ASSIGNMENT Title:

Discuss the relationship between the media and Democracy. (50 Marks)

Democracy is an ideology concerning decision making. It is a system where power

resides with the people, allowing for participation in decision making processes and
ensuring that the government serves the interests of the people. There are many
scholarly definitions and assumptions of what democracy should be and how it should
function in a society. Christians et al (2009:44) define democracy as governance by
the people, for the people, and of the people. However, democracy is not only a
matter of accountability of rulers to the people but encompasses many other ways
people act together to influence their rulers and their own lives, including the various
forms of public communication now available. Stromback (2005) proposes four
models of democracy and these are Procedural, Competitive, Deliberative and
Participatory democracy. However in reality no model can be said to be a ‘‘pure’’
model of democracy. All existing democracies must fulfill the basic requirements for
a country to be counted as a democracy.

Media refers to a diverse range of communication channels that play a crucial role in
shaping our understanding of the world. (Gillespie 2010:347) There is a wide range of
media platforms from traditional media channels like print newspapers, television and
radio to the new digital media platforms that are powered by the internet and these
include X, YouTube, Whatsapp and many others. These are the platforms where
people engage and share their views and opinions. It is the modern day Habermasian
public sphere.

The relationship between media and democracy is intricate and essential in modern
societies. Media and journalism need a democratic environment in order to flourish
and at the same time democracy needs the media to sustain its democratic processes.
In order for democracy to flourish the media must play its role in society. This essay
will discuss the relationship between media and democracy. It will explain the role of
the media in a democratic society, the strengths and limitations of the media in
ensuring a democratic society will be explored.

1
According to Stromback (2005:332), the relationship between democracy, on the one
hand, and media and journalism, on the other, can be described in terms of a social
contract.According to this view, media and journalism require democracy as it is the
only form of government that respects freedom of speech, expression and
information, and the independence of media from the state. By respecting and
protecting these necessary freedoms, democracy fulfills its part of the social contract
with the media and journalism. At the same time, democracy requires a system for the
flow of information, for public discussion and for a watchdog function independent of
the state. This is where media in general and journalism in particular enter the picture.

In a healthy democracy the media plays a Monitorial role to the public. According to
Christians et al (2009:30) the term “monitorial” includes the notion of providing
advance intelligence, advice, warning, and everything of general utility for
information seekers. The media acts as the watchdog of the society. They monitor and
bring to account those that are in power. They provide citizens with accurate
information enabling them to make informed decisions and participate in democratic
processes. Thus the media become the vigilant informer, which applies mainly to
collecting and publishing information of interest to audiences, as well as distributing
information on behalf of sources and clients that include governments, commercial
advertisers, and private individuals.

The media in a democratic society should be allowed to freely circulate information

that is of public interest. Even if that information pertains to top government officials,
if it concerns public interest, then the media must be allowed to access it. In
Zimbabwe, under the “New Dispensation” the notorious Access to Information and
Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA, 2002) being replaced by the Freedom of
Information Act and the Protection of Personal Information Act. The Public Order
and Security Act (POSA, 2002) has been replaced by Maintenance of Peace and
Order (MOPA) Act. Although the media reforms are welcome there is public
scepticism that the newly passed statutes are cosmetic name changes of the previous
draconian statutes. (Tshabangu and Salawu 2024).These laws made it an offense to
disseminate information from top offices even if the information is of public interest.
Journalists were jailed under these laws if they tried to expose corrupt politicians and
government officials. Tshabangu and Salawu (2024:176) advance that in repressive

2
and monolithic media environments such as Zimbabwe, alternative media carry the
burden of upholding democracy and advancing the democratisation agenda. This is
because the public mainstream often abdicates on this role by serving partisan
interests and churning state propaganda. This shows that when there is no democracy
then journalism and the media cannot fully carry out their roles.

The second role of the media in a democracy is the Facilitative role. When the media
takes up this role they become a public sphere. This concept is borrowed from the
theory of Habermas’s public sphere. The media become facilitators of public
discussions and debates. In a democracy the media should provide platforms where
citizens can openly engage in discussions of matters that are salient to them. The
platforms should be free from government interference and people should have
freedom of expression and association. For example television programs like South
Africa’s SABC 2 The Last Word with Sharhan Ramkisson are examples of public
spheres. The program allows citizens to interview and get answers from prominent
people in society without fear of victimization. In Zimbabwe due to oppressive media
laws, the alternative media has taken up the role of being a public sphere. Tshabangu
and Salawu (2014:34) advance that alternative media also form a counter public
sphere opposed to the mainstream public sphere that circulate counter hegemonic
discourses that represent the wishes and aspirations of subordinated and repressed
citizens. Ndlovu-Gatsheni and Ruhanya (2020), further add that the alternative media
are a useful counter public sphere that permits the formulation of oppositional
interpretations, identities, interests and needs. In any given context, alternative news
media publish different voices; attempt to influence public opinion towards
underrepresented, ostracized or marginalized agendas. They provide alternative news
content that focus on alternative accounts and interpretations of political and social
events.

The third role of the media is the Radical role. This role is at some distance from
being facilitative and is a clear departure from collaboration with authority. Christians
et al (2009:332) assert that the media enact this role when they provide a platform for
views and voices that are critical of authority and the established order. They give
support for drastic change and reform. The media may also be a voice of criticism in
their own right. This occurs when the media are of the opinion that the established

3
authority had deviated from democratic principles. Platforms like Voice of America
(VOA) Studio 7 that was established in 2004 in Washington DC is an example of a
radical media platform that openly criticizes the ruling Zanu PF and its ideologies.
The radio station provides alternative source of news for Zimbabweans especially
during elections when other media outlets were censored. Kubatana. Net is another
society blog that speaks out against the Gukurahundi atrocities as well as the post
2000 Mugabe -era political violence. Marginalized voices are amplified in these
platforms as the media seeks to dismantle the status quo. Itai Dzamara (the late)’s
Africa Unity Square movement and Evans Mawarire’s This Flag movement are other
radical media examples in Zimbabwe. These individuals used social media platforms
to mobilize protests against government policies and human rights abuses leading to
widespread public engagement and international attention. Baba Jukwa, an
anonymous media account that gained popularity during the 2013 Harmonized
elections is another example of a radical media platform. Its impact was significant in
that it influenced public opinion and shaped the political discourse.

The fourth role of the media in a democracy is the Collaborative role. This is when
the media works hand in hand with the government to ensure development of the
communities. Christian et al (2009:31) opine that Collaboration refers specifically to
the relationship between the media and sources of political and economic power,
primarily the state and its agencies. The media can join those in authority to help
advance development initiatives that will benefit the society at large. For example
during the Covid pandemic the media worked with the government to raise
awareness, disseminate information and also to provide strategic points of help and
quarantine centres. The recent ZITF expo that was hosted in Bulawayo, the media
partnered with the government to advertise the event as well as market the country to
investors worldwide.

Although the media plays a crucial role to promote democracy however, they can also
work against democracy. This digital age comes with a lot of advantages and
disadvantages. These disadvantages are the ones that can undermine democracy.
Issues like misinformation and fake news can retard democratic processes. For
example during the 2023 Zimbabwe Harmonized elections, a day before elections

4
social media was awash with messages telling people to abstain from voting because
the election had already been rigged. Some members of the public lost their right to
vote because of those messages. Those are some of the disadvantages of alternative
media. It can be glorified but it has its flaws. Franco (2021:8) posit that a healthy
democracy cannot be realized in the absence of a citizenry that has access to reliable
and truthful information on which to base decisions. This means that when people are
exposed to untruthful information then their decisions are affected and this
undermines democracy.

Another downside of the media is cyber bullying, trolling, hate speech, revenge porn
and the cancel culture on social media. In a democratic society the media is a public
sphere, which means that the media should provide free spaces for discussion.
However in this digital era, online spaces such as X, Facebook, there is little or no
freedom of expression. Social media bullies and trolls vent their anger and frustration
upon any user that does not hold the same sentiments as theirs. Hate speech is the
order of the day. People end up reserving their comments for fear of being cancelled
or bullied on social media. Those with lesser educational skills are afraid to be called
out for their lack of knowledge. Those from under privileged backgrounds are
silenced because these spaces are seemingly elitist. Akeusola (2023:99) posit that
cyber bullying poses a significant challenge to the ideals of free flowing information
and discourse on social media. The alternative media can be a voice for the voiceless
but it can also be elitist in nature. Some voices are more prominent than others based
on societal standards and expectations. Those with more money determine the content
to be posted on social sites.

The Digital divide is another enemy of democracy. Connectivity and issues of access
undermine democracy. The ordinary Zimbabwean finds it difficult to access
electronic gadgets because they are expensive. Android mobile phones, the cheapest
are pegged at an average of $50 a gadget. That makes a mobile phone a luxury to
most people. Adding to that are connectivity and data issues. People in rural
Zimbabwe cannot access internet services as well as mobile network services. Data
charges in Zimbabwe are very high. Franco (2018:12) asserts that ‘democratisation
only applies to those with internet connectivity and the digital divide is a concerning

5
issue warranting significant attention.’ This renders the public sphere elitist as it can
only be accessed by those with the means and resources.

The political economy of the digital platforms is another concern when it comes to
the media championing democracy. The powerful corporates are the ones who dictate
what kind of content is shared on these media platforms. Those with advertising
money get to dictate the content to be posted. Turner (2018:6) argues that
monetisation has been the enemy of democratisation. The battle for attention – and the
strategies used to compete in that battle – certainly attracted audiences, skewed the
character of what content was made available: towards entertainment, towards
provocative, shareable content and so on. The battle has also been highly attritional.
As a result, the political economy of the digital world has become increasingly
concentrated and the power of Facebook, Google and Amazon, in particular, has
grown dramatically.

In conclusion l submit that indeed democracy is fertile ground for media and
journalism to thrive while at the same time the media is a crucial tool in disseminating
democratic information and procedures. The relationship between the two is
intertwined such that one cannot function properly without the other. Media platforms
especially digital media has increased the democratic space although it cannot be
totally sanitised since it comes with its own evils like misinformation, cyber bullying,
monetisation and the digital divide. These are some the concerns that come with the
digital era that has however tried to be a counter public sphere and a voice for the
subaltern.

6
References

Akeusola B. N (2023). Social media and the incidence of cyber bullying in Nigeria.
Implications for creating a safer online environment. International Journal of
Government and Social Science. Vol 9(1) pp 97-102.

Christian C. G et al (2009). Normative Theories of the Media. Journalism in

democratic societies. University of Illinois press .Urban and Chicago

Franco C (2018). The Fake news virus killing democracy. International Human rights
Internship working paper series. Vol 10:1 pp 6-43.

Gillespie T (2010) The politics of ‘platforms’. New Media and Society 123: 347–364.

Ndlovu-Gatsheni SJ and Ruhanya P (2020) Introduction: transition in Zimbabwe –

from Robert Gabriel Mugabe to Emmerson Dambudzo Mnangagwa: a repetition
without change. In: Ndlovu-Gatsheni SJ and Ruhanya P (eds) The History and
Political Transition of Zimbabwe from Mugabe to Mnangagwa. Cham: Palgrave
Macmillan, pp.1–22.

Stromback J. (2005). In Search of a Standard: four models of democracy and their

normative implications for journalism. Journalism Studies, Volume 6 (3) pp. 331-345.

Tshabangu T and Salawu A (2024). Alternative Media, Repression and the Crisis
State: Towards a Political Economy of Alternative Media in Post-Mugabe Zimbabwe.
Journal of Asian and African Studies, Vol. 59(1) pp 172–186.

Turner G. (2018). The media and democracy in the digital era. Is this what we had in
mind? Media international Australia. Vol 168(1) pp 3-14.

7
8