Role of Media in fragile and conflict-affected states.

With the rising fear of which country heats up next due to the continued unrest in most of the African countries, its quite clear that something ought to be done. It is rather unfortunate especially when you sit back during the prime time news and flip along most of the channels and what hits your eyes and ears is how violent it keeps getting. The debate is far fetching on issues rising from role of the media in fragile and conflict-affected states. It is often seen as highly controversial, and some argue its poorly understood by policymakers. Whilst communications advocates tend to argue that the media can stimulate democracy in such states, specifically by increasing government accountability, exposing corruption and facilitating informed public debate, many others caution that there is equal evidence of how the media can reinforce already deep societal divides. Many questions remain regarding the relationship between media development and state-building. It is unclear, for example, under what circumstances media disrupts or reinforces neopatrimonial political systems, or whether and how media development should be sequenced with democratic reform. The medias political role in fragile and conflict-affected states is often most acute around elections, and these effects can include violence and the derailing of democratic processes (as in the case of Kenya, 2008). What is clear is there is a need for a much better understanding, and more empirical research, on the conditions under which the media either contribute to or, alternatively, undermine state stability. A report about the role of media in resolving post-election disputes presented findings which explored why election violence occurred ager some elections and not others, drawing on experiences in Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya, Somaliland, Tanzania and Sudan. The report suggests a number of ways of analyzing the role the media can play in post election violence. Media can act as an amplifier, facilitating and accelerating the spread of messages that both encourage violence or appeal for peaceful resolutions. It can also act as a mirror, offering either an accurate or somewhat distorted reflection of the state and nation building process, and as an enabler, contributing to the process of nationbuilding. In this regard communication remain a relatively under prioritized area of the so called good governance agenda and in particular media communication which can be a powerful force for positive development change and why it can be on the other hand a harmful force capable of blocking pro-poor reform, engendering political violence and sustaining political violence. Some of these states characterized by ill fated legacy of little or no interaction between government and society, a lack of trust in government, lack of citizen demand for accountability, unrealistic expectations and war torn societies are evidenced by their occurrences. Focus should be on amplifying citizen voice, promoting independent and plural media systems helping governments communicate better with their citizens. The catalytic role of media cannot be neglected but it cannot itself guarantee improved state accountability or responsiveness.

Mbatia Maurice Chege. (0787 046 575) Freelance journalist. mcmorrislaw@yahoo.com