The notion of a Fourth Estate might have a place in developed countries, but fragile, new, developing democracies need

a media which builds society rather than tears it down. By Caroline Wahome The Fourth Estate is synonymous with the mass media. Since the 17th century when English politician Edmund Burke said that there were three Estates in Parliament, but in the Reporters Gallery yonder, there sat a fourth Estate more important far than they all (http://www.campwood.com/htm).Hence, the media has been placed fourth in most countries coming after the Parliament, Cabinet and the Judiciary. With it, it has the task to keep the government in check in what is referred as playing the watchdog. In other terms, it acts as the guardian or middle man of the society and those in power by making sure that theres transparency, highlighting corruption cases or scandals of these leaders. The watchdog press is guardian of the public interest, warning citizens against those who are doing them harm. A fearless and effective watchdog is critical in fledgling democracies where institutions are weak and pummelled by political pressure (Coronel 2003: 4-5). Besides being a watchdog, it also plays other social and civil roles like being a tool for education, information and entertainment. The Fourth Estate in/and promoting democracy has been a hard task. More so in what this paper will be looking at: the Fourth Estate in new democracies. The claim is that it can be unhelpful for democracy; hence it is unnecessary to have media in democracies that are trying to find their feet. Democracy has been defined in numerous ways but what is common in all definitions is that its when people have a say in matters of the country. Picking one of the definitions, democracy is government by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system (http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/whatsdem/homepage.htm). For democracy to prevail, different groups are involved and media is one of them. However, it has been argued that in new democracies, the media should play a supportive role and not play the watchdog per se. So, is this to say that the truth about what the government is doing should be sieved for the case of democracy to sustain? Should this mean that it will be okay to report, say some corruption cases and leave out others? This is the dilemma of this argument. The new democracies came about to what has been termed as the second wave of democracy. Hyden and Okigbo in explaining the term wave use Samuels Huntignton redention and say that a wave is a group of transitions from one type of regime to another that occur within a specified period of time and that significantly outnumber transitions in the opposite direction during that period of time (Hyden and Okigbo 2002:31). The first wave in Africa was experienced when colonialists went back to their homes and local leaders took over leadership. The second wave, which led to democratization of many countries, is what was experienced in later 1980s and through 1990s. It was this time when

many people started to fight for their say in most governments which after independence had become one party states. In short, many governments were authoritarian. In the second wave, the mass media also became liberalized and this saw abundant growth of the private media. This also meant that the governments now had more people monitoring them unlike in the first era where most of the media were government owned and controlled. With the fledging democracies, should the media continue to play the nationalist role that it played during colonial period? That it should focus on the countrys growth and leave the ills of those in power out of the media? Is this what is going to see to it that democracy grows? Look at countries where media has not played the role of a watchdog for one reason or the other. Zimbabwe, though its because the government has denied journalists to play this role, the country continues to go into shambles. Rwanda is the other country where the media went to bed with those in power and the result was the now infamous 1994 genocide which was perpetuated by the media. But take a look at counties where the media has taken the task of the watchdog fully like Kenya. After the elections in 2007, the country got into ethnic war after the government was accused of rigging the presidential vote. The media did not spare anyone in power and went on to analyze cases of rigging. From the day the results were announced, 30th December 2007, the two leading dailies in the country The Standard and The Daily Nation dedicated not less than six pages with different stories on how the election was allegedly rigged. This went on for the month of January 2008 year giving prominence on the story. On the 3rd of January 2008, all newspapers in Kenya carried the same headline. Because of media scrutiny, the leaders are forced to walk the talk on peace in Kenya today lest the critical media expose them for the sham that they are. Five years ago it was also the Kenyan media which was at the forefront in exposing corruption cases in government offices also known as the Goldenberg and Anglo leasing scandals. In the quest to try and answer the question of how the media should behave in new democracies various scholars, academics and media critics have tried to seek an answer of what entails a supporting or non-supporting journalism in new democracies. As professor and media mogul Anton Harber asks in this quest, does one suspend ones harshest words to give a neophyte government an opportunity to find its feet? Does one hold the new authorities to higher standards than their predecessors, who after all were authoritarian and corrupt, or does one accept lower standards because they are new and inexperienced? Does one serve democracy best by putting the government under unrelenting scrutiny or by allowing it a honeymoon period? Does one take the opportunity to assert ones newly won right to make as much noise as possible? (Harber 2004:79) Kuper and Kuper in a Journal article on Serving a New Democracy: Must the Media Speak Softly, back Harbers sentiments on the dilemma journalists have in new democracies. In a fragile democracy emerging from authoritarianism, there tend to be serious disputes over whether media should emphasize their critical role as watchdogs, on the one hand, or their constructive role in development and strengthening the new governments ability to rule effectively, on the other (Kuper and Kuper 2001: Abstract). But in the effort to find out what people thought and wanted of the media in new democracies using South Africa context,

Kuper and Kuper conducted a research which involved the different races in South Africa and economic groups. According to their findings, one quarter of the group, the more intellectual and middleaged (35-49 years) portion, would want the media to play a watchdog role to the hilt, because they believe that the primary function of society and the media is to zealously safeguard individual rights. The remaining three quarters of the group the portion that stresses pride in group affiliations, and especially patriotic pride in belonging to the new and inclusive political dispensation would be more concerned that the media be proudly South African. This portion would not be averse to some praise-singing by the media. (The differences between the two subgroups may be due in large part to a greater proportion of the former group being young and single and thus having come of age after the liberation struggle with its overwhelming sense of collective purpose had been won) (Kuper and Kuper 2001:7). Group members also expressed need for newspapers that both take stands on issues and accommodate and reflect debate partly. They may be pro-government, but they do not want their media to be uncritically partisan; they want to know when things have gone or are going wrong, and to know whether the government is responsible for these problems or can do something about them(Kuper and Kuper 2001:8). This goes on to show that no matter how patriotic people are, they would not want to see evils of their heroes unexposed, more so if they are going to affect the state of the country negatively. Away from Africa in 199,1 when Armenia became a sovereign state and also a democratic one, although the media were free, they could not be described as being open to a variety of approaches, or as providing space for free expression, because this was a period of nationalist euphoria. There were self-imposed restrictions provoked by the belief that every voice heard in Armenia must support national unity to strengthen the nation's position in the ethnic conflict that was escalating at the time (Kurkchiyan 2006: 273) This self-imposed censorship was very much a reflection of popular attitudes. According to a survey conducted in August 1995, 77 percent of Yerevan residents believed that the media should not be permitted to report on material that might damage national unity, and 45 percent thought that the media should not take any point of view with which the majority of people disagreed. Cracks in the social consensus appeared only with the horrific economic crises that started in 1992. There was a drastic fall in the standard of living, mounting frustration among the public with government mismanagement and corruption, fragmentation of the political elite, and, for the first the time, fierce criticism in the media. (Kurkchiyan 2006: 273-274). Is this how we want countries to be? Just because you are a new democracy, the press should overly by nationalistic and go down economically, socially and politically like what happened in Armenia. This then takes the country back to square one of having to rebuild, something that could be avoided if the press had done its job. To be recognized is the fruits of investigative journalism in rooting out corruption, election scandals among other vices that leaders take to when in power. It has helped bring down governments who were not in any way strengthening the new democracies and also exposed corruption in high places. The downfall of presidents in 1992, Carlos Andres Perez of Venezuela in 1993, Abdala Bucaram of Ecuador in 1997 and

Alberto complicity in corrupt deals (Coronel 2003: 9-10). In the Philippines, investigative reporting provided evidence that led to impeachment charges being filed against President Joseph Estrada in 2000 and fuelled public outrage against his excesses. Estrada was ousted from office in a popular uprising on the streets of Manila in January 2001. In Thailand, investigative reports unearthed evidence of the shadowy business dealings of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. In Indonesia, the press has uncovered wrongdoing that led to the filing of charges against high officials, including the powerful speaker of Parliament, Akbar Tanjung, in 2001 (Coronel 2003: 10) In Nigeria, Tayo Odunlami of The News is credited with exposing the former speaker of the House of Representatives, Alhaji Ibrahim Buhari, resulting in the latters disgraceful resignation from the position. Odunlami investigated the background of the speaker and revealed in the July 9, 1999 issue of the magazine that the CV that he had presented to the House contained false information. Buhari had falsified his age and claimed to have degrees that he did, in fact, not have (Tetty 2002:10). Until his death in suspicious circumstances, Carlos Cardoso, the firebrand Editor of the Daily fax Metical used the pages of the paper to critique what he considered to be the Mozambican government's blind acceptance of World Bank and IMF prescriptions. He challenged the government to be accountable to the people of Mozambique first and foremost and not the international financial institutions, by addressing the devastating impact that those policies have had (Tetty10-11). In Uganda the government daily, New Vision, for example, came up with a story that implicated the Minister of Education, accusing him of conflict of interest. The story claimed the minister was doing business with people with dubious backgrounds. It further claimed that the minister had undeclared interests in a building being rented out to the government. This article was picked up by Parliament and investigations were instituted. At the end of the day, Parliament found that the Minister indeed had a conflict of interest (Bauchet and Kariithi 2003: 67). Through these kinds of information, the public is able to know what kind of leaders they have, where their interest lie hence make informed judgments about the political future of those individuals. Another way where the media's role as a watchdog for the consolidation of democracy has been effectively demonstrated is through their monitoring of elections. As I mentioned earlier, the Kenyan press did a marvelous job during the last elections held in 2007. Through the various dailies, they analyzed how alleged rigging took place and the government was at task to explain some irregularities. In Senegal's 2000 elections, journalists "reported cases of vote-buying, ballot-stuffing and other irregularities that embarrassed Diouf's camp and prevented more extensive fraud" (Associated Press Worldstream, March 23, 2000). Observers of Ghana's political scene credit the transparency that characterized the 2000 election results, partly, to the relatively large number of private FM stations around the country. The presence of these stations, not only made it difficult to rig results, but also brought credence to the results that were declared. This is because they were able to

announce results from their local communities, even before the official figures were posted by the Electoral Commission. Although the publication of such uncertified results raised some technical problems for the Commission, they nevertheless made it difficult for the authorities to fiddle with results, even if they had wanted to. Furthermore, personnel from these stations monitored the polls at the various stations and immediately reported any irregularities, thereby constraining the ability of the government to avoid close scrutiny (Tettey 2001: 8-9). In Zambia, even the state-owned paper proved that the press can be good for deepening democracy with the way they covered the 1991 elections. The state-owned paper, Times of Zambia which had been for the longest time been a propaganda tool in Kenneth Kaundas government just before the elections ran a lead story saying KK harbouring commandos (Kasoma 1993:119). The allegation was that Kaunda, the then president, was harbouring 100 commandos in Chamba Valley in Lusaka whom he planned to use to create civil war if he lost the polls. He lost the elections but no civil war took place. It would then be justified to say that the media by reporting this prevented Zambia into going into civil war after elections. Conflict and war is another area where new democracies feel threatened by the media. Hence, matters relating to conflict reportage have been under more scrutiny as opposed to any other kind of story. In Uganda, the government is extremely sensitive on military and war related stories. The civil war for example in Northern Uganda and has now come to be known as the Lord Resistance Army affair (which president Museveni has ties with) continues ten years after though on and off. Abducting children, forcing minors to kill and cutting of innocent civilians lips, ears and limbs are some of the evils being perpetuated. Journalists did their job though with a lot of hostility from the government. Those who called for peace talks were called rebel sympathizers. If you were not branded a rebel-sympathizer, you were labeled unpatriotic because you criticized the military hence, did not have the national interest of the country at heart (Sidiropoulos Ed 2001:95).This is just another case where a democratic country can easily become a war zone by denying journalists to play the role of a watchdog. If the Ugandan government was and is not kept in check with this kind of militia men taking over a region, it could easily reach the state, which, DR Congo is at. Conflict has never led to a society to remain cohesive in any manner. Going back to the tyranny time, its noted that the press fought against political oppression, economic exploitation, social injustice and abuse of human rights. It, therefore, has been argued that if the evils denounced by the press still persist, and the press proved to be an effective weapon in fighting against those evils, why should it not continue to be used in fighting a fresh manifestation of those evils? Should the press abdicate its responsibility of fighting and denouncing certain evils simply because the perpetrators and victims happen to be of the same colour or tribe? (Ansah 1988:13) Some governments have recognized that there is need to take good and bad publicity positively for the sake of democracy. Its a question of how objective the writer is; is the story factual or just out to tarnish the government. In Zambia, for example, the new government under Fredrick Chiluba started publishing their paper in an effort to answer issues directed to him and his government by other press. As Kasoma writes, the Chiluba government was constantly under pressure by the weeklies to explain to Zambian people its deed or lack of them. The pressure became so intense that the ruling party found it necessary

to publish a weekly, National Herald, whose aim was to help explain the burning issues that the media raised against the government (Kasoma 1993:120-122). But journalists have also gone to the extreme of exercising their freedom of expression. They do not mince words and go as far they can. Personal attacks that bear no relation to the issues being addressed and that do not augur well for sustainable democratic tolerance have become common. In Zambia, The Post, for example, had on numerous occasions referred to President Chiluba as childish, a fool and a bandit (Kasoma 1997:301, Tetty 2003:23-24, Nyamjoh 2005:59). The other extreme that the private press has resulted to is bold headlines in the aim of criticizing the government or trying to put across a point. Nyamnjoh notes that its now normal to see headlines line Kill this man, on the front page of a national paper. This headline was on the front page of The Messenger, referring to the governor of the South West Province (Nyamnjoh 2005:61). Journalists have also turned to be mouthpieces for various leaders. it has become such a regular trend that even common citizens can single out journalists who are always lenient on a certain leader while hating on another. The opposition leaders tend to be favoured more by the private press. Some have resulted to fanaticism and exaggeration of issues, hence, threatening democracy in their claim as still playing the role of a watchdog. In Kenya, the ethnic violence that occurred in Laikipia and Njoro in 1998 exposed the press as that on out to exaggerate and politicize ethnic tension. While the tendency was for the private press, critical of the government, to portray the Kalenjin (President Mois ethnic group)as the villains in the clashes and other ethnic groups especially the Kikuyu as innocent victims, on the other hand, the state-owned Kenya Broadcasting Corporation and pro-government media focused on Kalenjins as the victims (Nyamnjoh 2005: 57). This, Nyamnjoh goes further, to say, as a whole the press settled on politics as the cause and whipped up ethnic or political emotions, often without bothering to venture into the battlefront. Clearly at this point, the press chose to be a propaganda tool and promote hatred. Hence, it would be justified to say that The Fourth Estate in this claim is bad for democracy. In Botswana, the private press had been respected for uncovering scandals in the government but has also been accused of favouring the opposition. This angered the ruling party such that they said they do not want anything about them printed even though it was in a positive light (Nyamnjoh 2005:63). Conclusion Weaker democracies need a much more critical media that can play its watchdog role to the fullest. This is because the state lacks institutions that are powerful enough to hold leaders to account. In the West, where the institutions of good governance are very well established, and where the people are more knowledgeable and empowered about their rights, the media is just but one of the many instruments of upholding the public good. As Ansah notes, while it is reasonable to argue that a certain amount of restraint and moderation is needed in developing countries to protect and help stabilize the new fragile political institutions, the press will be abdicating its important responsibility of watchdog if it fails to constantly scrutinize the government's activities (Ansah 1988:13)

Third where a culture of prioritising the public good is lacking, as is the case in most developing democracies, there is need for an independent institution that cannot be manipulated by the authorities to protect the public good. This role is fulfilled by the Fourth Estate.