Despite uneasy co-existence, state and media are co-dependent

Considering that the state is currently under fire from opposition parties, media and civil society organisations about the Protection of Information Bill (POIB), which they feel is prioritising the pursuit of national security over fundamental rights of freedoms of speech and media, Mahtar's statement makes me to ponder whether the same can be said about media freedom and state security.

State security

The principles of democracy, development, rule of law, good governance, media freedom and respect for human rights are interlinked with one another but are also closely related to state security. State security is not only about protecting national secrets, the state's borders and its people, soldiers, weapons, wars, fighting terrorism, maintaining the state's integrity and power, but also about information.

The quality of state information that citizens are able to access greatly influence their abilities to participate in the governance and development processes, and thus making the state to function efficiently and effectively. A democratic and progressive government cannot operate in secret, as its actions are subject to public accountability, scrutiny and criticism.

The challenge facing the state, through the POIB, is to pursue effective security policies while valuing democratic principles and respecting the civil liberties of its institutions and citizens.

Types of state secrets

There are two different types of state secrets. First, there are "illegitimate" government secrets. In this category of secrets, government officials attempt to hide from public scrutiny their own maladministration, misjudgments, incompetence, misconduct, scandals, corruption or criminality.

In a democracy such as ours in South Africa, such secrets need to be exposed so that those responsible are identified, named, shamed and punished. It is therefore important that the POIB is not manipulated by government officials to hide such secrets by invoking the claim of national security as a cover.

Second, there are "legitimate" government secrets, and the publication and disclosure of such secrets may threaten national security. The POIB needs to focus on matters that seriously threaten the national security and then preserve confidentiality by punishing (in a constitutionally permissible manner) sources that unlawfully leak such sensitive and delicate information.

Therefore, a central challenge of the bill is to differentiate between the two types of state secrets. With these two types of state security forming the core of the bill, it is possible to craft an act that will address the most serious dangers to the national security, while at the same time protecting the freedom of the media.

Media freedom

Free, strong, independent, objective and professional media is an integral part of national security, and is a necessary pre-condition for the development of a stable and sustainable democracy. It carries both constitutional and citizenship obligations of providing correct, accurate, responsible, and analytical information enriching debates on policy and programmes, disseminating information, promoting development, monitoring economic activities and strengthening decision-making processes on democracy and development.

This includes holding Government to account to citizens. For a free, competent, honest and responsible media to function effectively, it must be able to legitimately criticise the government.

However, the advent of media freedom has given rise to unprecedented abuse of media influence by unscrupulous mass communicators and authoritarian leaders within our societies whose aim is to divide and destroy the very communities that media freedom seeks to help.

Again, in the race to become more popular and to generate more profits, the media is tempted to undermine or neglect its responsibility of building a secured, healthy, peaceful and progressive society.

Adversarial coexistence

The state-media relationship becomes adversarial when the media obtains "unauthorised disclosures leaks" from sources inside the government, because state withholds and treats basic government information as state secrets, stifles the public's right to access to government information, discourages public debate on government policies, assaults those who publicly criticise its policies and programmes, enforces conformity into its own version of governance, threatens punishment to non-complying media, and alienates the media.

And, to avoid this, the state needs to engage effectively with the media, guarantee media freedom, and ensure that citizens have maximum access to government information. It is therefore, crucial that the bill be structured to strike a more prudent balance between national security and media freedom.

Media freedom and state security are co-dependent

The state and media need each other to deliver their constitutional mandates, namely government administration and information dissemination, respectively. While the state needs the media to peddle its policies, programmes and messages to the public, the state is the pinnacle of prestige that media needs to entrench its watchdog status and deliver its information-gathering and -dissemination roles.

The love/hate relationship between the state and media is normal, expected and requires effective relations management within the country's democratic principles. While the media need news to disseminate to their consumers, the state needs coverage in order to interact with citizens.

While pursuing seemingly contradictory goals, state and media need to operate in cooperation within a democratic society, and to keep a "relationship of codependency" or "symbiotic relationship".

State security and media freedom should co-exist

Were it left to me to decide whether we should have state security without free media or free media without state security, I will not hesitate to suggest that state security and media freedom should co-exist because they are co-dependent.

The challenge facing the Protection of Information Bill is to reconcile the irreconcilable values of secrecy and media by guaranteeing maximum media freedom to operate within the state security paradigm.