Post-Soviet Media Law & Policy Newsletter
Issue 33-34
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law November, 1996
The State of the Media in the Transcaucasus
An integral element in the transition to democracy currently
underway among the countries of the former Soviet Union is the development
of an independent, objective and fully functional media. The media
of these countries in transition provide an important role in the dynamic
development of true democratic institutions. The emerging media of
the three countries of the Transcaucasus—Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia—provide
an interesting model for the other countries undergoing similar transitions.
Although there is a significant legacy of full state control over the media
within these countries, the media is now emerging as a vehicle for political
accountability and a restraint on the power of the state. The media
is also adding a healthy dose of dissent to the political landscape.
True democracy is impossible without free press and the development of
an effective independent media is an essential counterpart to the development
of the democratic institutions so necessary within these countries in transition.
The Armenian Media
The state of the media in Armenia remains constrained
by the increasing trend of authoritarian rule by the Armenian government.
The Armenian government has conducted a systematic campaign against the
country’s political opposition parties and has unfairly shut down a number
of leading independent and opposition media outlets. Launched with
a December 1994 presidential decree, twelve leading newspapers, magazines
and media outlets were closed without benefit of trial or appeal.
Ten of these remain closed to this day, with the authorities allowing for
the reopening of he media outlets and publishing houses on a selective
basis.
The Armenian government’s campaigning against the opposition
press parallels its repression of the country’s largest opposition party,
the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF). The state’s campaign also
includes a series of state-orchestrated criminal cases aiming at marginalizing
the ART and of ensuring the continuation of government power in the hands
of the ruling Armenian National Movement (ANM).
The state’s campaign, however, deals a serious blow
to the country’s attempt to construct functional democratic institutions
and further threatens to sow discord and division within the Armenian society
as a whole. The development of Armenian democracy is also specifically
hampered by this tightening of the freedoms of press and speech, as the
state-affiliated organs and media are left to operate with no competition
as little more than mouthpieces for the government.
The situation has worsened over the last year and a
half with several cases of journalists being assaulted and beaten and the
offices of several newspapers firebombed. Most threatening is the
lack of any real state investigation or prosecution of these crimes.
The government has also continued a Soviet-era tradition of forcing all
newspaper—opposition, state-run and independent—to be dependent on government
supplied newsprint and publication facilities.
The government also continues to control nearly all
of the country’s broadcasting media. The state control over the broadcasting
medium also seriously hinders the ability of fair coverage of the political
situation and during political campaigns and elections, prevents
the opposition parties from presenting their points of view to the Armenian
electorate. There are only a few small independent cable television
companies, limited to broadcasting a small selection of movies, and only
a sole independent radio station in operation.
Despite the government’s crackdown targeting the opposition
and their media, there are signs today of a few dynamic independent news
organs providing fair coverage of the country’s daunting economic and political
problems. Coverage of the conflict in nearby Nagomo Karabagh, where
the Armenians of the Republic of Nagomo Karabagh have been waging a military
defense of their republic in the face of Azerbaijan’s attacks and long-standing
economic and transport blockade, has tended to be balanced and has been
notably devoid of inflammatory ethnic nationalist propaganda.
Much to the credit of this new group of independent
journalists, coverage of the increasing level of corruption within the
Armenian government and the economic power of a small elite of well-connected
Armenian National Movement (ANM) loyalists demonstrate a new courage in
the Armenian media. This growing level of journalistic integrity
holds promise that once the government’s repression and intimidation lessens,
the Armenian press can flourish and add a healthy element of constructive
dissent when necessary. The realization of this promise, however,
hinges on an end to the Armenian government’s repressive measures against
the opposition and independent media.
The Media in Georgia
Similar to the situation facing the media in the
Russian Federation, the Georgian press is severely daunted by the strong
influence of organized crime and a lack of law and order. The Georgian
media is also beset by the problems of paramilitary militia groups and
ethnic conflicts within the country, adding a significant element of personal
danger for the average Georgian journalist not faced by other journalists.
The outlook for press freedoms in the country has greatly
improved over the past year, with more than twenty different opposition
newspapers enjoying fairly wide circulation and operating without significant
government interference throughout the country. The state still maintains
control, however, over many newspapers and most television stations, as
well as the country’s major publishing house. The Republic and Svobodnya
Gruzya, consistently fail to publish any opposition viewpoints, however.
Although opposition groups charge that the Georgian
government hinders their circulation by failing to provide sufficient supplies
of newsprint and other resources, and that they are denied equal access
to government-run national television stations, there is evidence of recent
advances in this regard. Specifically, the government has allowed
for all political parties to be given equal, rotating time on state television
during the elections of last November and has introduced new television
shows geared toward providing coverage of opposition viewpoint. The
one notable case of harassment involved an attempt by some government officials
to censor a private television station. The incident occurred in
June 1995 with the recession of the license of a local television station
by communications ministry officials. The station, “Rustavi TV,”
had refused to submit to censorship by municipal authorities. After
several protests by the media, the ministry granted the station its license
the next month.
The Media in Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan remains the worst offender of freedoms
of the press in the region. With the country’s recent pattern of
armed changes in government, attempted forcible seizures of power and military
conflict over the Armenian-populated Republic of Nagorno Karabagh, the
Azerbaijani media has been victim to strict campaigns of military censorship,
martial law and a pattern of institutionalized state repression.
State censorship is formally implemented on the grounds
of national security with the state routinely subjecting all media outlets
to prepublication inspection, random searches and seizures, and the warrantless
arrest of journalists for a wide ranges of charges. Although there
are examples of articles appearing in the press expressing opinions critical
of the government and the administration, there have been notable cases
of journalists being convicted for publishing articles expressing “personal
criticism of the office of the president.” This atmosphere of military
censorship and martial law has encouraged the Azerbaijani media to exercise
virtual self-censorship.
Although there are several hundred different opposition,
independent and state-affiliated newspapers available in the country, the
government exercises strong control over their circulation. The state-run
publication and distribution monopoly has increased the price of newsprint
to over forty percent above the world market price to effectively force
the closure and financial hardship of many of these independent and opposition
organs. The Azerbaijani government also controls nearly all of the
country’s national radio and television facilities, allowing the opposition
parties little if any access during political campaigns.
There is one independent television station in operation
but it is accessible only to the small number of residents in the capital
who own modern foreign-produced television sets. The director of
this independent station was physically attacked by forces of the presidential
security forces in 1995 in a blatant attempt to intimidate the station’s
editorial policies and coverage.
The fundamental obstacle of the development of an independent
and effective media in Azerbaijan remains the increasingly harsh dictatorial
nature of the current government. Led by a former Soviet Politburo
member and KGB general as president, the Azerbaijani media must contend
with an array of direct and indirect pressures with sizable penalties for
violating the government’s censorship regime. Until the nature of
the Azerbaijani government changes and is replaced by true democratic practices
and institutions, the chances for an effective independent and free press
in the country seems remote.
Separation of Media and State
The legacy among state control over the media is
not unique to the former Soviet countries, however, as cases of governments
or ruling parties exerting dangerously high degrees of influence over the
national press have arisen recently in Italy during the political campaigns
of media executive Silvio Berlusconi and in Mexico throughout the Salinas
presidency. The conflict of state control or influence over the media
leads to serious questions concerning the media’s role within the political
system. For example, the power of the media within more advanced
democracies to exert influence over the course of democratic elections
has led to calls for a tightening of regulations prohibiting any real linkage
between the state and the media. In the case of the emerging democracies,
the need for a clear and enforceable separation of media and state is even
more apparent given the fragile nature of the emerging democracies.
A dynamic media offers a unique and important element
in the political equation as seen by the use of investigative journalism
serving as a tool of political accountability and for exposing corruption.
The Russian media has been the leader in this regard through the cutting-edge
investigations and coverage of various government officials involved in
corruption and other abuses of power. Similar examples have emerged
recently in Italy with the press playing a leading role in the uncovering
of links between the government and organized crime, and in Mexico as seen
by the media’s prolific reporting on the massive fraudulent crimes of their
last government.
A possible contribution to the development of a strong
independent media in the Transcaucasus may be the formation of national
grassroots-based organization designed to monitor their respective government’s
performance regarding the freedoms of press and speech.
As the recent history of the region has shown, the potential
for a potent civic movement aimed at expressing a political will can not
be underestimated. In this way, a broad national cooperative group
can effectively wield considerable influence over the state of the media
within their respective nations. Such an organization may use grassroots
letter-writing campaigns, demonstrations, and other tactics to free imprisoned
colleagues, to collectively barter for greater press freedoms and less
restrictions, and in the long run to guide the development of an effective
independent media as a counterpart tot he region’s transition to greater
democracy. The media is an integral element of the pillars of democratic
institutions necessary for the development of true democracy within these
countries in transition. And if allowed to influence or control the
media, the state can only be an obstacle on the path toward democracy.
Richard Ginagosisian (email: giragosi@essential.org)
Author of the monthly newsletter, TransCaucasus: A Chronology, Washington,
D.C.