By Patricia Mukhim
The Meghalaya Public Communication Policy (MPCP) 2024 that was out recently has kicked up a storm with some terming it an infringement on the Right to Freedom of Expression. The Preamble to the Policy says, “At its core the MCPC is dedicated to fostering trust and transparency between the government and its citizens, recognising the imperative need for uniform communication policy across all government departments to ensure clarity and consistency in information. Central to the approach is the principle that the government serves as the primary source of information on its activities, decisions and policies, featuring the values of transparency, accessibility and accountability. The policy is also the proactive response to the prevalent challenges of misinformation and disinformation in today’s rapidly evolving information landscape. Through concerted efforts to combat misinformation and disinformation, the aim of the Policy is to empower citizens with accurate information, thereby fostering informed participation in the governance process. Moreover, the Policy prioritizes coherence in communication strategies, with a keen focus on enhancing public engagement and facilitating the effective implementation of government policies.”
This Preamble presupposes that the Government reserves to itself the entire right to disseminate information without any interface between those running the government and the media which is the fourth pillar of democracy in case this has been forgotten by those enunciating the Policy. Today the Government uses its own news dissemination channels which are one-way, non-participatory channels. Such official press releases preclude journalists from asking questions from the right quarters – namely those who make policies. The media has a duty to inform the public about the policy but also its likely impacts both positive and negative. It’s not as if all policies initiated by the Government are beyond criticism. It is the duty of the media to critique such policies objectively, leaving out the officialese so that the public are able to make sense of the policy beyond the jargons and thereby make an informed decision as to whether a public policy is actually people friendly or is merely a cover up for more government spending with no visible outcomes.
Let’s not fool ourselves that the Government is open to giving out information on superfluous public spending. We get such information from the Comptroller and Auditor General every year. Then we have the Government trying to cover up the financial improprieties such as the non-submission of utilisation certificates (UCs) for money spent by several departments over the years. Without the UCs how does the public know where the money has gone? Has the Government ever responded to such audit observations? Without the media questioning it, would the Government be ready and willing to give out information that puts it in the dock?
We are well aware that the bureaucracy, the political class and even the legislature guard information regarding even the most mundane subjects with astonishing zeal. It takes a lot for journalists to break this iron curtain of the official non-cooperation. No wonder the Right to Information Act was passed. But even with this, there is a general reticence. It is a gigantic effort to get answers to queries on Government profligacy and misgovernance.
The follows a paragraph called ‘Guiding Principles’ which claims that the MCPC is aimed at “Ensuring Informed Citizenship.” It states that citizens must be adequately and accurately informed about government activities, programs and policies thereby upholding their inherent right to communication.
What is troubling is para 3.2 of the Policy – “Government as the Source of Information.” It says, ‘Government shall be the unequivocal source of information, fostering transparency and trust by making it explicitly clear that all information regarding Government activities and decisions originate from official sources.’ Does this mean that the role of media shall be to simply dish out releases without the right to seek clarification from the concerned minister/bureaucrat on issues that could impinge on the public? The media is the bridge between Government and citizens. They question the Government through the media. In this case it appears that the Government wants to eliminate the media and connect directly with the public. Is this about promoting the CM Connect programme? Are all members of the public – which means the entire population of Meghalaya – able to raise questions at these CM-Connect programmes? Aren’t the members of the public invited there hand-picked? In Ri Bhoi recently when there was a CM Connect programme people said that they were not allowed to ask questions. So, what is the definition of ‘transparency’ and ‘trust’ here?
That this policy was drafted by an idealist can be gauged from the paragraph that says – Government shall be readily accessible to the public for soliciting feedback on Government decisions and activities and be responsive to such feedback, promptly addressing the needs and concerns of the public. May we ask which platform the Government will use to answer thousands of questions on a daily basis from aggrieved citizens? How practical is this?
On the point ‘Policy-Driven Governance,’ the overall objectives of the MCPC as laid out here is to formulate public policies derived from public consultations. How genuine is this intent? Name one policy that the Government of Meghalaya has formulated after due public consultation other than the Social Audit Act and the Right to Information Act?
On the point of – Combating Misinformation and Disinformation – the Policy says ‘Strategies will be developed to counter misinformation by promptly providing factual information and addressing the sources of disinformation.’ Clearly those who drafted this Policy have not made a distinction between misinformation and disinformation.
Misinformation can happen unintentionally because we misheard something or did not remember details of the communication we relayed. So often we tell our friends something we heard on TV or saw on social media that wasn’t really true. If anyone of us is spreading information that is wrong because we never fact-checked and didn’t know it was wrong we are misinforming. But disinformation is intentionally crafted information that is designed to deliberately mislead people with manipulative narratives or facts or propaganda. There is a lot of disinformation spread on social media by camp followers of political parties across the board. Can the Government check all that disinformation campaign or is the target of the Government only media persons? Disinformation is created by agent provocateurs and those with nefarious motives. Hence there is a sharp difference between misinformation and disinformation. While the Government can have a policy to deal with disinformation which could in a fragile situation lead to violence and bloodshed, it can counter misinformation with factual information.
The most troubling part of the Policy however is the notification dated September 16, 2024. The first part of the notification is innocuous in that it urges all those involved in disseminating news on social media to register themselves with the Directorate of Information and Public Relations (DIPR). It is the following paragraph that is disturbing as it lends itself to misinterpretation. It says, “Any individual or organisation not accredited or empanelled with DIPR, who disseminates news on social media platforms within the State of Meghalaya without completing this registration will be deemed in violation of the MCPC 2024 and action in accordance with law will be pursued. This notification aims to ensure that no individual posts content that is against the interests of the state, public order, decency, morality or involves defamation of any institution or individual or that is likely to incite the commission of any offense.”
In the above clause what is it that can be construed to be against the interests of the state or public order? Sometimes a public protest by civil society groups against certain injustices and wrong policies could be misconstrued to go against the interests of the state. This clause lends itself to arbitrary action by the state. As far as decency, morality and defamation are concerned there are laws to deal with such.
What requires some oversight however is the proliferation of YouTubers who are a law unto themselves and do not observe media ethics. Members of the journalistic fraternity need to debate this point and come up with suggestions on how to deal with licentiousness in the garb of journalism.