Human rights are hard to win - yet so easy to lose. The right to know and to be told the truth is often the first to slip from our grasp, often without our actually realizing it.
The World Press Freedom Index for 2020, published by Reporters Without Borders, predictably listed the Scandinavian nations of Norway, Finland, Denmark and Sweden atop the index as countries enjoying the least constrained media, closely followed by the Netherlands. New Zealand came in a respectable 9th - but Japan in 66th position, the US in 45th, the UK in 35th and Australia in 26th provide evidence that the rule of law is often considered less important, even in countries consistently trumpeting their role as leaders of the free world and basking in the halo effect of being the true guardians of democracy, than the perceived security of the state and other factors.
As in previous years, the Index explicitly underscores the negative correlation between freedom of information and conflicts, both open and undeclared, and a disturbing tendency in certain countries to interpret national security needs in an overly broad and abusive manner - to the detriment of the right to inform and to be informed.
This last observation highlights the readiness of governing elites to violate people's rights by hounding those who speak out against exploitation and injustices, or who dare disparage those in authority.
The US and the UK both seem preoccupied with hunting down whistle-blowers instead of adopting legislation to curtail abusive surveillance practices that negate privacy, a democratic ideal ostensibly cherished by both countries. The remorseless persecution of Julian Assange, for instance, can be interpreted as a barely-concealed warning to all those thinking of assisting in the disclosure of sensitive information that would clearly be in the public interest.
Meanwhile states like Japan are starting to emulate China - a nation where the public interest is routinely sacrificed by state legislators determined to ensure their country’s image is secure from potentially embarrassing revelations. The willingness of the state to privatize violence, as well as the involvement of international crime syndicates, are also complicating factors we seldom take into account.
This trend of placing national security ahead of the right of each citizen to tell and to be told the truth in order to take an active role in the governance of their society is a growing threat worldwide. It appears to be indicative of the paranoia gripping those in power as well as the complacency, held by many, repudiating any notion of fallibility for those holding positions of power - irrespective of how that power was attained or is subsequently exercised.
For centuries, mainstream observers and policy makers have acknowledged freedom of information and a free press as part of the essential conditions for a free society. The ethical principles enshrining freedom as a basic human right - including freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of assembly and freedom of choice - are recognized by the United Nations and international treaties. These same principles are also at the heart of social justice.
Critical to the exercise of freedom is unfettered access to the absolute truth. Accurate information enables unity and empowers informed action in much the same way that cant and propaganda lead to division and distortions of the facts. Independence of the press, together with the freedom to engage openly and unhindered in responsible journalistic inquiries, are therefore twin pillars of democracy. But so often today, in an irony that defies logic, whistle-blowers and critics shining a light on the truth about unsanctioned and clandestine state activities, have become the enemy.
Democratic freedom is not merely a driver of national and individual prosperity and wellbeing. It also saves countless millions of lives from famine, disease, war, collective brutality, mass murder and genocide. Across the centuries, on every continent, human security has been improved, and violence of all kinds has become far less, as greater and more freedoms are acquired by citizens. Conversely, human insecurity and enmity both escalate when greater power is exercised both by governments (regardless of their political preferences) and, more recently, an inherently concentrated, biased and corporatized media industry.
Today nation-states seem increasingly willing to intimidate and, quite often, unleash untold terror on their citizens. This raises a troubling question of direct relevance to us all. Why do states kill their own people? The answer to this question is best answered by understanding how communities are governed - especially an appreciation of how rules and norms are established and subsequently enforced.
In tribal communities, as found in hunter-gatherer societies to this day, rules tend to be enforced by consensus and by various types of supernatural sanctions. People tend to follow community norms because they fear spiritual and non-material reprisal - such as the anger of ancestral spirits or the power of sorcery or witchcraft. In villages and small townships there are often chiefs or elders who, because of their standing in the family structure of the community, or their age or wisdom, are imbued with an unchallenged authority to establish and enforce rules of behaviour and to mediate interpersonal disputes.
However it was not until the emergence of large-scale state organizations that death and violence become an official means for maintaining order and control. If this were not of sufficient concern, what often goes unnoticed is that most state-sanctioned violence is directed against the state's own citizens. While most contemporary killings of this nature are more likely to be perpetrated by totalitarian regimes, democratically-elected governments have also been culpable of mass murder and other forms of unwarranted aggression against their own citizens.
If the state murders and persecutes individuals and groups that refuse to assimilate into the society, or who demand greater autonomy than the state is willing to provide, a further question must be asked: To what extent has the nation-state become a genocidal institution and an enemy of the people it is supposed to serve?
I pose this as a rhetorical question rather than one having an easy or obvious answer. In pre-industrial and totalitarian societies the power of the state can engulf all else. In post-industrial societies the power of the corporation is perceived to be stronger even than that of the state. But the power of the individual, too, has strengthened with the advent of new technologies, many of which allow the freedoms of which we spoke earlier to embed with far less pain.
I believe our world is tentatively shifting from one predominantly governed by formal relationships and contracts, regulated almost entirely by various forms of centralized state or corporate authority, to a model that is far less constraining. I also judge this to be in the best interests of the majority of citizens. But a transition of this nature can only succeed if those in authority desist from their frenzied attempts to control every facet of their citizens' lives and begin to repeal laws that suppress freedom.
An independent press, access to the truth, and the right of any individual to speak out against unfairness, inequity and injustice, are all critical in that regard. In this context I have been increasingly alarmed by the insidious power of wealthy media tycoons like Rupert Murdoch. Through a deliberate campaign of disinformation, even admitted by one of his sons, Murdoch aims to bring free thinking and analysis to its knees in his determination to influence political outcomes.
Although I am aware of this gradual erosion of the truth in many countries, I am most familiar with the situation in my own country of Australia, where media laws effectively concentrate ownership into just two camps, in addition to the independent Australian Broadcasting Corporation [the ABC] which is sustained by the public purse.
As the national broadcaster - a statutory authority constituted and operating under the provisions of the Broadcasting Corporation Act of 1983 - the ABC is responsible for a range of public and community services that, in the case of emergencies in a country like Australia, beset by extreme droughts, floods and bush fires, regularly save lives and property. The essence of the ABC's role is a commitment to act in the interests of citizens. That is its legal obligation, and that is the pledge it makes to the community.
Because the ABC is allocated a budget from public funds it has no need to advertise, pander to sectoral interests, present the news (or indeed new ideas) from a position of bias or self-interest, or to make a profit from its diverse broadcasting activities. It is, in short, a national treasure and a part of our democracy that is still working as intended.
And so it is with increasing anger that I view recent attacks on the independence of the ABC by the Murdoch press, the coalition government and the Institute of Public Affairs, a privately funded think-tank and unconcealed bastion of right-wing prejudice, as a systematic attack on the rights of Australian citizens to be told the truth, without any conspiracy theories, lies or fantasies weaving their way through ideologically-embellished rants.
But this issue extends far beyond the shores of Australia. Freedom of the press, along with public access, and a precision and accuracy of reporting, are vital in sustaining even a vestige of democracy. Without these qualities democracy is dead in the water.
Even more crucial is the fact that the straightforward provision of unbiased information for public consumption is at the core of a truly civilized society. Without unconstrained access to accurate information 'we the people' can never be in a position to instruct those who purport to represent them in the parliament, or to decide which policies are best for them, their children, the nation, and the planet. Anything less is unacceptable, amounting to unprincipled brainwashing, and a potential threat to both individual and cultural sovereignty.
As Thomas Jefferson, the 3rd President of the United States declared: Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost. Where the press is free, and every man (sic) able to read, all is safe.