally on being part of big business and on the fact of being the predominant space for airing debate on ideas. And on the other, an historical struggle for further extending rights or at least for the real enforcement of those which are already enshrined in law. That is, it amounts to a dispute between the media powers which talk about freedom of expression, although in reality reduced to freedom of the press (which enshrines the rights of entrepreneurs); and social actors with a broad and all-encompassing view who demand the Right to Communicate.

At bottom, this is an expression of the central dispute of the projects for change which, without renouncing individual rights, advocate the collective rights of citizens.

Interconnecting Forces

A very particular phenomenon is taking place in Latin America: the configuration of a spectrum of alternative and popular media, which was born in the 70’s and which, against-wind-and-tide, resisted dictatorships and laws which criminalized them, in order to accompany the organizational dynamics of various social sectors in struggles for specific demands and those related to the defense and broadening of democracy. And along this road, as proposals continue to be processed, taking shape around the demand for democratization of communication, with varying expressions in the different countries; different forces have also been coming together to exchange experiences, coordinate actions and proposals, in an overall context marked by dispersion. Therefore, not only do these exchanges make it possible to draw up basic programs – as well as, in some measure, the elaboration of alternative narratives – but also to interconnect forces willing to impact on political definitions relative to this field.

In the struggle for human rights there is one constant: the victories are enshrined in international bodies and frameworks, not necessarily due to the norms which they establish but rather to the legitimacy which they lend to one cause or another. In this sense, the global summits promoted by the United Nations, whose usefulness is generally questioned, have at least fulfilled a role in catalyzing synergies.

In effect, when the 1^st Latin American Meeting of Alternative and Popular Media was held (Quito, 19-23 April 1993), in addition to internal agreements on coordination, the first proposal for affirming and strengthening the Right to Communicate was formulated and submitted to the World Conference on Human Rights (Vienna, June 1993). On the occasion of the consultation process “Viena+5”, which coincided with the 50^th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Forum: Communication and Citizenship was held in El Salvador in September 1998, with the particular result of favoring a confluence between the realm of communications and that of social movements around the democratization of communication, and where the demand for the Right to Communicate was reaffirmed and sent on to the international body, with the request that a World Conference on Communication be called, with broad participation from civil society.

That request contributed to the UN – which had decided to suspend the organization of world summits – convening the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), in whose preparatory phase emerged the Campaign for Communication Rights in the Information Society[6] (CRIS), which was launched at the 2002 World Social Forum, a fact which contributed to an uncommon resonance, both for dissemination of the central ideas and for bringing together different social sectors around these issues. It also helped to bring in a critical mass of accumulated experience and convergences, or at least connections long since established.

Therefore, in this struggle for democratization of communication, alongside popular, alternative, community and other similar media, we also find players such as exchange networks for free software; activists in digital media, collectives favoring universal access and appropriation of the new information and communications technologies (ICTs); monitoring bodies and pressure groups against sexist, racist or discriminatory media content; media literacy programs; users’ associations intervening in media programming; citizens’ networks and information exchanges linked through the Internet; critical researchers; associations of independent journalists; women’s collectives with a gender perspective on communication; cultural movements; popular education networks; observatories in favor of freedom of information; anti-monopoly associations; collectives in defense of public media, amongst many more. And increasingly, people's organizations of diverse origins.

This process, which gradually led to incorporating the cause of democratizing communication on the agendas of different social and citizens’ groupings, was also influenced by the dynamics of confluence these same groupings were advancing in order to confront the neoliberal project and its pretense of being the “only solution”. The necessity of thinking up and proposing alternatives was precisely what opened the way for social entities and movements to come together in the World Social Forum under the slogan of “Another world is possible”, which from the outset contributed, amongst other aspects, to linking different social causes and making them visible: sharing reflections and experiences, as well as proposals for action. In this framework, the proposals for democratization of communication achieved a significant resonance.

At the beginning of the present century, the continent was the stage for resistance struggles against the strategic project of the United States of creating the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), having as their main reference the Continental Campaign against the FTAA[7] which managed to congregate social, cultural and political movements and other entities, whose actions were a key factor in derailing that project and in retrieving the perspective of regional integration. It was a campaign which, obviously, rested on being communicative, although it was basically sustained on an activist basis, combining mobilization and reflection, in a decentralized way; but which at the same time incorporated the cause of the democratization of communication in the debates and the formulation of alternative proposals, with the particularity that the movements’ faculty for capillary action in the reconstruction of consciousness came into play.

From the Social Movements

For popular social groups, the process of organization, participation and mobilization has historically constituted a keystone for liberating their capacity for expression and recovering their right to speak. This is sustained through collective interaction oriented toward analyzing and understanding reality, so as to establish common identities and shared consciousness with respect to their transforming social action. And so their definitions in matters of communication in general have been framed accordingly.

Faced with the changes taking place in the contemporary world – particularly as concerns the need to connect the local with the global and the growing weight of communication factors in all aspects of life, which is not unconnected to the impact of new ICT’s, the visible and friendly face of which is the Internet – a gradual rethinking of this issue is underway within people’s organizations.

Even though, in general, an instrumental view of communication continues to prevail in people’s organizations, limited to use of the medium, of the instrument, it is also true that internally, they are now talking about such things as the formulation of communication policies and strategies, fine-tuning and strengthening their own message, building the capacity to respond by bolstering their own media in terms of quality and timeliness, “appropriation” of the Internet[8], piloting a training process both for leadership and for operators, weaving a new anti-hegemonic communications fabric, going for broader audiences, with good quality, collaborative production, etc.

Moreover, in the framework of these proposals the idea is also present that is it not enough to be beneficiaries of one or another policy, but it is also important to participate in the orientation and implementation of such policies, which points to the need to coordinate proposals and develop collective capacity to implement them, since in isolation no single conglomerate unites the conditions for confronting the great challenge which is present in this historic moment. And for the same reason, a view toward the integration of peoples in the region is being incorporated.

And further, voices can sometimes be heard calling for rediscovering the meaning of communication itself in such a dialogical and participatory social process. That would mean overcoming the predominant information paradigm (limited to exploiting and multiplying flows from broadcaster to receiver), and recovering that of communication[9], which in essence is what alternative and popular communication expressions have upheld historically. And what is more, pointing out the connection with fields such as education and culture, since in itself it calls for dialogue and the construction of shared consciousness.

We should point out that although the hegemonic media have not managed to avoid their corporative prerogatives being brought into question, that does not imply that they have lost the power that they have accumulated historically[10]. Above all on the symbolic plane, we live in a media world which moves on the basis of their codes, as the central nucleus of what is understood by meaning. Precisely for that reason, a perspective for change requires coming to terms with the question being one of approach, not of tools.

(Translation Donald Lee and ALAI).

- Osvaldo León, journalist and communicologist, is part of the ALAI team. He is coordinator of the book "Democratizar la palabra: Movimientos convergentes en comunicación" (ALAI, Quito, January 2013), of which this text is the introduction. The book is available in both print and digital versions: http://alainet.org/publica/democom/index.phtml.

[1] The role played by the mass media, particularly television, in the coup against President Hugo Chavez in Venezuela on April 11, 2002, illustrates this point. This is why many analysts concur that it was a "media coup".

[2] Initially, recognition was given to the rights of media owners, then to those who work under them, and finally, to everyone, which Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights designates as the right to information and freedom of expression and opinion.

[3] Little or nothing of this paradigm shift, however, has been translated into public policy. What has prevailed is confrontation between governments and media entrepreneurs.

[4] Thompson, John (1999) The Media and Modernity, Cambridge (UK), Polito Press. p. 239.

[5] Interview with Leandro Fortes, of Carta Capital, “Entrevista Frank La Rue: Um direito universal”, 15/12/2012, http://www.fndc.org.br/internas.php?p=noticias&cont_key=858887 (our translation).

[6] This campaign managed to play a notable role in the WSIS, promoting a rights-based approach as an alternative to the technology-centered view that prevailed in the call for that summit.

[7] This campaign drew on the accumulated experience of organizational restructuring of social forces that was set off by the Continental Campaign 500 Years of Indigenous, Black and Popular Resistance (1989-1992).

[8] With the Internet, for the first time the subordinate classes have access to cutting-edge communications technology. In the words of Noam Chomsky, in declarations to Mexican newspaper La Jornada (19/09/04): “Internet use, as well as facilitating and speeding up communication within social movements and between them, lends itself to winning back control from the mainstream media. These are two of the most important new factors that have emerged in the last 20 years.” [Our translation from the Spanish version]. A pioneering initiative in this realm is the Minga Informativa de Movimientos Sociales (Social Movements Information Pool or Task Force – http://www.movimientos.org), in which some ten coordinating bodies and social networks from Latin America have come together in order to build "a social agenda in communication".

[9] In fact, today, it is a universal challenge, as noted by Dominique Wolton, who points out that: "The revolution of the 21^st century is not that of information, but of communication. Not of the message, but of relationship. Not of distribution of information using sophisticated techniques, but of the conditions of acceptance or rejection by millions of receivers, all different and rarely in tune with emitters. The receivers, to whom the information is addressed, complicate communication. The information trips up on the other's face. We dreamed of the global village, but rediscover the Tower of Babel." cf. Informer n'est pas communiquer, CNRS Éditions, Paris, 2009. The author is Director of the Institute of Communication Sciences of the National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS, for its French initials) of France. (Our translation).

[10] In fact, the media have not lost their capacity for influence, even within governments with which relations remain tense.

https://www.alainet.org/en/articulo/73989