ELECTIONS: THE ROLE OF MONITORS

“We look at our elections through the window of the media”
        -Danny Schechter, US producer, director and author

 This session looked at elections through two lenses. In the first, questions revolved around two sectors -- how international monitors function during elections, and what role the media carries out in those elections. Then, the discussion turned to the United States where the hugely magnified process drags over months and months and the world watches for clues to a new American era to follow the administrations of George W. Bush.

 In the first part, focus was put on the elections in Russia where Vladimir Putin handed the reins over to Dmitry Medvedev, and on the Pakistani elections, marred by the death of Benezir Bhutto on election eve.

 Starting off, moderator Charles Hodson, CNN business news anchorman in London, homed in on the role of election monitors and the notion that those who appear from the Organisation for Security and Cooperation (OSCE) in Europe are invited to monitor. “Aren’t there a lot of gritted teeth in some of the countries when you say ‘invite’ monitoring?” he asked panelist Julie Finley, US Ambassador to the OSCE in Vienna. 

 “There are a lot of gritted teeth when countries invite the OSCE to come in,” she replied. “Some are concerned, there’s a fear of loosing control if you are in power.” However, she continued, the more that actual democratic elections are carried out, “people learn there isn’t anything to be afraid of – it’s all part of a process. You may lose in the first round but you have a chance to come back later.”

 Hodson followed up immediately on the question of the media’s role, asking whether the media should be more supportive of the process and adding a question as to the difference between the domestic and international media.

 “In democracies the media is always free but, boy, can the media be manipulated,” Finley responded. “It’s going on right now in the United States.”

 Coming back to the role of monitors, a question was raised about the situation with Russia’s elections. It was noted that British parliamentarians writing on the topic had said the manner of the Medvedev election was a concern, that restrictions on international observers were so tight that OSCE refused to take part.

 This drew a quick response from Vitaliy Tretyakov, Editor in chief of Moscovskie novosti, who said:  “Russia appears to be on trial. Elections in Russia haven’t been as democratic as they might be; government machinery has been used, sometimes excessively.”

 Nevertheless he added, “I believe Russia should abolish the use of international monitors. I think monitors go against our sovereignty, so I oppose it. I am for Russian citizens to be witnesses to elections. Elections are part of a larger process that lasts four years -- the electoral cycle. In Russia there is a manageable democracy.

 “Observers watch and broadcast to the world – they are not specialists. They do not know the nuances of the elections or local politics.”

 Ambassador Finley rejoined: “The Russian federation took on certain commitments when it joined the OSCE.”

 “I believe Russia should exit the OSCE,” Tretyakov said.

 Moderator Charles Hodson then turned the topic to the Pakistani elections, asking for the commentary of Hameed Haroon, CEO and Publisher of Pakistan Herald Publications. He described a situation in which President Pervez Musharraf had a record of eight or nine years of stifling what he didn’t like, Haroon said.

 “If you have been snuffing out institutions like a free press and the judiciary, can elections be free?” asked Haroon. “Ultimately he faced problems in Balochistan where a pro-Taliban uprising occurred, based on the war on terror. A new solution had to come in. Musharraf needed an election which would bring in the civilian role while maintaining the military because the military is active in the northwest (fighting the uprising).

 The conducting of elections, which were deemed free and fair, changed things dramatically, Haroon continued. “Before the elections, people were hopeless. After the elections people have hope. Now, journalists have become strong and independent – I don’t think any government would try to enforce curbs.”

 The discussions then moved on to the American elections where, Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski observed, the media gives the process a circus-like quality, picking different words or different aspects than others might choose. The question was raised as to whether or not the media is the correct arbiter of information for the people.

 “The US has 300 million people,” he responded. “How can the candidate reach all of them? The media are a needed intermediary.”

 Yuri Sigov, who writes from Washington for the Moscow publication, Business People, was then asked for his views of the media role in US.

 “First, recognize that the election process in the US is not just a process of Americans electing a president. It reflects on the whole world,” he replied. “The fact is that current elections are very different from the past. This the first time in 12 years that there is a very, very great chance that the US can change its policy.

 “When we speak of outcomes, other countries have their own hopes,” he continued. “To me it is important to see what Americans decide.”

  As to the domestic media, “They are always trying to find new things around the candidate and imply what will happen as a result. For foreign media – it seems to me the interests of Russian media are different. Russian media pays too much attention to the impact on US-Russian relations and they do not look at what will happen for the rest of the world.

 “European journalists are interested in what will happen with the world order. I think that their  more global approach is preferable, and it’s deeper.”

 Danny Schechter, vice president and Executive Producer of MediaChannel.org in the US, gave the American perspective: “We look at our elections through the window of the media. We live in a ‘media-ocracy.’ Five to seven companies decide what most Americans will know or don’t know about our candidates. They are very good at horserace-type coverage. They are not very good at general and complete coverage. As a consequence, when most Americans are asked they often do not know what is going on.”

 At a later point in the discussion he also made the point regarding overall voter knowledge and the media’s role. “With many issues, including energy and the role of banks in engineering the collapse of the credit system, there is a disconnect between what people want and what the media gives them. We have a culture in our schools and in popular culture that avoids what is really going on. It is a shame in our culture.”

 Fellow panelist Dr. Ariel Cohen, Senior research fellow, Russian and Eurasian Studies at the US-based Heritage Foundation, called attention to the effect of non-traditional information outlets, such as the Internet with its bloggers, chatters and web sites.

 “Candidates reach out in strange ways – comedy shows, MTV (Music Television cable channel), WWF (World Wrestling Foundation event and TV productions),” he said.   “The media is changing the debate in our lifetime. The technology is doing it. Candidates are also spending hundreds of millions of dollars.”

 The concept of  reaching out by unusual means struck a chord with Markus Rettich, head of political analysis at the German Media Tenor International organization. “If the candidates are searching out new ways,” he said, “it might mean the traditional media do not fulfill the role and that’s what our data show as well.”

 He shifted the panel back toward traditional media: “We had a lot of journalist bashing this morning. Our job is to see how the journalists can do better.”

 Dr. Brzezinski was then asked for his more detailed views on the media in the US election.

 “I think we have to bear in mind what the function of media in presidential elections is. It involves the choice of a person and a program -- and the program has a domestic and a foreign policy element.

 Looking first at the personages, he observed that “by and large they give Americans a good view of the candidates. The public has a better understanding of Hilary and Obama than they had a year ago.”

 As to the program, he said, the domestic matters such as health care and jobs are the most important, well ahead of international or foreign affairs. “They have a good idea of health care positions. I think they understand where the two Democrats stand on NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) and loss of jobs.”

 “When we come to foreign policy there is only one issue,” he said. “The war in Iraq. That’s all.

The public wants it to end. Hilary and Obama have committed to end it in a year.”

 And, at that point, the understanding and discussion trails off. “There is no discussion about how this will be done; no discussion of what must happen on the military front,” he said. “How do we prepare for possible destabilization? There is no discussion of this.

 As to anything else dealing with the world at large, he said practically nothing makes the radar.

There is some concern about China, but mainly as part of domestic concerns – quality of imported goods, health and safety matters, but, he added, the candidates do not actually compete on these; it’s the media who do so.

 From the audience then, a question was asked about how the results of the US elections may  affect the Middle East, to which Brzezinski responded:

 “I think there is a growing recognition that the test of the American role in the world is in the Middle East. The US needs to become serious about negotiating with Iran and make a serious effort to push Israelis and Palestinians to come to an accord.”

 Asked then about current US policy in Lebanon, Somalia, and other hotspots, he replied “As you may have inferred I am not particularly enamored of US policies in the Middle East, particularly in Iraq. I would hope that new action is taken in Israel and other such places with the new administration.

 “I must say the attitude of Arab countries is not to be too seriously engaged. Recently they have shown more interest, whereas 30 years ago they undermined the attempted actions. They did not wish to be involved in any way. I am not impressed by the historical interest of the Arab powers. That has been one of the elements that has contributed to Middle East problems.”

 In an earlier session at the EAMF conference, Brzezinski had been queried about the rest of the world’s view of America and he referred to the elections in his reply: “We will have an election outcome that I hope will produce a dramatic change in how America is seen in the world and how it acts in the world.”