BY SULIMAN MANSARAY
INTRODUCTION
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE THEORY
In the 16th and 17th centuries society was made up of three estates – the clergy, the aristocracy and the commoners. At this point in time, it was believed that the right to rule was bestowed upon one by God. The ruling class used the notion of divine right to justify their absolute right to power, leading to the development of authoritarianism.
In order to understand the role of the press, we must first understand the context of the nature of man, the nature of the state, the nature of man’s relationship to the state and finally the nature of knowledge, in an authoritarian setting. Man is seen as a completely helpless being, who is unable reach his full potential without the aid of the state. The role of the state is to see to it that man develops his full potential by providing him with the knowledge in the form of state policies, goals and objectives. In such a society, knowledge exclusive in its nature, and is discovered through divine right or one’s intellectual ability, and is exclusive to a few chosen individuals. Based on the above assumptions, it is only natural that it should be the chosen few to analyze and disseminate this knowledge, before it is shared with the masses.
The press was the channel through which this information was shared. Their role was to support and advance the policies of the ruling class, and maintain the status quo. To ensure that the press did not step out of line, various controls were put in place by the aristocracy including but not limited to; issuance of state approved press permits and licenses, censorship and court action in the form of libel and sedition charges.
The Authoritarian theory is among the earliest theories that were propounded by Western theorists Siebert, Paterson and Schramm in their book Four Theories of the Press (1956). These were termed “normative theories” by McQuail in the sense that they “mainly express ideas of how the media ought to or can be expected to operate under a prevailing set of conditions and values.” Each of the four original or classical theories is based on a particular political theory or economic scenario.
According to this theory, mass media, though not under the direct control of the State, had to follow its bidding. Under an Authoritarian approach in Western Europe, freedom of thought was jealously guarded by few people (ruling classes). Steps were taken to control the freedom of expression. The result was advocacy of complete dictatorship. This theory stemmed from the authoritarian philosophy of Plato (407 – 327 B.C), who thought that the State was safe only in the hands of a few wise men. Thomas Hobbes (1588 – 1679), a British academician, argued that the power to maintain order was sovereign and individual objections were to be ignored. Engel, a German thinker further reinforced the theory by stating that freedom came into its supreme right only under Authoritarianism.
The Authoritarian theory is the oldest of the four theories of the Press. It carne into being in the authoritarian climate of the late Renaissance, soon after the invention of printing. In that society, truth was conceived to be, not the product of the greet mass of people, but of a few wise men who were in a position to guide and direct their fellows. Thus truth was thought to be centered near the center of power. The press therefore functioned from the top down. The rulers of the time used the press to inform the people of what the rulers thought they should know and the policies the rulers thought they should support. The Tudors and Stuarts maintained that the press belonged to the office of king and therefore was obligated to support the royal policy. Only by special permission was private ownership of the press permitted, and this permission could be withdrawn any time the obligation to support the royal policies was considered to have been dishonored. Publishing was thus a sort of agreement between power source and publisher, in which the former granted a monopoly right and the latter gave support. But the power source kept the right to set and change policy, the right to license, and in some cases the right to censor. It is obvious that this concept of the press eliminated what has come to be one of the most common press functions: to check on government.
For almost two hundred years after the spread of printing in the western world, the authoritarian theory furnished the exclusive basis for determining the function and relationship of the popular press to contemporary society. The Tudors in England, the Bourbons in France, the Hapsburgs in Spain, in fact practically all Western Europe, utilized the basic principles of authoritarianism as the theoretical foundation for their systems of press control.
POSTULATIONS/ASSUMPTIONS OF THE HEORY
Since the press as well as other forms of mass communication was introduced into an already highly organized society, its relation to that society was naturally determined by the basic assumptions or postulates which were then furnishing the foundation for social controls. Since most governments of Western Europe were operating on authoritarian principles when the popular press emerged, these same principles became the basis for a system of press control.
Any theory of relationship of the mass media of communication to the organized society of which it is a part is determined by certain basic philosophical assumptions (or conclusions, if you wish) about man and the state. As was postulate by Siebert etal, in their book “Four Theories of the Press” areas of assumption can be identified as follows: the nature of man, the nature of society and of the state, the relation of man to the state, and the basic philosophical problem, the nature of knowledge and of truth.
The authoritarian theory of the functions and purposes of organized society accepted certain postulates in those areas. First of all, man could attain his full potentialities only as a member of society. As an individual, his sphere of activity was extremely limited, but as a member of society or of an organized community his ability to achieve his goals was immeasurably increased. Under this assumption, the group took on an importance greater than that of the individual since only through the group could an individual accomplish his purposes.
The theory inevitably developed the proposition that the state the highest-expression of group organization, superseded the individual in a scale of values since without the state the individual was helpless in developing the attributes of a civilized man. The individual’s dependence on the state for achieving an advanced civilization appears to be a common ingredient of all authoritarian systems. In and through the state, man achieves his ends; without the state, man remains a primitive being.
The state, then, was essential to the full development of man; that assumption resulted in certain basic conclusions concerning the nature of the state. Aside from its individual constituents, the state became the summation of all desirable attributes. It derived its power to determine ends and methods for achieving those ends through a process not generally capable of complete human analysis. Sometimes it was divine guidance, sometimes it was dependence on superior intellect or on leadership qualities, and sometimes it was lack of confidence in any other type of process.
To the more basic philosophical problems of the nature of knowledge and of truth the authoritarians gave equally categorical answers. Knowledge was discoverable through mental effort. Men differed widely in their ability to utilize mental processes and in their drive to exert mental effort. Since such differences existed, they should be recognized in the social structure. “Wise men” capable of analyzing and synthesizing should become leaders in organized society, or if not leaders, they should at least become the advisors of leaders.
Knowledge which is not divinely inspired is acquired through human effort, and this effort can best be channeled for the good of all through the state. Knowledge thus acquired or developed becomes the standard for all members of society and acquires an absolutist aura which makes change undesirable and stability or continuity a virtue in itself. In addition, the authoritarian’s theory demanded a unity of intellectual activity since only through unity could the state operate successfully for the good of all. The idealist in the authoritarian camp postulated that this unity would come from the realization of the contribution of each to the society as a whole, while the realists recognized that such unity of thought could in most circumstances be attained only through constant surveillance and control.
The Authoritarian Theory describes the situation where states view the mass media as an instrument at all ties. The role of the media is to mainly educate citizens, and acts as a propaganda tool for the ruling party.
The authoritarian theory holds that man is weak and fallible, superseded historically and normatively by the collective society or state; that knowledge is either difficult or arcane, perhaps divinely inspired or revealed; and that truth is absolute (Nerone, 2018).
Authoritarian theory is taken as a theory used by the dictatorship governments, but can also be seen in democratic as well as dictatorial nations. Here, the media cannot offend or go against the majority or dominant groups. Media must remain subordinate to the authorities in authoritarian theory.
It is believed that state information, when distributed, might put security at risk and cause to be a national threat. Thus, the theory is justified by saying that state is greater than individual rights where state controls the media, especially in the time of emergencies like wars and conflicts. These situations might be internal or external.
Democratic governments also use this approach as the only option in these types of conditions. They also justify the process as to preserve social order and harmony but minority views are not censored unless the authorities do not take it as a threat to their power.
Press is taken as a weapon of the powerful. It is used to increase the power of the rulers. The authorities control media by providing rights and license to some media and not to some. Ambiguous rights are given to media and harm journalists if they do not agree to the understood censorship rules. The authorities can also cancel the license.
Sensitive issues are mostly not published or are published through press releases. There are many kinds of censorship like political censorship, military censorship, religious censorship, economic censorship, etc. Having said, the theory does not encourage homogeneous and national culture like Totalitarianism.
SOME PROPONENTS OF THE THEORY
It is important to note that there are proponents of this theory whose submissions need to be taken into consideration. Succeeding social and political philosophers who have accepted authoritarian principles in government include such well-known names as Plato, Machiavelli, Georg Hegel and Heinrich von Treitschke.
PLATO
Plato idealized the aristocratic form of government. He was convinced that the nature of man, including his material interests and selfish passions, would tend to degrade government from an aristocracy to timocracy, to oligarchy, to democracy and finally to tyranny. He thought the state was safe only in the hands of wise men, the magistrates, who are governed by moral authority and who use this authority to keep the baser elements of society in line. Just as the wise man disciplines himself by keeping the impulses of his heart and the greed of his stomach under control by his intellect, so in society the magistrate keeps other classes of members from degenerating into a confused chaos. According to Plato, once authority in a state is equally distributed degeneration sets in.
In line with these basic postulates, Plato conceived the ideal society as one in which the state established and enforced the unity of political and cultural goals. That idea meant rigorous control of opinion and discussion. “Plato wanted to `co-ordinate’ the life of the citizens under a strict cultural code that banned all modes of art and even of opinion not in accord with his own gospel. Very politely, in the Republic, he would ‘send to another city’ all offenders against the rigid rules prescribed for the artist and the philosopher and the poet. With equal politeness, in the Laws, he would require poets first to submit their works to the magistrates, who should decide whether they were good for the spiritual health of the citizens” (15:322).
Even Plato’s famous teacher, Socrates, could not devise a satisfactory answer to the conflicting demands of lawful authority and freedom of the individual. While insisting on his individual right to deviate from the cultural life of Athens, Socrates recognized the philosophical necessity for obedience to authority. He objected to the rules under which he was convicted for seducing the youth of his city because he thought they were wrong, but he accepted the right of the authorities to enforce those rules however wrong. His only solution was to accept the penalty.
MACHIAVELLI
Unlike his Greek and Roman predecessors, was unconcerned about the purposes and aims of the state. He was concerned, however, with the means of attaining and maintaining political power. He held basically pessimistic view of human nature and in his theory would subordinate all other considerations to the principal aim, the security of the state. He was concerned, however, with the means of attaining and maintaining political power. He held basically pessimistic view of human nature and in his theory would subordinate all other considerations to the principal aim, the security of the state. This was to be achieved by a realistic, non-moralistic policy on the part of the ruler or the prince. Under such a doctrine, public discussion must necessarily be confined whenever the ruler thought that it threatened the security of his principality. Machiavelli was not too concerned whether the government was a monarchy or a republic (in fact, he indicated that perhaps a republic was superior). But he was convinced that, human nature being what it is, the role of the political leader is to utilize whatever means are necessary to forward the interests of his political unit. His influence on nineteenth-century German and Italian political theorists of national movements has been generally recognized.
Implicit in Machiavelli’s writings is the proposition that patriotic grounds justify strict control of the methods of discussion and of mass dissemination of information as the basis for political action. Stability and advance of the state are paramount; individualistic considerations of the citizen are subordinate. (See 3:191-202.)
GEORGE HEGEL
Georg Hegel, the German philosopher, has been considered the principal exponent of the political theory of authoritarianism in modern times, and to him have been attributed the genesis of both modern Communism and Fascism. The following short passage cited from Hegel is considered one of the vital texts in European thought. As Alfred Zimmern points out, “every word is pregnant . . . and they trail with them a cloud of memories from the philosophical speculation of the past, from Plato and Aristotle onwards” (28:xvii).
Wrote Hegel: The State is embodied Morality. It is the ethical spirit which has clarified itself and has taken substantial shape as Will, a Will which is manifest before the world, which is self-conscious and knows its purposes and carries through that which it knows to the extent of its knowledge. Custom and Morality are the outward and visible form of the inner essence of the State; the self-consciousness of the individual citizen, his knowledge and activity, are the outward and visible form of the indirect existence of the State. The self-consciousness of the individual finds the substance of its freedom in the attitude of the citizen, which is the essence, purpose, and achievement of its self-consciousness.
The State is Mind, per se. This is due to the fact that it is the embodiment of the substantial Will, which is nothing else than the individual self-consciousness conceived in its abstract form and raised to the universal plane. This substantial and massive unity is an absolute and fixed end in itself. In it freedom attains to the maximum of its rights: but at the same time the State, being an end in itself, is provided with the maximum of rights over against the individual citizens, whose highest duty it is to be members of the State (28:3).
Translating his basic principles into the field of communication and the participation of citizens in public decisions, Hegel ridicules the notion that “all should participate in the business of the state.” The individual needs to be informed about and concerned with public problems only as a member of a social class, group, society or organization but not as a member of the state. Freedom in the hegelian sense meant, freedom of the individual to know that he is not free but that his actions are determined by history, by society and above all by the Absolute idea which finds its highest manifestation in the state.
STRENGTH OF THE THEORY
The Authoritarian theory of the press is one that is having advantages that one cannot discard. Among the lots are;
The theory can act as a gatekeeper and prevent the media that act irresponsibly. In most of the countries where this theory is evident one can see that ruling classes made use of certain measures to influence media to act responsibly and not irresponsibly. Ruling classes are with the firm conviction that interest of the state surpasses that of the individual. As such, the media must be regulated either through patent, license or any other regulation possible to seek the interest of the state.
Another strength of the theory is that the theory was used for establishing propaganda in the interest of the state. It is notable that most of the countries that made used of the Authoritarian theory of the press made use of propaganda as tool to influence their subjects to act in the interest of the state. It is evident that even in the modern world some countries are still using the theory as a tool to enhance propaganda.
The theory is also better sometimes because it motivates people to work for the country and its people. Some times when the media is left on its own without any means or form of control in the interest of the state, people will not work in the interest of the state.
The theory can sometimes be better for resolving social and cultural conflicts. Conflicts especially social and cultural conflict is something that is bound to occur within a state. Since that is possible in any state, the theory can be of help to solve those problems emanating from social and cultural differences.
WEAKNESS OF THE THEORY
Even though the theory is one that is having advantages, it is also important to mention that it is not without pitfalls. Among them are; Common people are taken as less intelligent and as an easy target to manipulate, the ruling class uses the media only for their own benefits and the freedom of expression and information of normal people is attacked.
To start with, common people are taken as less intelligent and as an easy target to manipulate. The authoritarian theory is an idea that placed all forms of communication under the control of a governing elite or authorities. It describes a situation where government in the hands of a tyrant or ruling elite who exercises repressive powers over the people, lays down the laws as to what the media can communicate. The media here are servants of state, mouthpiece of government. If they are perceived to fail in that capacity, by showing a degree of editorial independence, they are censored or shut down. In this context, authoritarians justified their control as a means to protect and preserve a divinely ordained social order.
In most countries, the control rested in the hands of a king, who in turn granted royal charters or license to media practitioners. Free speech challenges authority and free speech that criticizes, or implies criticism of those in power is regarded as subversive. Hence, practitioners could be jailed for violating charters or licenses could be revoked. Censorship of all types, therefore, was easily possible. Authoritarian control tended to be exercised in arbitrary and erratic ways. Sometimes considerable freedom might exist to publicize minority viewpoints and culture as long as authorities didn’t perceive a direct threat to their power. Authoritarian theory doesn’t prioritize cultivation of a homogenous national culture, it only requires acquiescence to a governing elite.
Also, the ruling class uses the media only for their own benefits and not for the benefit of all. In this situation, the common people do not benefit from the media but rather they are mere puppets or tools that are expected to work in consonance with the wishes of the state.
Another weakness of the theory is that it made provision for the freedom of expression and information of normal people to attack. Since the theory seeks to serve the interest of the state, it will not stop at any point to limit and attack the freedom of expression and information of the people. This is seen via the regulatory mechanisms that countries adopted to limit people that hold contrary views to either remain quite or say things that will not jeopardize the image of the state.
No country in Western Europe was able for any extended period to monopolize the channels of communication to its people. In most nations, privately and individually operated publications existed alongside the official journals and often provided a competitive service which was superior in most respects.
The major problem in most authoritarian systems was establishing effective restraints and controls over the privately operated media. The western nations tried numerous methods with varying degrees of success, and it can be said that no single method of control was successful over any extended period of time.
MODE OF CONTROL (THE AUTHORITARIAN CONTROL SYSTEMS)
The underlying philosophy of authoritarianism has found expression in many types of governmental organizations, but regardless of the variations, the pattern of control has exhibited a number of common characteristics.
The units of communication should support and advance the policies of the government in power so that this government can achieve its objectives. In the early stages of the development of the mass media, this purpose was usually carried out in its negative aspects through controls which attempted to avoid any interference with the attainment of national ends. In later stages a more positive policy can be discerned. Under it, the state actively participated in the communication process and utilized the mass media as one of the important instruments for accomplishing its purposes.
The first problem under any system of society is to determine who has the right to use the media. Should the avenues of reaching the individual citizen be operated directly by the state; should they be semi-independent instrumentalities subject to surveillance by the state; or should they be open to all who either by past performance or present inclination indicate that they are not likely to interfere with or openly oppose government policies?
Authoritarian governments have answered this question in various ways at various times, depending on which policy seemed to provide the greatest chance for success at the moment.
One of the earliest methods of assuring favorable treatment for government policies was the granting of special “permits” (or “patents,” as they were called to selected individuals to engage in the “art and mystery” of printing.
The British Tudors in the sixteenth century answered the problem by granting exclusive patents of monopoly to selected, well-disposed individuals who were permitted to profit from these monopolies so long as they refrained from rocking the ship of state. Elizabeth, I found this an inexpensive method of identifying the interests of the printers and publishers of popular literature with the interests of the Crown. Governments in many continental countries of the same period relied on a system of strict surveillance which of course required a bureaucracy to make it effective. Eventually most of the authoritarian governments of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, faced with a multiplicity of voices both from within and from without their territories, adopted a policy of actively entering the mass communication field. “Official” journals, representing the government, were established in most western countries. They were charged with giving the populace an “accurate” picture of government activities and with counteracting misconceptions which might be derived from sources which were for one reason or another outside the immediate control of the authorities.
In England this device was expanded in time into an elaborate system of trade regulation. Patents were issued to well-disposed printers for various classes of published works, such as law books, school books, religious books, histories, plays, and many others. Special care went into the selection of printers who were to be entrusted with producing printed matter which concerned affairs of state. When the earliest form of newspaper appeared, it too was assigned to individuals who in return for the exclusive monopoly of purveying news were all too ready to agree to publish only that which forwarded the policies of the state.
In England the patent system flourished for about two hundred years. During that period it apparently was more successful than any other method of control. The British system culminated in an exclusive organization of patentees or “privileged” printers known as the Stationers’ Company which through its officers and members was able to police the printing trade at practically no expense to the state. Its royal charter gave the organization power to admit and to expel members from the printing trade and to impose lesser penalties for minor infractions of the trade regulations. The Company was generally assiduous in enforcing its controls since its own monopolistic position depended on its ability to satisfy the government that it was on the side of established authority.
Another closely related technique developed in most countries of Western Europe was the licensing for individual printed works.
This system, which in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries’ carne to be identified with the term “censorship,” sometimes operated in conjunction with a licensed or monopolistic press; at other times it kept privately owned printing and publishing establishments undér official control. The system was developed under secular auspices in the sixteenth century, when even the monopolistic or state printers were frequently unable or unwilling to follow the lines of government policies. Publishers usually were not privy to state affairs and therefore were unable to make accurate judgments on controversial issues which found their way into print. To remedy this defect, the state required published works in specified areas such as religion and politics to be submitted for examination by its representatives who presumably were acquainted with what the state was attempting to do. In the sixteenth century this was not too difficult a task since the number of published works was relatively small and the duty of examination could be assigned to a secretary of the principal religious and secular authorities.
By the end of the seventeenth century, however, the difficulty of providing an adequate check on the large quantity of materials issued from the press became apparent. The increase in the number and complexity of governmental problems added to the censor’s burden. Printers and publishers naturally became irritated with the delays and vacillations inherent in the system and often expressed their dissatisfaction. Even the censors themselves were not happy with a duty which made them responsible for satisfying the varying demands of public policy and public personages. To prejudge the developments of official governmental objectives and strategies as well as the effects of particular published statements became an almost impossible task. It was one which astute politicians on their way to the top assiduously avoided. Better to let an underling make the decisions and take the subsequent criticism.
The system of censoring individual items of printed matter also became increasingly difficult as the newspaper became the principal purveyor of public information. The pressure of weekly and later daily deadlines, the sheer volume of copy, and the cleverness and subtlety of journalistic writers tended to confound the censors. No one of consequence wanted the job, least of all the person who was politically ambitious. In England the system died toward the end of the seventeenth century because of its cumbersomeness and most of all because by then political parties were being formed in the democratic tradition. These parties were unwilling to trust one another with the direction and exclusive control of such an important instrument for achieving and maintaining political power.
In the Anglo-American legal tradition, censorship meant the legal requirement that all materials to be printed and offered for general distribution must first obtain an official permit or license, or, as it was called by the Roman Catholic Church, an imprimatur. This type of regulation as practiced under authoritarian philosophies was more common than any other. It was practiced by the governments of France, Germany, Spain, and the Italian states as well as by the early colonial governments in America. In modern times the word censorship has been used in a broader sense, particularly by social scientists, to include all forms of regulation whether they are in the form of licensing or not. The earlier meaning however continues to be used by legal scholars and some historians.
A third general method of press control which authoritarian states employed was prosecution before the courts for violation of accepted or established legal rules of behavior. This method tended to develop later than those previously discussed. It was usually adopted after state monopolies or licensing had failed to accomplish the necessary control. This method also represented an advance in practice since the courts of law generally permitted an individual to take advantage of the legal protections which were available to persons accused of crime. This was particularly true in England, where the courts for many generations had built up a body of procedural law for the protection of the innocent.
Two traditional areas of the law — treason and sedition — were the basis for prosecutions of persons accused or suspected of disseminating information or opinions inimical to the authorities. In any organized society, authoritarian or otherwise, treason is the basic crime against society. In most systems of jurisprudence, it is the keystone of the legal structure which supports the state. Three categories of acts constituted treason. To attempt to overturn the state was treason; to engage in activities which might lead to the overthrow of the established government was also treason; and in many states to advocate policies which might lead to an overthrow was an activity identifiable as treason. Individuals or groups which tried to reach the public through the channels of mass communication could be encompassed by either the second or the third category above. The publisher of a newspaper or leaflet which attacked the government could readily be accused of “activities which might lead to the overthrow of the state.
Another aspect of treason also threatened the printer and publisher in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In most countries of Europe, the state was identified with a particular ruler or monarch. To threaten the position of the monarch was to threaten the stability of the state and was therefore treason. The penalty for treason was usually death, a penalty which in certain periods of history made it a particularly potent weapon against dissent. In other periods with a different climate of opinion, the death penalty was a handicap in obtaining convictions since it did not seem reasonable under some circumstances to apply the extreme penalty to some of the casual and rather innocuous remarks about a regime or a reigning monarch.
All countries of Western Europe during the authoritarian period developed a legal method of bringing before the courts individuals who were attempting by public argument or exhortation to change either the personnel or the practices of the state. Under seventeenth century theories of monarchy, the ruler was the fountainhead of justice and law, and his acts were beyond popular criticism. “If the ruler is regarded as the superior of the subject, as being by the nature of his position presumably wise and good . . . it must necessarily follow that it is wrong to censure him openly, that even if he is mistaken his mistakes should be pointed out with the utmost respect, and that whether mistaken or not, no censure should be cast upon him likely or designed to diminish his authority” (24:299).
In many states, prosecutions for sedition were conducted without any of the safeguards now associated with criminal trials. In England, however, even the trials for seditious libel, which were so prevalent during the period of the Stuart monarchs, were circumscribed by established judicial procedures common to all forms of criminal prosecutions. These safeguards developed as a reaction against the arbitrary prosecutions for political crimes in the well-publicized proceedings of the English Court of the Star Chamber. Transferred to the common law courts, crimes against the state became less arbitrary in procedure without destroying the effectiveness of the remedy.
A prosecution for seditious libel was the principal weapon against printers and publishers under the authoritarian Stuart monarchs. The Crown stimulated the prosecution, appointed the judges, and provided the witnesses. The law defined the crime which came in time to embrace all types of public criticism and censure. Whatever the authorities disliked was considered a basis for a prosecution for sedition. The doctrine was firmly established by Chief Justice Holt of the Court of King’s Bench in his pronouncement:
This is a very strange doctrine to say that it is not a libel reflecting on the government, endeavoring to possess the people that the government is mal administered by corrupt persons. . . . To say that corrupt officers are appointed to administer affairs is certainly a reflection on the government. If people should not be called to account for possessing the people with an ill opinion of the government, no government can subsist. For it is very necessary for all governments that the people should have a good opinion of it. And nothing can be worse to any government than to endeavor to procure animosities as to the management of it; this has always been looked upon as a crime, and no government can be safe without it (20:1095).
THE AUTHORITARIAN THEORY OF THE PRESS IN SIERRA LEONE
(DICTATORIAL AND MILITARY REGIMES)
Of the four theories of the relation of the press to society or to government, the authoritarian has been the most pervasive both historically and geographically. It is the theory which was almost automatically adopted by most countries when society and technology became sufficiently developed to produce what today we call the “mass media” of communication. It furnishes the basis for the press systems in many modern societies; even where it has been abandoned, it has continued to influence the practices of a number of governments which theoretically adhere to libertarian principles (Siebert etal, 1956).
The authoritarian theory is an idea that placed all forms of communication under the control of a governing elite or authorities. It describes a situation where government in the hands of a tyrant or ruling elite who exercises repressive powers over the people, lays down the laws as to what the media can communicate. The media here are servants of state, mouthpiece of government. If they are perceived to fail in that capacity, by showing a degree of editorial independence, they are censored or shut down. In this context, authoritarians justified their control as a means to protect and preserve a divinely ordained social order.
Proponents of the theory are with the view that free speech challenges authority and free speech that criticizes, or implies criticism of those in power is regarded as subversive. Hence, Practitioners could be jailed for violating and licenses could be revoked. Censorship of all types, therefore, was easily possible. Authoritarian control tended to be exercised in arbitrary and erratic ways.
Authoritarian theory doesn’t prioritize cultivation of a homogenous national culture, it only requires acquiescence to a governing elite.
In many cases, controlling the press means preventing the press from embarrassing the existing government, to repress criticism and protest, and to severely restrict press freedom. The authoritarian theory is embraced today by many leaders of non-democratic states.
Since the Authoritarian Theory is an idea that placed all forms of communication under the control of a governing elite or authorities, Sierra Leone as nation that has experience both military, and dictatorial regimes is not an exception. It is worthy to note that the governments that existed during those periods controlled the media landscape by determining what media to be established, the scope and limitations of the media that existed and the content those media should publish or broadcast. It is evident that post-independence governments of Sierra Leone were muzzling the media in a way of them not publishing or broadcasting any information that they deemed to undermine their governments.
Notable regimes are the Siaka Stevens Led A.P.C government that was nothing but a dictatorial regime, the National Provisional Ruling Council dubbed as the N.P.R.C was also not an exception to the application of the provisions of the theory.
The press during the era of the late President Siaka P. Stevens
Resistance under Stevens was sporadic, dangerous, and devoid of any active civil society network. “Everybody was afraid,” recalled Frank Kposowa, one of the founders of an opposition newspaper called The Tablet (1977–1981). Kposowa was arrested and tortured in 1980, but he continued his critical reporting after his release. As Kposowa noted, chilling humor among activists was: “Make out your will before speaking [against the government].” A lawyer and human rights activist also notes that people were living under a “quiet war of terror.”
Stevens Pushed through Parliament a bill making the country a one-party state and forcing the newly elected opposition members to either switch over to the ruling APC or resign. All but one opposition parliamentarian switched over, much to the chagrin of activists like the late Olu Gordon, a former lecturer at Fourah Bay College and one of the key longtime journalistic critics of government abuses dating as far back as 1977 with The Tablet.
One of the most profound outcomes of the 1977 student uprising was the launching of The Tablet. That newspaper was founded by key activists, including Kposowa, Charlie Kallon, Lamine Waritay, and Pios Foray. During its short existence, The Tablet became a forum for critical comments against the government. In 1981, its presses were dynamited in broad daylight, presumably by government agents. Despite this brazen act, some journalists were highly motivated to continue their work. As Kposowa recalled, “We were young and radical. We were hailed. People were giving us money; they called our names.” But while some people were outspoken, others were quiet. In the 1960s, attorneys were among the most outspoken on behalf of basic rights. During Stevens’s repression, however, “lawyers went into their shells; they were afraid.” Some individual attorneys did do pro bono work in defending activists and promoting human rights, but there were few systemic legal challenges and no “collective” legal resistance to Stevens’s authoritarian rule. The Sierra Leone Bar Association was “silent” through much of the Stevens years and under the two military governments that came in the 1990s.
The Church, another potential source of organized resistance under Stevens, was for the most part also “quiet.” The Catholic Church as an institution was notably quiet on human rights. Archbishop Joseph Henry Ganda, head of the Church from the mid-1970s to 2007, apparently did not see the government as an appropriate target for criticism and asked outspoken priests to be quiet. There were “a few outspoken members of the clergy, but others sang the praises” of the government, said the Rt. Rev. Dr. Joseph C. Humper. Despite the complacency of the church, there were notable exceptions that show the power of ideas and courage in the resistance. Some Catholic priests, such as Moses Kaillie, spoke out against the abuses of Stevens during sermons. In one instance, Kaillie was called to the president’s residence after a cabinet member of the government in Kaillie’s congregation complained about his sermon.
The press during the N.P.R.C regime
It is obvious that the NPRC was a military regime led by Captain Valentine E.M Strasser. The application of the principles of the authoritarian theory of the press is evident during the regime of the National Provisional Ruling Council (N.P.R.C). It is crystal clear that military regimes when they come to governance their first action is to suspend the constitution and make use of a decree to rule their subjects. The press during the N.P.R.C regime was muzzled thereby limiting people from expressing themselves.
When the NPRC overthrew the APC government of Momoh in 1992, they were in control of the state broadcaster. They were initially received with jubilation. Citizens were tired of the long and harsh APC one-party rule and the battered economy. However, the jubilation soon turned into frustration as the NPRC engaged in human rights abuses and failed to end the civil war. In particular, some journalists became very critical of the NPRC. One incident that raised alarm about the NPRC occurred just three months after it came to power. According to many eyewitness reports, NPRC soldiers dragged a woman from her home, beat her, and sexually abused her. This incident and other human rights violations were widely reported by the press. In retaliation, the NPRC tried to muzzle the independent press, including shutting down For di People, an independent and critical newspaper.
But later that year (1993), the paper’s editor, Paul Kamara, probably the best known activist to emerge from the 1980s and 1990s, helped launch and lead the National League for Human Rights. It publicized NPRC human rights abuses by sending out reports to the international press and human rights organizations. As a result, he and his co-editor at the banned paper, Sallieu Kamara (no relation), were called to NPRC, and in front of a large gathering of NPRC officers the two were sternly warned to stop criticizing the junta. Paul Kamara’s response, according to Sallieu, was to say that he intended to continue exposing human rights abuses, which he did.
In 1996, Paul Kamara was persuaded by diplomatic and some civil society leaders to join the NPRC junta, which he did for one month in February to help the junta prepare for a civilian, presidential election. Later that month, Paul Kamara was nearly killed by several unidentified gunmen after renewed reporting of alleged misdeeds of the NPRC by his newspaper (by then unbanned) and after refusing to sign several documents the NPRC leadership gave him to sign, which he considered involved corruption. Sallieu, who witnessed the shooting, managed to get Kamara to a hospital.
The press during the A.F.R.C Junta regime
Sierra Leone’s nascent democracy collapsed in May 1997 when the AFRC overthrew the elected SLPP government of Kabbah and formed an alliance with the RUF. The AFRC/RUF junta “systematically and ruthlessly suppress[ed] political dissent and civil society and student militancy in the major towns and especially in Freetown. The government indiscriminately arrested, imprisoned, and tortured journalists, demonstrators and anyone who was critical of the AFRC” (Alie 2006:179).
When the AFRC seized power, many people referred to it as “APC # 2.” Many people saw the AFRC as the reincarnation of the old APC, which they opposed and saw as the source of their political and economic plight (Bah 2011).
People noted that the AFRC brought back the same cronies who had served in the APC one-party regime. From the point of view of SLPP supporters, the junta was repressive in ways that harkened back to the Stevens era. In particular, it tried to muzzle the independent press. Ironically, the AFRC/RUF had support, albeit limited. Kelvin Lewis aptly summed up the divide: “The whole country was divided—you were either for or against” the junta. A number of civilians accepted key appointments to the government, which blurred “the line between the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’–between the ‘bad’ rebels and the ‘good’ opposition.”
At the same time, some journalists and editors took major risks reporting on AFRC/RUF excesses. From the point of view of the government, this was resistance. For example, because of his critical reporting on the junta for the Standard Times in 1997 and 1998, Ibrahim Karim Sei received almost daily calls from the military, including numerous death threats. He was arrested in November 1997 but resumed his reporting after his release. His deputy, Paul Mansaray, was murdered in January 1999. Karim-Sei recalled that for nine months he could not sleep in his house, but, he added: “It was a risk worth taking because we were fighting for redemption of our nation.” Other activists simply saw what they did as part of their job. Jonathan Leigh’s gestures and words during an interview poignantly capture this sentiment. When asked why he took such risks, he simply took a close look at the interviewer as if the answer should have been obvious and said: “I was a journalist.”
The AFRC allowed some critical newspapers to continue publishing but cracked down hard when the government deemed their reports threatening to its interest. A number of newspapers went underground, operating from clandestine locations and risking violent reprisals from the junta. About a dozen newspapers continued publishing, including some that were pro-junta. Newspapers such as Standard Times, Independent Observer, For Di People, and Quill published articles exposing junta abuses and excesses. Leigh was arrested in 1997 for an article about junta members looting a shop in Freetown. He was blindfolded, beaten with rifle butts, and taken to a military camp where another journalist, John Foray, was also held. As Leigh painfully recalled, “I was given twelve lashes seriously with a stick. The place we slept was like a dungeon, with moldy ground.” Like Voice of America reporter Kelvin Lewis, who was slashed by a machete-wielding rebel and held overnight in a storage container, Leigh was released quickly after a barrage of international complaints.
THE AUTHORITARIAN THEORY OF THE PRESS IN SIERRA LEONE
(DEMOCRATICS REGIMES)
The methods of keeping the press in check that were used by the monarchy in the 16th and 17th centuries are still favored today in some countries. Jailing, exile and in some cases execution are methods of gagging the press. Authoritarian leaders believe that those engaging in journalism are “so engaged as a special privilege, granted by the national leadership” (Karthik, n.d). They should therefore tread carefully and ensure that they remain in good terms with the state to continue to enjoy this privilege.
In Sierra Leone the media have been subjected to lot of regulations that will limit the flow of information. Some of these laws are still evident in Sierra Leone. For example it is theoretically the case that the Sierra Leone Broadcasting Service which was designed to be a state owned broadcaster was transformed through an ACT of Parliament to become a Public Service Broadcaster. However, in practicality one will realize that it sometimes sway from it mandates of being a Public Service broadcaster, that will seek the interest of all. Most times the contents aired by the said Sierra Leone Broadcasting Corporation will not be in the interest of the common man but rather in the interest of the government. That particular practice could be seen as a way of meeting the provisions or assumptions of the Authoritarian theory of the press. That is the interest of the state supersedes the individual. The said practice is evident between the two major political parties that have been running the affairs the country.
Also, it is worthy to mention that democratic governments in Sierra Leone in one way or the other have at least limited freedom of expression either by enacting laws that will limit the flow of information. Notably is the procedure involve in establishing a press which most times requires a license or registration to operate as a media outlet. Just like the case in 17th century among countries in Europe (England, France etc.) which at some point will request for a patent or license before operating as media, Sierra Leone is not an exception. Established through an ACT of parliament, the Independent Media Commission (I.M.C) made certain provisions that a potential media owner needs to meet before registering his or her media outlet or granting license. In it Operations, the I.M.C might tend to undermine core principles to meet the interest of the state either by accepting to issue a license or not.
CONCLUSION
It is the assumption of the theory that mass media, though not under the direct control of the State, had to follow its bidding. Under an Authoritarian approach in Western Europe, freedom of thought was jealously guarded by a few people (ruling classes), who were concerned with the emergence of a new middle class and were worried about the effects of printed matter on their thought process. Steps were taken to control the freedom of expression.
The result was advocacy of complete dictatorship. The theory promoted zealous obedience to a hierarchical superior and reliance on threat and punishment to those who did not follow the censorship rules or did not respect authority. Censorship of the press was justified on the ground that the State always took precedence over the individual’s right to freedom of expression.
A few essential characteristics of this theory is that the states ranked higher than the individual in the scale of the social values. Only through subordinating himself to the state can the individuals achieve his goals and develop his attributes as a civilized citizen or man. As an individual, he can do little, as a member of an organized society, his potential is enormously increased.
The methods of keeping the press in check that were used by the monarchy in the 16th and 17th centuries are still favored today in these countries. In addition to this jailing, exile and in some cases execution are methods of gagging the press. Authoritarian leaders believe that those engaging in journalism are “so engaged as a special privilege, granted by the national leadership” (Karthik, n.d). They should therefore tread carefully and ensure that they remain in good terms with the state to continue to enjoy this privilege.
The write up looked at the applicability of the theory in the African context especially Sierra Leone where the principles of the theory are also evident. It is no secret that assumptions of the theory are evident in the previous and currents governments of Sierra Leone. Whether Previous or current government it is crystal that in a bid to meet selfish gains leaders of the state will at some point limit the flow of information to protect the state form bad publicity by the media.
Authoritarian rulers have recognized the danger of the internet and are always looking for ways to mitigate this danger. Some of these strategies include Geo-location of cell phones, outsourcing censorship to mobile phone companies, and applying filter technology that uses detection key words to make internet slow on purpose (Hivos Knowledge Program n.d).
