   
|
|
TAJIKISTAN
Despite the Constitution and the 1991 law protecting
freedom of speech and the press, the Government severely
restricts freedom of expression in practice.
Journalists, broadcasters, and individual citizens who
disagree with government policies cannot speak freely or
critically. The Government exercises control over
the media both overtly through legislation and less
obviously through such mechanisms as “friendly
advice” to reporters on what news should not be
covered. The Government also controlled the
printing presses and the supply of newsprint and
broadcasting facilities, and subsidizes virtually all
publications and productions. Editors fearful of
reprisals exercise careful self-censorship.
Two new
opposition newspapers began publication. Sadoi
Majahed (Voice of the Mujahad) is published in Gharm and
Kofarnihon and calls itself the newspaper of the UTO
military. Originally published in Afghanistan in
the early 1990’s, it began publishing in Tajikistan
in April. Beginning in May, Muzhda (Good News) has
been published by opposition members of the Commission on
National Reconciliation using copy machines in their
offices in Dushanbe. Both papers have very small
circulation.
In July the
Government revoked the accreditation of Russian
television correspondent Elena Masyuk and expelled her
from the country based on the Law on Press and Mass Media
that prohibits the abuse of freedom of expression.
The accompanying government statement accused Masyuk of
attempting to discredit the Tajik leadership and
interfering in the country’s internal affairs.
The number of
local newspapers is increasing, but only a handful of
them attempt to cover serious news. Several are
organs of political parties or blocs. There were
allegations of threats of closures against newspapers
critical of the Government. There is one national
television service with several local offices that cover
regional and local issues from an official point of
view. There are 11 independent television stations,
2 of which are not functioning due to financial
problems. Some have independent studio facilities
and do not have to use official studios.
Safareli
Kenjaev, chairman of the parliamentary committee
responsible for broadcasting, initially had trouble
publishing his Socialist Party newspaper Ittihod.
After removing an editor, however, he has not had further
difficulty.
To obtain
licenses, independent television stations must work
through two government agencies, the Ministry of
Communications and the State Committee on Radio and
Television. At every stage of the very time
consuming bureaucratic process, there are high official
and unofficial fees. Nevertheless, no station that
wanted a license has been prevented from obtaining one.
Academic
expression is limited principally by the complete
reliance of scientific institutes upon government
funding, and in practical terms by the need to find
alternate employment to generate sufficient income,
leaving little time for academic writing. The
assailants of the rector of the Tajik technological
university in 1997 were not identified or
apprehended. He has, however, continued his work
without further interference.
Commentary
When speaking of the government, it is necessary to refer
specifically to the relevant branch of authority.
To say that “Government exercises control over the
media . . . overtly through legislation” is
imprecise—legislation concerning media in any
country is always a matter of control. The issues
to be addressed are: whether that control is
impinging on freedom of information and freedom of
speech, and what mechanism is being employed to enforce
that control. Consider broadcast media. The
broadcast law, if properly applied, allows for the legal
functioning of independent television and radio.
While the law is flawed, especially in terms of
separation of authority between the State Committee for
Television and Radio Broadcasting, which issues broadcast
licenses, and government television, the legislation
itself does not substantially inhibit the creation and/or
existence of non-governmental broadcasting. Rather,
the problem lies with the execution of the law, and the
assumption of interpretive authority by the State
Committee for Television and Radio Broadcasting, which is
obligated to perform only administrative functions.
The Committee’s interpretation of the broadcasting
law has been extremely narrow, in essence denying all
rights that have not been specifically granted under the
law. Further, its application of the law has been
inconsistent, and its mechanism for enforcing the law has
been arbitrary.
Non-governmental
television stations. The text “[s]ome
have independent studio facilities and do not have to use
official studios” is misleading. All
non-governmental television studios have some access to
their own resources. Put another way, none relies
on government studios for production facilities. In
fact the non-governmental stations frequently have
studios of the same, or better, quality as the regional
governmental stations. Some non-governmental
stations have used government transmitters for
broadcasting purposes. However, in these cases they
rent transmitter time, and thus the relationship tends to
be primarily economic, though obviously the potential for
political control in those instances does exist. In
general, the trend is toward the purchase and use of
privately owned transmitters.
Licensing.
The text reads: “To obtain licenses, independent
television stations must work through two government
agencies, the Ministry of Communications and the State
Committee on Radio and Television. At every stage
of the very time consuming bureaucratic process, there
are high official and unofficial fees.
Nevertheless, no station that wanted a license has been
prevented from obtaining one.” It is common
throughout the FSU for stations to work through two
government agencies: the Ministry of
Communications, which monitors technical activity and
grants frequencies, and a licensing committee, which
regulates activity on those frequencies. In
Tajikistan the fees for use are high, but not so high as
to be completely prohibitive, as has been the case in
Kazakhstan in recent years. However, several
stations have had issuance of their licenses
substantially delayed for dubious reasons—including
two radio stations in Dushanbe that, after nine months
(as of June 1999), still have not received definite
responses to their applications. In these cases
political motives are suspected. In other cases,
the withholding of licenses has been directly connected
to the political or bureaucratic interests of the
licensing body. The process is likely to remain
highly subjective.
Other
issues not addressed. The lack of public
discourse on serious political and economic issues.
All media outlets practice an extremely high level of
self-censorship. This is the case because there is
no functioning, trustworthy mechanism for resolving
disputes about media content. Rather, the result of
broadcasting an offensive or even critical news piece, or
a piece on certain taboo subjects, such as the
relationship between the Russian military and the drug
trade, is likely to be violent retribution, regardless of
the accuracy of the report. The possibility of such
retribution substantially inhibits news on controversial
subjects. This is doubly true because in many cases
media/journalism has little chance of influencing the
outcome of debate on a particular subject—public
opinion has not been highly valued in matters of national
interest. Thus, journalists see little reason to
risk their lives to cover stories, when such coverage is
not likely to effect change.
Ivan Sigal
Internews Tajikistan
|
