“The first thing that differentiates poor people from rich people is not lack of money, but lack of voice…”

Former World Bank President James D. Wolfensohn, in a December 1999 speech to the World Press Freedom Committee, citing a Bank study, Voices of the Poor, of 60,000 people in 60 countries.

I was a guest of State for publishing a story that a former minister had met the President of Kenya.

At the time, the Kenyan public was raging with anger over the Sh7 billion Anglo Leasing scandal. Three ministers had been edged out of office (thanks to the scandal) and the Vice President as well as the senior most civil servant were under pressure to go too.

The controversial story made a number of points. The most important one was that a desperate government, dogged by bad fortune and a string of scandals and gaffes, amidst waning public support and its charges suffering the pangs of hunger, was trying to reach out to the most popular political guy (according to opinion polls then) to reduce pressure on it, divert attention from the scandals at hand and basically keep Kenyans — many of whom are suffering under the weight of poverty — suspended in a political trance.

Well, that key point of the story has been completely lost in the subsequent events during which the Standard Group was raided, computers stolen, newspapers banned, KTN switched off air, and allegations of subversion levelled against the Group.

Thankfully though, events in the country now — demands for greater freedom, the presence of government-protected mercenaries, calls for a “responsible” press, and the great anticipation for the reopening of parliament — directly stem from that story. More importantly though, revelations that Kalonzo himself met the mercenaries who are in turn business partners of Mary Wambui’s daughter whose last name is Mwai, the name of our President, who in the said story had allegedly met Kalonzo, leave a trail of coincidences hard to ignore, but harder to believe than the original Kalonzo-Kibaki story.

Yet sadly, only a few inaudible voices are raising questions about the co-relation of these events to the all-pervading poverty in the country. We pay shady foreigners against our own citizens as millions suffer hunger and death. Leaders meet to connive and con Kenyans out of their country and it is criminalised against poor journalists exposing hypocrisy. Scandals of humongous proportions take place and efforts to tell the story behind the story are termed reckless.

The point? An open and free media can play an important role in the fight against poverty — directly and indirectly. The case alluded to may seem indirect to many, but to the discerning, it is as direct as direct can be. Unfortunately, not many Kenyans, nay Africans, are that discerning. I have even heard some poor Kenyans alleging we “fabricated” the story to paint the government in bad light. I thought in cases such as these newspapers, and not politicians, should be given the benefit of the doubt. Kenyans know that the Government denied knowledge of the murder of JM, the same of Tom Mboya, Goldenberg corruption, Anglo Leasing and all scandalous actions by our leaders have been denied. Do these denials make the self-evident “published or unpublished” truths false? Obviously no.

But on the other hand what do all these (JM’s murder, Tom Mboya’s murder, Goldenberg, Anglo Leasing, the Kalonzo-Kibaki story and its aftermath); what do all these and others not mentioned here have in common? Vested interests of the rich and mighty towards the sustenance of the poverty of the majority.

JM was a crusader for the land rights of the poor. He famously said that it is a scandal of unmitigated proportions to have 10 millionaires and ten million beggars in Kenya. Tom Mboya was a crusader for the rights of workers. He famously said that without fair compensation for labour, poverty could only multiply. Goldenberg robbed the citizens of Kenya more money (Sh160 billion) than they need today to meet the Millennium Development Goals. Anglo Leasing took away more money than the government is now seeking to alleviate hunger in the whole country! And the blind fury with which the government reacted to the Kalonzo-Kibaki story only succeeded to divert attention from something bigger and I can bet my last shilling that the sustenance of poverty by the rich and mighty is at the core of whatever that is!

Now, whereas the media have done a wonderful job reporting on some of these crimes, they have not clearly pointed out the conspiracy to sustain poverty attendant to these crimes.

When you really think through all these events, you will discover that the problem in Kenya (and the larger Africa) is not a difference of opinion between political leaders (ODM and NARC for example) to the extent that it is too preposterous to imagine them meeting to strategise their survival; you will discover that the problem in Kenya (and the larger Africa) is a class problem — by which I mean a problem of poverty with the rich wanting to retain whole control of wealth and thus condemn the poor to unending poverty. It is a class problem as some of these political leaders are business associates merely on different political podiums. What will stop them from meeting to protect their business interests? And that in my opinion is the greatest challenge of the Kenyan and African media today: To expose the hypocritical class system that fuels poverty.

This would necessarily lead to increased accountability of both businesses and governments as well as allow citizens to make better-informed decisions. Suppose, instead of joining the bandwagon of condemnation as was depicted by counter-press freedom demonstrators in Nairobi, this muscular mob of hirelings stopped for a minute and said, “If this story is true, who is best qualified to lead Kenya and ensure fair distribution of resources?” If this had been done, the answer would be obvious: None of the members of the current political class. In so doing, whoever one votes for come 2007, such a decision would be based on serious pre-meditated considerations and not on tribe, bribe, threats etc. After all, sound political decisions based on the summation of what we see in the media is a positive step towards poverty eradication.

In other words, if the media contribute to increased accountability of both businesses and governments allowing citizens to make better-informed decisions, then media promote and encourage good governance, without which the battle against poverty cannot be won.

Some have argued that the media should not be an explicit force for social change. Whether one agrees or not, obviously the media should implicitly encourage that change by accurately and impartially reporting back to its given community everything that is of interest to that community without fear or favour.

Further, by acting as a watchdog against corruption, the media can help ensure that greater importance is attached to development issues in the allocation of resources, while at the same time strengthening the institutions responsible for promoting the overall development of society. It must be said that these institutions include an honest and real civil society, an independent judiciary, a legislature whose sole existence is the welfare of society and the just government of men and, of course, the media itself.

In the context of Africa where exclusion is scorned at in public but actively pursued in private (think about tribalism, think about business monopolies, think about the skewed nature of job allotments both in public and private sectors, think about the unfair distribution of loans for small or big businesses and think about the entire rotten tendering and bidding logic, indeed think about the normal daily life of an average African — exclusion is the norm rather than the exception!); in the context of such an environment, the media can contribute to combating the exclusion and marginalisation of the poor, whom as we have seen,  suffer most from the class system in place. It behoves mention here, that it is this pervasive class system that encourages all the tactics of exclusion mentioned above (plus others not mentioned) to perpetuate the class at the expense of the whole. And the media should expose this in whatever form it manifests itself.

This is important because poverty is more than just an absence of resources; it is a lack of empowerment, which the class system wants to ensure. That is what Wolfensohn meant in the quote cited at the beginning of this paper, which I quote again: “The first thing that differentiates poor people from rich people is not lack of money (resources), but lack of voice (media)…” The point? Poor people are generally unable to participate fully in society and earn a living simply because they cannot even express themselves out of their condition, not because they are lazy or stupid.

Simply providing them with additional resources is therefore usually not enough to lift them from their deprivation. If you think this isn’t true, I dare you to recall how much money donors have poured into poor Africa since the dawn of independence. These have merely been additional resources without an empowering media that probes not only how this money is spent, but also the motives behind the continued donation of it to corrupt African regimes. So in giving the poor a voice and a forum, the media would be increasing the capabilities of Africa’s poor not only to demand accountability in the way the money is spent but to also dictate the most pressing areas where such help could be utilised!

Only then can the poor gain control over their lives and learn how to productively use whatever resources are available. Providing the poor with access to media should, therefore, be an indispensable piece in any poverty eradication strategy — it does not matter whether you are talking about a global initiative such as the UN-led Millennium Development Goals or a village initiative to collectively buy seeds and fertiliser: The poor’s own voice might be all you need to succeed and as currently constituted, that voice can only come through an independent media in Africa.

This independent media can only be supported to carry out this responsibility by a discerning public because over and above the social responsibility aspect of the media, the media are, after all, businesses. They have to make money by selling more copies or space, a goal they cannot achieve without a critical mass of audiences.

It goes without saying that, a free media can, of course, contribute to the enrichment of citizens — materially and intellectually — through educational programmes. Indeed, as James Deane, Managing Director of the Communication for Social Change Consortium, and former Director of Panos London, has argued:

“1) Freedom of expression is a fundamental right which underpins all other human rights under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

2) Eradication of poverty is an essential precondition for the realisation of the UDHR, therefore

3) Media development is the lynchpin both of the UDHR and of the end of poverty and fulfilment of the global development agenda.”

For a media practitioner of my experience and stature (you know my deportation story as well as the fact that I am a Managing Editor of serious and innovative publications), it would be criminal for me to conclude this paper without citing the one greatest impediment Africa’s media face in carrying out their responsibility to fight poverty: It is the monopolisation of media by powerful commercial and political interests, whether private or public, which lessens the plurality of voices in the public sphere. Independent pluralistic media should, indeed, act as an appreciable counterbalance to vested commercial forces that thrive on poverty. Public media too should see this as their role.

Another impediment — a not so obvious one — is the fact that most individuals, institutions and NGOs still think of public communications as one-way (how they can get the world to think better of them), rather than two-way (how the poor and excluded can be informed about and then react to policies being carried out in their name). In this sense not many people, including some journalists, understand the role of the media as keepers of the public forum.

You will realise that I have not uttered a word about the role of the media in creating a one-market Africa. That is deliberate. It neither stems from incompetence on my part of the subject matter at hand nor a misunderstanding of what my brief was. I chose to dwell on the role of the media in fighting poverty by acting as a forum for deliberative action — providing a voice to the poor majority — in which case then the people themselves will decide whether they want a one-market Africa and how they envision that market operating. Why? Everyone knows the importance of a one-market Africa, but powerful interests have continued to ensure that that does not happen fully during our time and if it happens whenever it happens, those powerful class interests want to ensure that it happens their way, not the poor people’s way.

Therefore, in my view, by supplying the poor with reliable information, the media allows them to take well-informed decisions and make better choices about their lives; it also gives them the opportunity to express their views and have a say in the election of decision-makers, thus increasing the chances of a more efficient allocation of resources. By doing this alone, the media would have empowered the citizens of Africa to go the one-market way… if they so wish.

Allow me to conclude by sharing an insight I gained last week at a deliberative democracy conference in the United States of America: Whereas poverty is a problem globally, especially in Africa, it is not a political issue requiring a political solution. It is a combination of issues requiring multi-prong approaches to tackling it. The government and business may offer job opportunities to tackle poverty, the media may offer a public forum to explore all the facets of poverty and how to tackle it, but only the people of Africa can choose to buy local products in order to promote local manufacturing and keep the bulk of the wealth thus created right here in Africa. The government, the UN and other global bureaucracies may fast-tract pro-poor policies but if the banking and non-bank financial institutions do not provide easy access to affordable credit and the media does not fight the exclusion that renders certain segments of society at a perpetual disadvantage, poverty will remain with us for a long time to come.

In conclusion, the role of the media, not just in poverty eradication and towards a one-market Africa, but in every sector of society, is more important when politicians and civil society leaders fail — which is almost always the case in Africa. That is when the media should, preferably with the approval of the people, take the lead role and step forward to lead society towards a better future.

Thank you for the opportunity to share these thoughts with you.

Speech by Chaacha Mwita,  Managing Editor, Standard Weekend Editions, delivered in the 4th East Africa Media Training Meeting held at Pan Afric hotel on  15-17 March 2006.