Listen to This Article Enhance your reading experience by listening to this article.

What does freedom of the press mean? It is a continuing debate, and there is a temptation to believe that the answer lies at the foot of where you stand. Journalists, politicians, policymakers, and the courts are often engaged in this debate.

Freedom of the press is a matter of survival for those in media practice. Without it, the media can hardly function. Properly executed, it allows journalists to explore every subject. This is good for society’s healthy survival and for holding those in power accountable.

Once freedom of the press is guaranteed, the larger society can engage in healthy debate to ride on this provision and continue discussions on social issues. In today’s media landscape, where media boundaries are contested, there will hardly be a limit to who can enjoy these provisions. This is always as it should be, even if more so for the media.

There is always a good reason why this is important. Most of society’s assumptions can be questioned, nearly every subject can be explored in the marketplace, those in power can be held to account, the multiplicity of ideas would allow for ideological competition, and so on. Otherwise, you stifle society and impede societal growth.

The importance of freedom of expression makes politicians wary of the free flow of ideas in society. To avoid falling foul of this popular dictum, many politicians commit to believing in freedom of the press, but with a rider: it has to be accompanied by responsibility.

However, politicians seem to seek to define responsibility. To them, responsibility involves setting parameters that limit the provisions already established. In Kenya’s previous constitution, the freedom of the press provision had a caveat, which essentially removed the same provision set out in the first part of the article.

By introducing the word responsibility, a seemingly innocuous term that does not appear to carry any threat, the political class hope to carry the public with them. Who would not want people to be responsible?

But the devil is in the details, and in adopting “responsibility”, the political class hopes to deny freedoms at least so that their acts are not spotlighted. It is simple: the political class fears freedom of the press.

Given their access to the public podium, the political class has perfected many acts that can be exploited to claw back constitutionally guaranteed liberties. Name-calling is proving particularly effective.

A former US vice president referred to the media as the “nattering nabobs of negativism”. Donald Trump has simplified it too to just “fake”. In the days of President Daniel Arap Moi, he railed against “foreign agents”, “enemies of development”, and so on. In today’s Kenya, it seems “githeri” is holding. Others labelled the entire media as being infiltrated by communists even though some of the members of the fourth estate eschewed this ideological puritanism.

The courts provide some clarity, seeking to balance absolutism and conservatism. However, they are only as powerful as society’s social fabric, the extent to which the separation of powers is respected. But that is not the only critical parameter. A court can only be respected because it is respectable — the extent to which its rulings align with public sentiments (not necessarily populist), the quality of its judgments, the credibility of the bench, and the culture of respect for the law in the country, among other things.

The role of policymakers cannot be overemphasised. The quality of this class is also critical. In our case, the Parliament’s performance has not been anything to write home about. It is supposed to be the Council of the Wise, which should ooze memorable presentations, reflective ideas, and visionary presentations. On the whole, that does not describe our Parliament.

When we fall short on many of these fronts, the debate regarding freedom of the press becomes, to borrow the language of our Supreme Court, “hot air”. But it does not have to remain so. This nation could be on the cusp of change. A generation is rising that wears a different lens. This will define the nation’s institutions and its operating cardinals.

— The writer is the Dean of Daystar University’s School of Communication-