Strengthening Media: State Support, Journalist Welfare, and Recognition of Their Role in Afghan Society

Speech at at the Inauguration of the Journalists' Support Fund

Keypoints: 

• Constitutional Rule: The Constitution as the sole "rules of the game" for the state.
• Public Accountability: Media is accountable to the nation, not to the government.
• End of Censorship: Abolishing the historical "censorship complex" once and for all.
• Positive Liberty: Balancing individual freedom with the safety of the community.
• Access to Information: Implementing the world’s top-ranked law for transparency.
• Financial Support: Launching the Journalists’ Fund to ensure professional independence.
• Owner Responsibility: Mandating insurance and legal labor rights for all media staff.
• National Unity: Treating attacks on any ethnic group as an attack on the State.

In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

My honorable brother, His Excellency Ustad Danesh; honorable members of the Cabinet; Dr. Mohib, the National Security Advisor; the Governor of Kabul; the Senior Deputy Minister for Security; General Sahib; Deputy Ministers; and especially the respected journalists and members of the media family; Mr. Mortazawi, who has worked hard in this sector; Mr. Arian; all colleagues and attendees: Peace be upon you, and the mercy and blessings of Allah!

Mr. Alokozay and all members of the private sector: Today is a special day. A major part of its significance is that the Constitution is being implemented as the book of principles and the rules of the game in Afghanistan. It is our Constitution that connects this great and magnificent nation with its brilliant history. Any game played outside the framework of the Constitution hinders the consolidation of the system and order. Conversely, every principle from the mandates of the Constitution that takes a practical form further strengthens the rule of law and the democratic system.

The vision and conduct of the National Unity Government have been centered on the implementation of the Constitution. Today, I heartfully thank Ustad Danesh, who chaired twenty-two sessions regarding one of the most vital aspects of our people’s lives and political existence. Since your remarks, Ustad, were very comprehensive, I shall speak more briefly.

Freedom of Expression and Shared Responsibility

Freedom of expression constitutes the foundation for the strengthening and expansion of our rights and duties as citizens. Here, we are not in a state of confrontation between the government and the media; our common goal is the consolidation of the citizenship rights that our Constitution has granted to every Afghan. The government and the media share a joint responsibility toward the citizens of Afghanistan, for if it were not for the great citizens of this country, this nation, God forbid, would not exist.

We must understand to whom we are accountable. The media is not accountable to the government; it is accountable to the nation of Afghanistan. Since the government is formed on the basis of free elections, its accountability is naturally and continuously renewed. My request is that the media take the people’s judgment of them seriously. Specifically, I ask that you sit with the esteemed religious scholars of this country—who have raised a number of serious issues—in a constructive, useful, and comprehensive discussion to strengthen and reinforce the Constitution of Afghanistan.

The method of the committee's work—Ustad, honorable sister, Mr. Nikzad, Mr. Boomia, and Mr. Wardak (who is not present and for whose swift recovery we pray)—is a model for collaborative and purposeful work. My request to all ministers and government departments is to adopt this model of joint cooperation with our respected media and apply it to all other affairs and government relations with various sectors, including the private sector and civil society.

Our main theme is partnership, not confrontation. The President of Afghanistan does not have the right to confront [the media]. It is my hope that the patience we have shown serves as a model for demonstrating tolerance and pursuing shared national goals. As Ustad mentioned, the media has the right to criticize; indeed, without criticism, the media cannot function. However, the judgment of whether that criticism is beneficial or harmful is made by society, not the government. We are not your judge; the people of Afghanistan are the judge, and I am confident that the people will always judge fairly.

I want to offer my congratulations on this joint effort, especially to you, Ustad, and to our colleagues, including Mr. Afzali, whom you mentioned.

Positive Liberty vs. Negative Liberty and Historical Context

The core issue is the distinction between positive liberty and negative liberty. This distinction was introduced by a British philosopher about seventy years ago. Positive liberty is that freedom whose exercise does not harm other segments of society and does not specifically endanger the liberty of individuals. Negative liberty is that which puts others at risk. The necessity of distinguishing between the two must, of course, remain in the hands of the respected media themselves, as they can discuss virtue, the public good, and other matters as citizens.

The reason that patience was necessary is that Afghanistan, unfortunately, spent the 19th century and a large part of the 20th century under censorship. I want to specifically commemorate three of our great journalists:

• Muhiyuddin Anis: The founder of Anis and the author of the book The Voice of the Nation, one of the best treatises written on citizenship rights, who sacrificed his life in Dehmazang prison.
• Abdul Hadi Davi: A man who spent eighteen years in prison. On the day he was released, he was appointed Chief Secretary and went directly to his office before even going home. He was the second editor-in-chief of Aman-e-Afghan.
• Dr. Mahmoudi: The head of Neda-ye Khalq and the license holder of Neda-ye Khalq, who was also only permitted to return home during his final week of life.

Because we have endured censorship—along with dozens of other journalists who worked under its shadow—there was a need for our "censorship complex" to be vented (President smiles). It is my hope that the conduct of the National Unity Government can prove that there is no longer a need for a censorship complex. Censorship will never happen again; it is no longer possible.

I hope your union will make a few proposals so that we may name some streets in memory and honor of these esteemed figures and other great journalists, especially those who have been martyred, so that their memories remain permanent.

I have requested Ustad Ghazanfar to collect a century’s worth of editorials to be fundamentally placed at the service of the Afghan people, especially the youth. One mistake existing today is the thought that everything we do began only seventeen years ago. This country possesses a magnificent intellectual and political history. We must recognize the heroes of freedom of speech. In this regard, do not forget the late Ghubar, whom you all know as a historian; he established newspapers twice. Setara-ye Afghan, which was published from the Shomali during the time of Amanullah Khan, and Watan magazine, for which Ustad Ghubar was the license holder and the late Farhang was the editor-in-chief. These personalities are worthy of mention and reflection. Fortunately, I possess a large portion of these works and have instructed that they be reprinted and made available to everyone, so that we may enter an open debate acknowledging that we were not born yesterday. You are the guardians of a great sacrifice, and this sacrifice must be honored.

The problem that these four figures and our other personalities faced was access to information. They did not have access to information; every time something was printed, it was stamped as "government property" or "monopolized." I congratulate everyone, especially Ustad Danesh and you all who have worked hard on it, on the ratification and printing of the law [Access to Information Law]. However, the law is only the beginning. The implementation of this law requires a massive change in our culture—both in the culture of governance and the culture of our media and research.

Information is power and responsibility. I remember when I was very young and a new teaching assistant in the Faculty of Literature during the era of Daoud Khan; the National Archives had bought several hundred documents from the market. I asked for permission to see these documents. For an entire month, the librarian would not give me access. Finally, I told him, "But you bought these from the market!" He replied, "You don't understand; tomorrow you will write something, the government will get angry with you, and then they will ask me who gave you the documents." And what period were the documents from? The era of Abdur Rahman Khan.

Our culture of governance requires a fundamental change, and my instruction to all departments is to take the law seriously. Defying this law [Access to Information Law] and refusing to cooperate with researchers and investigative journalists is against the law, and violating the law is a crime.

The other part concerns you: what kind of atmosphere do the information-holders create? My point is, are we looking at the future of the country and the end of thirty-nine years of crisis, or do we only want to create headlines? If you and I are partners in the implementation of the Constitution, then we must clearly understand our shared responsibility. It is essential that information serves to strengthen national unity, because without national unity, worldly wealth holds no value. Our national unity is our greatest capital; if it were not for our national unity, Afghanistan would not be a country today. Thus, it is vital to invest in national unity.

My final point in this section is that the law which, fortunately, the international community has recognized as the best law, is a necessity of the 21st century. This means that in this century, access to information has become so vast and rapid that we are now dealing with the saturation of information rather than its mere existence. Therefore, there is a clear need for our style of governance and national discourse to fundamentally change.

Congratulations on the Fund and Financial Pledges

The third part is my congratulations on the inauguration of the Fund. I congratulate everyone, and to support it, it is necessary to take certain actions. Personally, I pledge 5 million Afghanis to this fund. Furthermore, since the Afghan government's budget is finalized at the end of the year, Mr. Qayoumi will pledge 10 million Afghanis to this fund on behalf of the government.

However, my request to you, Dr. Qayoumi, is to conduct a clear review under the supervision of Ustad Danesh to determine how much the Afghan government should commit annually to strengthen this important fund. It is essential that we take this fund seriously and not view it as a one-time gesture.

From a legal perspective, Ustad, please weigh the parameters, and from the perspective of resources, Dr. Sahib, what Mr. Boomia mentioned is extremely necessary. It is better to survive on our own meager means than to have our hands stretched out to everyone. The government has enough resources so that the hands of journalists are not extended toward embassies and others.

My third pledge is that I have contacted international civil society foundations. I have asked Mr. Chakhan-souri, and I ask you as well, to come forward with a joint proposal. In short, share with me what you want and how it will be spent. There are several organizations—I will not name them now—with whom I have spoken, and on that basis, we can provide resources to strengthen freedom of expression and support journalists.

My fourth point is directed toward the media owners themselves. You have not implemented the Labor Law to a large extent. Now is the time to take an active role in creating insurance for our journalists. It is unacceptable for our media outlets to trample upon the law. Failing to pay taxes is one thing, but if the rights of journalists are not implemented, the law must be applied to the media owners. My request is that you do not let it reach the point where we must intervene. Just as we are extending a helping hand, it is necessary for media owners to contribute as well. Some may lack the means and should be assisted, but others—by the grace of God—possess sufficient resources today. Currently, our contribution is like a "dervish’s gift" (a small token), but we must take a step further. Insha'Allah, we expect that further step.

Fifth, I ask the private sector to assist this important fund to the extent of their capability, and Insha'Allah, they will. The primary focus of the fund, I hope, will be on the families of the martyrs. We must continue through individual contributions, as each of us has done to the extent of our means. The majority of the families of media martyrs are in difficult financial situations. There is a clear necessity to send a strong message to them and to the wounded through the strengthening of this fund: that their sacrifice and martyrdom will not be forgotten. They are truly the martyrs of the path of freedom, and freedom of expression is the guarantor of all our other freedoms. Therefore, I ask everyone to help as much as possible. I thank Ustad Danesh, the Attorney General, the Ministry of Interior, the General Directorate of National Security, and especially you, Mr. Boomia! Two years ago, when you were in conflict, you did not think you would be in such a pleasant situation today. Your good spirits are very important to me; may God protect you! Regarding the other problems that have been resolved, the patience, law-abiding nature, and commitment of Ustad Danesh were so great that I placed this burden on him. He always carries these heavy loads, and Insha'Allah, he will carry more of them to their destination.

Elections, National Challenges, and Security

My final point concerns the elections and our national security. Regarding the elections, since Ustad Danesh said everything of importance and Mr. Boomia repeated it—a beautiful repetition—my words are very simple. Elections are the fundamental test of the rule of law and the implementation of our Constitution. There was some ambiguity for me because the Constitution specifies five years, and then mentions specific dates. You saw that for five years, following the advice of Mr. Danesh and Dr. Abdullah, we did not accept granting ourselves extra authority. For the first time, the Presidential election is being held based on the specific mandate of the Constitution.

A national discourse is required here. The most important test is distinguishing between positive liberty and negative liberty within the framework of our elections. Characters are assassinated, national ideas are killed—or we can choose unity. Why do we need unity? Because we face major challenges. The first major problem is peace. We must reach a consensus on peace. The country has a consensus that peace is necessary, but the price of that peace and the specific mechanisms required are matters for debate. No part of Afghanistan can remain deprived or excluded from peace. All classes, ethnicities, and directions must come toward peace. Clearly, this is a great opportunity for you.

Hunger: 40 percent of our brothers, sisters, and especially our children go to sleep at night without having eaten. In the villages, the issue is simple. The classification in the villages and the poor areas of our cities is very straightforward: who eats three times a day and can afford it; who eats twice; who eats once; and the fourth category is those who are wandering in search of their daily bread. Let us turn the election into a debate on how to remove hunger.

Thirdly, how do we achieve economic growth? There are five to ten major themes upon which this great nation must reach a consensus, and the election is the most important tool for this. Your role lies in this.

What is especially necessary on Saturday is complete transparency. The government has neither the will nor the intention to interfere. I was approached hundreds of times to form a party, but I said that this does not yield results from the top down. If someone builds a party, they should build it from the bottom up to achieve results. It is clearly necessary that the results be acceptable to the great nation of Afghanistan. We truly appreciate the participation of the nation and the vast number of candidates. When there are 2,600 candidates, it is a sign that we have taken the elections seriously. The election debates are extremely serious, and it is hoped they will yield results. Similarly, the ground must be prepared for the Presidential election to be a national debate with broad participation.

My last point is the specific environment of our national security. Today, unfortunately, the form of war has changed in two ways. First, our national unity and our freedoms are under attack. What do more than twenty attacks on West Kabul signify? To be clear: an attack on any Hazara or Shia of Afghanistan is an attack personally on the President of Afghanistan and this system. That is unacceptable. Similarly, an attack on any great ethnicity, woman, or child of Afghanistan is an attack on the system. We cannot accept this; we cannot accept division. We neither accept it, nor tolerate it, nor do we have the patience for it. There, we have only will. Anyone who attacks our national unity is our enemy, and we accept this enmity with open eyes to crush them to the end. This is not acceptable!

Honorable sisters and brothers! The discussion is about distinguishing the fundamental enemy—the enemy of stability, unity, and the progress of Afghanistan—from one another, rather than clashing among ourselves. Our most important legacy from the sacrifices of our ancestors, fathers, and different generations is our national unity. The Constitution is the result of free debate and the consensus of the people of Afghanistan. You were all witnesses, both in the Emergency Loya Jirga and the Constitutional Loya Jirga; in the history of logic, I believe this was an unparalleled result and act of unity. Therefore, it is essential in this environment that you, as united citizens of Afghanistan, consider any threat to any citizen as a threat to yourselves. Without Afghanistan, do we have any meaning? Did we not go through migrations? Were the discussions being held today even possible in exile? Could you have held this debate in Pakistan, Iran, or America? Why is the debate possible today? Because we are in a free Afghanistan and we have a Constitution that, by the grace of God, is among the best laws, and we are committed to it. I thank you all once again for treating each other with strength and kindness over these two years. The sweet words that reached me were more than the bitter ones, but if you could speak harshly, there was no better example of tolerance and endurance than Ustad Danesh. What we remember in the end was the result, and Insha'Allah, the results will be many times sweeter than this.