|
CAMEL - Central Asian Media Electronic List |
|
website address: www.camsp.osh.kg 5.
Situation of mass-media in Uzbekistan Interview
with the former Chief editor and former member of the Uzbek
Parliament Karim
Bahriev Brief
biographical facts: 1985
- graduated from the Faculty of Journalism of Moscow State
University. 1985-1990
- worked as a reporter and chief of a department of Literaturnaya
Gazeta. In
1990 was elected a member of the Parliament of Uzbekistan, and for
five years worked in the committees for ethnic issues, information
and glasnost. Initiated the Law
on the Mass Media and the Copyright Law. Since
1995 worked in the paper of the Ministry of Education, and later on
published his own magazine specialized in the legal matters under
the title
“ Economy and Law”. When
in 1996, President Karimov started to talk about the priorities of
economic reforms, Karim Bahriev publicly disagreed with some
provisions, stating that economy cannot develop without political
reforms. " The economy needs free-thinking people as well"
he wrote in his article. Soon after that, President also started to
point to the importance of political reforms, stating that "
Economic reforms are in a deadlock because of lack of political
reforms." Tthe National Human Rights Center, an institution
which was supposed to monitor acting laws and their implementation
was created shortly after. A position of the Representative of the
Olii Majlis ( parliament) on Human Rights was also created along
with other democratic institutions. In
1997 Karim Bahriev started publishing an independent newspaper
Huriet, but later he left the paper. Q:
How did it go with the paper? A:
After the publication of the first issue I was requested to
visit the Deputy Prime-minister, after the second issue, the
Chairman of State Committee on Mass Media, and after the third issue
the presidential office. The newspaper was published without
censorship, and was sharply critical, without any praise for anyone.
I think I was right,
but I was told by many people that I should have known the
limits and should have divided everything 50/50. We were criticizing
social policies. Q:
Did you criticize the President? A:
The president confesses that he is responsible for everything
in the country, that he does not sleep at nights, that all problems
end up at his desk, that ministers cannot solve anything themselves…
I remember, when he was interviewed by Radio Liberty in Prague, he
said that as a president he would have liked to spend his weekends
in a country retreat like in Finland and have a normal working day.
But he cannot, because ministers refuse even to have contacts with
mass media. Hence, when I criticize the Minister of Social security
or Health, it appears that I criticize the President, because he is
responsible for everything. But the President also says that these
corrupt Ministers have to be criticized. Q:
Why did you leave the newspaper? A:
After the fifth issue I was told that each issue of the
newspaper must be shown to certain services before it is published.
I could have refused to consider their objections to articles, but I
didn't want anyone to rule my paper and left. If I had not left, the
newspaper would
have been shut down and I did not want that. After me they
appointed a consultant from the Presidential apparatus as a Chief
editor. The paper was founded by the Fund of Democratization of
Press, an NGO which is in fact under the control of the Government. Afterwards
I started the Economy and Law Magazine, but after one of the
articles, I was forced to leave it too. Q:
During the CAMSP Tashkent Conference, you asked the
participants a rhetorical question: Does the mass media need
democratization? I would like to ask you the same question, and
would like to know how the democratization should go on- quickly?
gradually? What is the role of the mass media in this process?
A:
There is a lot of talking and articles here, about how
journalists in Tajikistan were given a freedom to write whatever
they wanted, and ended up by starting a civil war there. Hence,
Uzbek journalists should not be given so much freedom in order to
avoid a civil war. People can think themselves, and they won't
necessarily follow anything journalists write. We should increase
the public opinion to such a level, that if a journalist is not
right, people will not follow his words. Some think that the
population is not yet ripe for democracy.
I don't think so. People are ready for democracy, perhaps
bureaucrats aren't ready, and that's why they don't want democracy
in order to rule people by non-democratic methods. It is not in the
interests of bureaucrats and corrupt officials if people are ready
for democracy. As
for the speed of the process, I will say the following. It is
assumed that the mentality of our people considers a respect for the
power, state officials, Tsars. But
do the authorities have the right to exploit this notion of
mentality and expect people to bare? There is no need to appeal to
the mentality. If the authorities are normal, people will respect
them anyway.
Q:
You have an interesting situation. The law on Mass Media
prohibits censorship and everyone is free to write whatever they
want. But on the practice it is the opposite. How is it possible to
get out of the gap exiting between the reality and the laws?
Is it possible to have a certain freedom under the present
leadership or do you need political changes? A:
On the one hand, there is a certain freedom. An example of it
is the CAMSP Conference in Tashkent. There are international
organizations, foreign embassies, different funds involved in
political life of the country. Here we have many laws on Mass Media.
There is no special Law on journalism in America, but the journalist
is protected. There is even an anecdote about this: In the Soviet
Union the freedom of speech is protected, and in the United States
those who made that speech are also protected. Even American and
European journalists can envy Uzbek journalists-we have five or six
laws about Mass Media with numerous accompanying legal acts etc.
Nevertheless, there is no free Mass Media. If laws allow that
certain freedom, legal decrees easily take them away. Q:
Can you bring recent examples of blatant violations of
rights of journalists?
A:
On November 19-20, 1999 TV stations in Gulistan and Urgench
were shut down based on a decree of the regional communications
inspection. According to the Article 16 of the Law on Mass Media,
activities of any outlet can be suspended only by a decision of a
Court, the founder or the registering authority. The regional
communications inspection was none of these. And besides, any
decision by the above mentioned three instances, can be appealed in
a Court of higher instance. Q:
Have the heads of these TV stations appealed to the court?
A:
The director of Urgench TV station has appealed to the city
court and has filed a suit against the deputy Hakim and the head of
this inspection. The very next day he was visited by the tax police
for inspection. But these guys
are ready to fight to the end and at present this issue is
still under investigation. But these journalists do not believe in
the court justice. Our judges are not elected but appointed for five
years, and they do not think about the laws, they think how to be
appointed again. They are financed by the ministry of finance, and
this means that
they depend on the executive authority, not on the budget.
One telephone call of a Hakim can influence the court decision.
Their arguments for closing the stations are astonishing. The deputy
Hakim wrote in the court documents, that the reason he ordered the
TV station closed, was that it highlights only negative facts, and
not a single positive one. He wrote that there is little criticism
and no praise at all, and this is why it must be closed. Or the
deputy Hakim of Serdalin Region wrote that the programs
of the local TV station are not professional. But again this
is
not in his competence. If the TV station is not good, it
closes itself for it loses viewers and advertisements. Q:
How does the journalists’ attitude towards the freedom of
speech change? A.
I cannot answer for all journalists. They are also different.
There are corrupted journalists who serve the power. There are
journalists who write honestly, and there are also journalists who
are waiting to see.
Besides, the Mass Media or journalists cannot be free if
development of the society remains within its old frames. Mass Media
needs a normal parliament. All our Hakims and members of the
parliament adopt laws, implement them, and check their
implementation all by themselves. There must be independent lawyers,
strong NGOs, human rights groups, and when all these will be in
place, there can be a democratic media. I do not have any illusions
about the timing and do not think it will happen very soon, but I
want to see it, I want to see the democracy, I cannot wait only
because someone thinks that the people has not matured yet. Q:
Do you mean to say that the development of the fourth power
is connected with the development of other branches of the power?
A:
Yes, I do. It is like one house: if the columns are of
different heights, the roof will fall down. Journalists must push
Courts to be more independent openly discussing
issues of the courts. Interviewed
by Hakop Asatryan, Tashkent
– Prague.
|