Kae Matundu-Tjiparuro The NBC management may have its reasons for suspending, and eventually changing, the format of its call-in programmes, both on the national service and the various language services. I tried to listen to the NBC Director-General the other day on the Otjiherero Language Service trying to rationalise the decision. I am saying trying to listen, because despite listening to the DG’s rationalisation I am not convinced by his attempted motivation. I even tried to scan the print media in case perhaps I would find a more reasoned motivation, but to no avail. Consequently, I am compelled to conclude that more than anything this decision is just a management decision and not a freedom of the media, or freedom of expression decision. What I mean by this is that until the NBC’s management convinces the public otherwise, on the face of it the decision does not seem to be motivated by a desire to protect, shepherd and improve the freedom of expression environment on the airwaves. Never again shall the freedom of expression be the same as we have become accustomed to over the past 17 years of our independence, or since the innovation of the chat shows. The NBC management can try to assuage us that the chat shows return in a different format. Yes, it may return in a different format, but it would never be itself again. One would have thought the first mission and calling of the managers of this public broadcaster is to defend the right of the people to speak for themselves and on the topic of their choice. However, this does not seem to be what is driving these managers in their decision to change the format of these chat shows. Most insensitive is that the NBC’s decision comes a few days before World Press Freedom Day when the world celebrates important milestones in media freedom. The chat shows are the only programmes the NBC can front as the only living example 17 years after independence of opening up its airwaves to the rightful owners of these airwaves – the people. Not only for their sake, but if they are to exercise their right to speak out through a free press, which is a hallmark of a democratic society. The NBC management seems oblivious, if not ignorant, to this fundamental right. At every occasion of our independence anniversary celebration, hardly any politician has not been harping on the peace and stability we have been enjoying. I wish to submit that the right of the people to speak out through a free press, and thus through these chat shows, has been very much instrumental in the establishment of peace and stability and its sustenance. Thus, tampering with this right can be nothing but retrogression and returning to the horrendous past when our rights used to be trampled upon. I may not have been a regular listener to the Chat Show but when time allows I have now and then been tuning into the Otjiherero Language Service’s equivalent of the Chat Show, Tjirimeyo. I must admit that at times debates have been acrimonious, but I shall never say they have bordered on hate speech or anything akin to it as the NBC DG is trying to make us believe. Callers may not have been the most diplomatic whenever they have raised what is genuinely on their chests but they by no means can be said to have been agitating tribal sentiments. If anything, they have just been passionate about what has been bothering them. The times when debates were heated were because of the passion of the callers about the issues. As time has shown, callers and communities have through these chat shows not only been able to rekindle their emotions on the issues but put them on the political agenda. Is this not a typical example of a living participatory democracy? The NBC’s latest decision seems to be going against this established and cherished tradition. Instead of allowing for the channeling of these emotions and rekindling them, the NBC now proposes to bottle them up. Not only that, but it also seems to be abrogating itself and its presenters the prerogative of what the society can and should discuss at any one point. Unlike in the past, when callers could seek to express themselves on any subject of their choice which may be of concern to them and which they are passionate about, they would now be forced into having to talk about a subject of the NBC’s own choosing. I don’t understand – if callers are using own resources to call into such programmes to raise issues of concern to them, why should they be told what issues should be of concern to them? Don’t they have the right to talk about anything that concerns them? Why should people be compelled to speak about issues that may not be of concern to them? At least when they speak on issues of concern to them, they would have spoken their minds and may in the process have expiated themselves. On the other hand, compelling them to speak on issues they may not be passionate about is highly artificial and hypocritical. Compelling them to speak on such issues presupposes their opinions shall be taken seriously. Otherwise calling and speaking would be for own sake. To say the least, the latest NBC’s decision is a slap in the face of such progress. One also wonders why should all the chat shows suffer because of the uncontrolled behaviour of a few callers on one chat show and the inability of presenters and the NBC to keep them in check? Should the whole democratic dispensation suffer because of one or two callers whose excesses have even been few and far between? The majority of the callers on these chat shows have generally been well behaved. In fact, by this decision the NBC management seems to be putting a vote of no-confidence in what has generally been a good crowd of callers and listeners. The decision smacks of political cajoling and one wonders to what extent it is really inspired by the good or the right of the people to speak out in mind. It is unknown to what extent the NBC management may have consulted with media specialists it this regard other than listening to their masters’ voices whoever they may be? I suspect the NBC may be addressing the wrong issue. The chat shows are mere conduits for the airing by ordinary people of pertinent issues. So please, these are the issues that we must tackle, not the chat shows through which such issues are brought to our attention as media gatekeepers, politicians, parliamentarians and what have you. Not only that, but it also seems to be covering up its own inability and that of its presenters. Last but not least, allow me to quote from former USA Supreme Court Justice William Brennan as he once encapsulated the rights of free speech and free press: “A profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited (and not circumscribed), robust, and wide open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.” After everything has been said and done, the NBC management may differ with the views of the callers but it must defend to death their right to say it. That’s the dictum of every media operator worth her/his salt. Is this what the NBC is doing with the latest decision? It remains to be seen!