Human beings always want to be seen to be innovators. When "new" ministers or others come to the stage -however they get there - they always want to look and act different from their predecessors. They make even slight changes in the predecessor’s approach in order to give the impression that they are different. Check the "renouveau communicationnel" of Mr. Fame Ndongo(former Cameroon’s Communications Minister) and the "new deal communicationnel" of Mr. Biyiti bi Essam( present Cameroon’s Communications minister)! In this effort, Mr. Biyiti bi Essam should not forget that truth is universal, and is unchanged by the fact of being known by one, many or none.
He should also not forget that the goings-on in the government today deprive any government minister of the platform to preach patriotism to ordinary Cameroonians. Indeed, his recent preaching on his” new" communication policy seems to give muscle to the belief that totalitarian temptation is always embedded in the self-critical society that emerges when liberty trims the confines of Power to create space for self-expression. In such societies, the paths are usually democracy or the rebirth of totalitarianism. He seems to want to drag us down the same path we have treaded before and want to forget! He should know that in republican government, the military is subordinated to civil power. Therefore the first rule of the soldier is unquestioning allegiance to the civil power; providing disciplined service to the civilian power. In other words, the army is not supposed to dictate policy in a republic.
The leading military virtues have always been discipline, courage, loyalty, and respect for authority... Mr. Biyiti bi Essam seems to be treating this as a new discovery and drumming into our ears that the army is "le grandmuet" [the corps that never speaks]... therefore nobody should talk about it! There is no doubt that a good government needs ministers who can fight battles in the media as well as in other areas. But Mr. Biyiti Bi Essam is leaving us with the impression that he came to office not because he persuaded anybody that he could fight the right battles, but because he was a beneficiary of the New Deal negative politics of changing ministers very often to let the national cake benefit as many cronies as possible. The battle he is warming up to fight is the wrong one, and he will lose woefully. His new communication policy may turn out to be his personal apologia for his own role in the great dramas eating into the flesh of Cameroon. He seems to be calling on journalists to paper-over the cracks; a wrong message when the mood of the country is for change, for rebuilding the foundation. Indeed, he seems to be sending the sorry message that he might be ill-suited for his job! For the general good, debate on public issues should always be uninhibited, robust and wide-open. In such debate, errors are inevitable; they should be protected, not used as an excuse to impose self censorship. It is the people who have empowered the government to act on their behalf; they deserve to retain their sovereignty over government action.
Invoking simplistic patriotism to deny them that sovereignty is obviously not in the interest of the country. The media in every society not only informs the public on what policies its government is pursuing and how those policies are being executed, but also keeps records of what happens in society for later sorting out by historians. Therefore it is the media that provides the vital link between the people, the government and the Army. In a way, the media is the people’s representative in the government and the Army; it is an estate that enters into the checks and balances equation of a society.
Military literature informs us that censorship of media products and controlled access to the battle area are the methods used by armies to maintain operational security. The military has usually controlled battlefield access and publication of media-held information deemed a threat to operational security. In doing this, armies have the historic responsibility not to lie to the people and to always provide all the information possible, truthfully and as early as possible, in order to short-circuit the media penchant for conjecture in the wake of an information vacuum. Therefore, the handling of the Bakassi murder of 21 of our valiant soldiers was and has remained most unprofessional, and has left the field wide-open to speculation. No one has the right to control the media and what the media appropriately produces about the goings-on in the army, especially in peacetime. It is in the interest of the military to exploit the capabilities of the media in order to be able to use it as a weapon in war. Mutual mistrust has always dominated the relationship between soldiers and journalists in time of war, but this has usually only reinforced their inevitable, mutual accommodation.
The information age is definitely overwhelming every aspect of governance and must impact military-media relationships. Media reports usually raise legitimate questions and concerns, to which the military must provide responses quickly and accurately. Whether Mr. Biyiti bi Essam likes it or not, new technologies have made the media a direct and influential participant and a factor in all conflicts - military and social. The military’s effective communication with the media and the public has become as important as effective use of their weapons in conflicts! The military’s image as "le grand muet" belongs to the past. The military has no choice but to educate the media regarding current military tactics and systems, how the enemy might exploit them for propaganda purposes, the concept of limitation of access with sufficient rationale, etc.
The army should also make their elements aware of tactics of dealing with the media. Modernization of our army to cope with millennium changes was supposed to be about all these and more! If I have any good advice for Mr. Biyiti bi Essam it would be to remind him not to be thin-skinned about the media! And he should nurture the military-media relationship, not destroy it!!
He should also not forget that the goings-on in the government today deprive any government minister of the platform to preach patriotism to ordinary Cameroonians. Indeed, his recent preaching on his” new" communication policy seems to give muscle to the belief that totalitarian temptation is always embedded in the self-critical society that emerges when liberty trims the confines of Power to create space for self-expression. In such societies, the paths are usually democracy or the rebirth of totalitarianism. He seems to want to drag us down the same path we have treaded before and want to forget! He should know that in republican government, the military is subordinated to civil power. Therefore the first rule of the soldier is unquestioning allegiance to the civil power; providing disciplined service to the civilian power. In other words, the army is not supposed to dictate policy in a republic.
The leading military virtues have always been discipline, courage, loyalty, and respect for authority... Mr. Biyiti bi Essam seems to be treating this as a new discovery and drumming into our ears that the army is "le grandmuet" [the corps that never speaks]... therefore nobody should talk about it! There is no doubt that a good government needs ministers who can fight battles in the media as well as in other areas. But Mr. Biyiti Bi Essam is leaving us with the impression that he came to office not because he persuaded anybody that he could fight the right battles, but because he was a beneficiary of the New Deal negative politics of changing ministers very often to let the national cake benefit as many cronies as possible. The battle he is warming up to fight is the wrong one, and he will lose woefully. His new communication policy may turn out to be his personal apologia for his own role in the great dramas eating into the flesh of Cameroon. He seems to be calling on journalists to paper-over the cracks; a wrong message when the mood of the country is for change, for rebuilding the foundation. Indeed, he seems to be sending the sorry message that he might be ill-suited for his job! For the general good, debate on public issues should always be uninhibited, robust and wide-open. In such debate, errors are inevitable; they should be protected, not used as an excuse to impose self censorship. It is the people who have empowered the government to act on their behalf; they deserve to retain their sovereignty over government action.
Invoking simplistic patriotism to deny them that sovereignty is obviously not in the interest of the country. The media in every society not only informs the public on what policies its government is pursuing and how those policies are being executed, but also keeps records of what happens in society for later sorting out by historians. Therefore it is the media that provides the vital link between the people, the government and the Army. In a way, the media is the people’s representative in the government and the Army; it is an estate that enters into the checks and balances equation of a society.
Military literature informs us that censorship of media products and controlled access to the battle area are the methods used by armies to maintain operational security. The military has usually controlled battlefield access and publication of media-held information deemed a threat to operational security. In doing this, armies have the historic responsibility not to lie to the people and to always provide all the information possible, truthfully and as early as possible, in order to short-circuit the media penchant for conjecture in the wake of an information vacuum. Therefore, the handling of the Bakassi murder of 21 of our valiant soldiers was and has remained most unprofessional, and has left the field wide-open to speculation. No one has the right to control the media and what the media appropriately produces about the goings-on in the army, especially in peacetime. It is in the interest of the military to exploit the capabilities of the media in order to be able to use it as a weapon in war. Mutual mistrust has always dominated the relationship between soldiers and journalists in time of war, but this has usually only reinforced their inevitable, mutual accommodation.
The information age is definitely overwhelming every aspect of governance and must impact military-media relationships. Media reports usually raise legitimate questions and concerns, to which the military must provide responses quickly and accurately. Whether Mr. Biyiti bi Essam likes it or not, new technologies have made the media a direct and influential participant and a factor in all conflicts - military and social. The military’s effective communication with the media and the public has become as important as effective use of their weapons in conflicts! The military’s image as "le grand muet" belongs to the past. The military has no choice but to educate the media regarding current military tactics and systems, how the enemy might exploit them for propaganda purposes, the concept of limitation of access with sufficient rationale, etc.
The army should also make their elements aware of tactics of dealing with the media. Modernization of our army to cope with millennium changes was supposed to be about all these and more! If I have any good advice for Mr. Biyiti bi Essam it would be to remind him not to be thin-skinned about the media! And he should nurture the military-media relationship, not destroy it!!
By Prof. Tazoacha Asonganyi -Yaounde, Cameroon
Posts
2 comments:
It's unthinkable that in this era of globalisation a one would think of controlling the media like Biyiti bi Essam.Well he needs to prove to his master that he can work.
This man might just be playing with fire that will burn his own hands.I know in that Cameroon any minister who comes up with unpopular programm is fired. Mr Biyiti, might just be on his way out
Post a Comment