Tunisia shutters information reform body

24 Jul 12 | Middle East and North Africa, Tunisia

In an unexpected move on 4 July, the National Authority for Information and Communication Reform (INRIC)  put an end to its activities. INRIC was created after the fall of the 23-year rule of Zeine el-Abidin Ben Ali last year to help reform the Tunisian media landscape by proposing a set of recommendations and legislation which would guarantee the Tunisian citizen’s right to a “free, pluralistic, and fair media”.

In a communiqué, INRIC said:

In the absence of practical steps reflecting a real political will which would build a free and independent media committed to international standards, the authority announces its rejection to continue serving as décor at a time when the media sector keeps moving backwards. Thus it [the authority] does not see the point of carrying on its missions.

The media freedom body has had some sharp disagreements with PM Hamdai Jebali’s interim government. On 2 November 2011 the former interim government of PM Beji Caid el Sebsi approved decree-laws drafted by INRIC which guarantee press, print and publishing freedom and the creation of an independent authority for audio-visual communications. These two laws have not yet been implemented.

On two occasions, the current government appointed heads of public media institutions without consulting any media bodies or syndicates. For INRIC, this was a blow to public media independence.

Index on Censorship spoke to Hichem Snoussi, a member of the dissolved INRIC, and representative of the freedom of expression organisation Article 19.

Index: Can you briefly summarise the most significant work results of INRIC?

Hichem Snoussi: Decree-law 41 on the right to access administrative documents, decree law 115 on press, printing and publishing freedoms, and decree-law 116 which stipulates that an independent authority for audio –visual broadcasting needs to be created, are among our major work results [unlike decree-laws 115 and 116, law 41 was implemented]. We also granted broadcasting licenses to 12 private radios and five private TV stations. In April, INRIC submitted a general report on the reality of the media landscape in Tunisia, and the need for keeping the reform process going.

INRIC does not want the executive branch to interfere with the media sector in general, and public media in particular, since the latter’s new mission should be scrutinising and questioning the government’s performance. This was a key point of disagreement between the government and INRIC.

Index: Last April, Rached Ghannouchi, leader of Ennahdha Movement, which heads the three-party coalition government, suggested the privatisation of public media institutions. There are those who have speculated that by privatising the public media sector, Ennahdha would seek to impose a certain editorial line which would serve its political interests. What was INRIC’s reaction to such a suggestion?

HS: We rejected the suggestion, because such proposal would only seek to put pressure on public TV journalists, and push them back to square one, the square of propaganda, and marketing for a certain point of view. When it was made clear that this silly proposal is not open to discussion, the government resorted to the appointment method. The government has succeeded in appointing heads of all public media institutions, in light of the non-implementation of the decree-law 116 stipulating that the appointment process is participatory and takes place according to measures set by skilled and competent figures [from the media sector].

Index: What role for the current government in the non-implementation of decree-laws 115 and 116?

The government abused its powers, and broke the law in an authoritarian manner by not implementing these decree-laws which gained the satisfaction of different international freedom of expression organisations like Article 19, the BBC and the Open Society. The government did not only stand in the way of implementing these decree-laws, but it went further by breaking law 115 by creating a committee for granting professional press cards. This committee is illegal because the government appointed Mr. Kazdaghli, who is in charge of media in the Prime Ministry’s office, as its president instead of a judge. [Chapter 8 of law 115 stipulates that an independent committee presided by a judge from the administrative court should take in charge granting journalists professional press cards.]

Index: During a press conference [on 6 July] Lotfi Zitoun, an advisor to the PM, said that the decision on whether or not to implement decree laws 115 and 116 lies in the hands of the National Constituent Assembly (NCA) [elected on 23 October 2011]. Is this a legitimate reason for not implementing the two laws?

HS: There is no doubt that the NCA as an elected institution reflecting the people’s democratic will has the right to examine decrees and valid laws. However, the NCA is supposed to amend and support democratic processes, within the framework of these legal texts. Deploying the majority pretext by the NCA as a way to thwart the establishment of a democratic path is a betrayal to the people’s will and the martyrs’ blood.

Index: The Islamist party Ennahdha (which controls more than 40 per cent of the parliamentary seats) has, in several occasions, called for the draft of a constitutional clause which would outlaw assaults on “the sacred”. In case the NCA passes such clause, to what extent would freedom of expression be threatened in Tunisia?

HS: In France, and Germany there is the Holocaust law which prohibits the denial of the Holocaust. If we are going to pass a law that condemns assaulting the “sacred”, we also need a law that criminalizes atheism accusations too. The “sacred” has to be defined in a very specific and detailed way. This definition cannot be expanded, so that it would not stand in the way of art and creativity. Today the debate on the “sacred” comes within an electoral propaganda, and aims at diverting the public debate from its direction. We do not need chains. We need freedom to face past wounds.