Eighteen years after Jana Andolan I and two years after Jana Andolan II, the legal status of the state-owned and state-controlled news media remains unchanged, though the political landscape of the country has undergone fundamental change. Indeed, there have been differences in style and tolerance levels among the political parties and persons that came to power, but that has been far from enough to transform the state media in line with the democratic spirit and practices. The late ‘Supreme Leader’ of the Nepali Congress, Ganeshman Singh, once dramatised the condition of the state media by calling them a fiefdom of a political family in his party when the Congress infighting was at its fiercest. The political situation may have changed, and a political family may no longer be calling the shots the way Singh had portrayed, but the fact remains that the state media are still, legally and practically, under government’s stranglehold. Their freedom of action at any time has merely reflected government’s tolerance level. Strangely, the political parties have tended to cry foul when in opposition but, when in power, they have tended to treat the state media as if they were their parties’ organs.

This state of affairs must end. But any political force’s attitude to the news media gives an idea of the kind of ‘democracy’ it wants to build. On Tuesday, Krishna Bahadur Mahara, minister for information and communication, expressed the “government’s willingness to bring the state media under a people-controlled agency”. Speaking at a symposium on the autonomy, self-sufficiency, and professionalism of the national broadcasters, he blamed the old laws for coming in the way of doing more, adding that changes in them were not possible merely through the ministry’s efforts. At this juncture, it may not be fair to blame any single party for doing too little in this regard. However, the communication ministry could take the initiative towards that end, trying to win the support of the SPA, which, sadly, does not appear to have taken sufficient interest in the matter.

Just sporadic spells of relative freedom do not count much, and these cannot give the state media a sense of direction and purpose. Perhaps, the state media have enjoyed their freest spells during the two transition periods — the first during one year of Jana Andolan I in 1990 and the second in the present. This has been, perhaps, due to the transitional nature of government consisting of various parties. In the past several commissions and committees were formed to study what to do with the state media under a democratic political set-up, but no action has followed on any of the recommendations contained in any of the reports. Until the structure of ownership and control of the state media are totally or sufficiently altered, it is unlikely that they will enjoy real autonomy. The government has several options, including that of status quo. At the other end, there is the option of full privatisation. And the rest fall somewhere in between. But the ultimate test of any option will be whether the media can do their journalistic duty without any outside control or interference.