The History of Democracy in Africa-The Contributions of the Media.

Abstract
One of the renowned phrases in political talk is lord Acton’s cliché that ‘power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.’ It is a recognition of the corrupting influence of power that medieval Europe allowed for the evolution of a fourth estate-namely the press to counter and check on the powers of the original estates of the aristocrats, the clergy and the bourgeoisie. It is from this fact that the importance of the media is derived.

The media is not only important because it reports what the leaders in society do. It is important because it provides a public sphere, through which important issues that affect society are discussed to ensure that decisions taken are taken from an informed point of view. This article explores the role that the media has played in the democratisation process in Africa from the nationalists’ movement to date. For over 100 years, the media has been and still remains an important facet of Africa’s public life.

Introduction
Mazrui, A argues that though Africa is the cradle of mankind and the source of the earliest civilisation in the world as well as being centrally positioned on the globe, it has remained backward because of its inaccessible terrain and the historical conquests of the past that have greatly affected its psyche. As a result of the historical and geographical factors, Africa has always lagged behind both in terms of economic, social and political development. In fact the concept Africa did not exist to the rest of the world until the coming of the European traders, missionaries and administrators.

These arrived on the continent with new ideas that over a short period of time erased centuries of African civilization. Among the new imports to Africa was the concept of democracy. Though in their dealings with African people, the new colonial masters did not institute democratic governance that was back in their countries, but by virtue of interaction they sowed the first seeds of democracy on the continent. Many commentators argue that democracy is a foreign concept and not African. However, Blaug R and Schwarzmantel, J (1988:1) argue to the contrary when they observe that:
Freed now from the grip of the ‘dead white males’ who have dominated the traditional canons of democratic thought, democracy now reaches out to a host of formerly excluded groups, areas and places in society and even in cyberspace.
This means that although the concept of democracy is foreign to Africa, the transitions the two scholars refer to above make it a form of governance that can and has been adopted by the Africans. However, in a situation where Africa is devoid of the institutions and conditions that made democracy and liberalism in Europe, like a middle class and a viable economic set up through industrialisation, it implementation and effectiveness in Africa becomes problematic. This is compounded by what Blaug R and Schwarzmantel, J (1988:10) observes as democracy is expected to occur, “in a society of national homogeneity, where ethnic and national cleavages would not exist to disrupt the equality of the citizens’ deliberation and autonomy.” Given the multiplicity of cleavages and ethnicity in Africa, it would appear that democracy can not flourished. The problems associated with democratic implementation in Africa have been mitigated by a special institution. This institution is the media.

However, to assess the contributions of the media to the historical development of democracy in Africa, there is need to define democracy. Blaug R and Schwarzmantel,J (1988:4) observe that:
The ideal of democracy has never been universally accepted. It has been, and it remains true, criticised both by those who welcome democracy but see existing reality as falling short of their ideal…and also by those who reject the democratic ideal out of hand.
This makes the definition of democracy problematic. Nevertheless, the democratic ideal calls for an inclusive society based on the principle of equality to all. It is the idea of equality that gave raise to the Lincoln paraphrase of democracy as, “…a government of the people by the people and for the people.” Blaug R and Schwarzmantel, J (1988:4) defines democracy in terms of the democratic ideal. They argue that it is:
…a political system and a wider society organised on certain key principles. These principles are sovereignty, freedom as autonomy or self-direction, and equality.
The above definition is amplified by scholars such as Berger. Berger, (2002:22) defines democracy as decision-making power by majority principle, exercised by way of a process that is based on equal rights of participants. The above definition is in line with Pericles’ declaration in Funeral Oration when he says, “our constitution is called democracy because the power is in the hands not of a minority but of the whole people …everyone is equal before the law.” This means that democratic institutions must work to empower people to make decisions within society. In order for democracy and the institutions referred to above to work, there is need for a process of putting these in action. This process is called democratisation. According to Haus (2003:2) democratization refers to a political environment in which, “... a country must choose its leaders through fair and competitive elections, ensure basic civil liberties and respect rule of law”. Van der Veur (2002:81) corroborates the above definition of a democratic society by describing it as a society based on the rule of the majority of the population in a fair and equitable way and with institutions that empower people to participate in the affairs of their society.

The question, then, is how do the media enable and empower people to participate in the affairs of their society. To understand the role that the media plays in democracy, it is important to understand what the media is on one hand and how it functions in a democratic society on the other hand. McQuail (2005:17) defines Mass Communication in terms of mass media, which he says , “…refers to the organised means of communicating openly and at a distance to many receivers within a short time of space.” This means that Mass communication is a way or a process of communicating to many within a limited frame of time and space. McQuail’s definition of Mass Communication is to a larger extent in agreement with that of Baran and Davis (2003:10) who define Mass Communication as, “…when an organisation employs technology as a medium to communicate with a large audience, Mass Communication is said to have occurred.” Using the example of professionals at The New York Times, they show that Mass Communication for all purposes and intents-despite a few points of contention like reception of personalised information or generating information out side the organisation, is about the delivery of information to many people unrestricted by distance and time.

Democracy and the Media
The important role of media to democratisation lies in its ability to reach and influence many people. This is through the transmission of media messages to the masses despite the limitations of space and time. In doing the above, the media creates a public sphere. A public sphere is a forum where key issues in society are discussed, which according to McQuail, D (2004:195) it ideally implies:
…the public sphere as that realm of social life where exchange of information and views on questions of common concern can take place so that public opinion can be formed. The public sphere takes place when citizens, exercising the right of assembly and association, gather as public bodies to discuss the issues of the day.
However, for the public sphere to thrive, it depends on the availability of information to the public about the subject of contention on one hand and whether the people are free to access that information. The availability of information critical to people’s participation in the democratic process is provided by the media. It is this importance of the media that prompt commentators like Andrew Mwenda of The Independent to consistently argued that President Museveni’s crack down on the media is because the media is the only institution that posses a real threat to his hold on power. This is because the opposition is weak and fragmented. His views are in tandem with Hyden and Okigbo (2002:29), who argue quoting Ungar that:
As one well-placed observer has noted, “A free press may, in fact, be more effective than an opposition party in achieving change in an oppressive political system.
This means that media in Africa has been and is crucial to democratisation either though informing and encouraging the people to participate in elections and other democratic activities or creating a forum for discussing democratic issues. In doing the above, the media-which refers to systems of delivering messages to audiences-, would be serving the public interest by opening up the public sphere.

To understand the relationship between the media and democracy, one must on one hand understand the African context, and the different epochs in African development on the other hand. From this perspective, the relationship between media and democracy can be said to be dialectical. Media has been a cause for and a consequence of the different eras of African democratisation process. Media has been a cause of democracy in the sense that at different times in history, the nationalist movements have engaged the media to create and sustain the democratic space. Equally it has been a consequence in the sense that an active and free media have created an enabling atmosphere for debating, informing and agitating for democracy. The above conclusions are in line with Tettey, W (2008) who argues that:
…an informed and responsible citizenry is important for the operation of a free media, thereby making it imperative that the media incorporate the hitherto peripheralised elements of society into the democratic discourse.
A close analysis of the relationship between media and democracy reveals that it brings on board different element of society in the democratic discourse. In Africa, the media has done this during three main eras or stages of the African objective reality.

The Colonial Stage
The first era of media participation in the democratic process, was way back at the turn of the 19th century. The first media house to set shop in Africa did so in 1792 and by 1800 there were viable press in Sierra Leone, Egypt and South Africa. However, it is between the late 1940s to the late 1960s, during the fight for independence that the media came to the fore fighting for democracy and freedom. It must be noted that right from the 1900s, the media was active in contesting the democratic space and demanding for self-determination in the colonies. Hyden and Okigbo (2002:33) argue that African nationalists like Kenyatta, Nyerere, Senghor, Nkurumah and Azikiwe were directly involved in the print media and that:
The first was the indigenous language press that emerged as a result of lack of interest in the African causes in the metropolitan or settler controlled media.
With examples like: Muigwithania, Ramogi, Munno, Taifa Empya, and Mfanyakazi, it is clear that the nationalists used the media to address the democratic issues that affected the African which were ignored by the colonial masters.

The nationalist movements and leaders used the media in different ways to further the democratic agenda. It was the main tool used to mobilise the people for the struggle against colonialism. This was by extending the discursive realm; that is to say, provide the populace with issues to discuss. The media was crucial because it also had a wider reach. It reported to the people the news about the progress of the struggle as well as the strategies to employ in the fight against colonialism. In doing this, the media extended the boundaries of freedom which consequently resulted in the creation of a vibrant civil society that was very crucial in the nationalist movement. Hyden and Okigbo (2002:36) observe thus:
That the discursive realm that evolved in the 1950s in African colonies was civic in the sense of focussing on the rights and duties that the Africans should enjoy in their own countries…print media sympathetic to the nationalists played their part by not only helping to institutionalise the democratic agenda, but also provide an understanding among their adversaries of the justification of their stand.
Therefore, considering the role attributed to the media, it is plausible to argue that it contributed a lot in the democratisation process in Africa. However, it should be pointed out that the print media was more instrumental, since it had less control than the radio that was colonial government owned and controlled. The role of the media was so crucial that the colonial administrators had to read such reports to know what was going on in the colonies.

The media was influential at this time because of its nature. Zielger, D and Ashante, M (1992:11) observes that:
The indigenous African newspapers of this era were political and spoke out on issues related to the rights of Africans throughout the world. The newspapers were seen as the most effective means of reaching the masses.
With such an observation, there is no doubt that the media has contributed to the democratisation process in Africa. The African press contributed a lot during this phase of Africa’s transformation from colonial rule to independence. These were mostly clandestine ragtag entities. Their sole aim was to arouse consciousness of the Africans. Hyden, G, Leslie, M& Ogundimu,F (2002:9) point out that: “…many African countries had a fledgling press at the time of independence.” It is these media outlets that acted as the vanguard in the fight against colonialism. For example Tanzania had over twenty local newspapers before independence and the Bataka uprising and the boycotts of the 1950s in Uganda were spearheaded by the local press like Munno and Taifa Empya that worked underground and published pamphlets.

It should be pointed out that the dominant genre used for political emancipation by these nationalists was the press. This is because the colonial government had total control of the broadcast media. Radio was the media of the oppressor and the colonialists. It was not until the 1950s when independent African countries employed the radio as a means of spreading the revolution. Having first been introduced in South Africa in 1920, followed by Kenya in 1928 and later on Uganda in 1953, radio was used as a tool to suppress African dissent on one hand and to entertain the settler community on the other hand. The above observation is confirmed by Van der Veur (2002:83) who argues that radio was seen:
As an instrument of advanced administration, an instrument, not only and perhaps not even primarily for entertainment but rather for the enlightenment and education of more backward sections of the population.
It is clear that at this stage, radio was used to advance the colonial agenda. This means that radio was used to further the colonial agenda and in so doing, it automatically suppressed the nationalistic agenda of the Africans.

The fact that radio was important in mobilisation and shaping the consciousness of a society, freedom movements used it in their nationalist programmes which worked to established not only an anti-colonial sensitisation, but also a democratic space in Africa. The case in point is Nasser’s Pan-African Voice of Free Africa that was set up in 1955 that broadcasted in English and other local languages to spur the revolutionary overthrow of colonial rule. Other broadcasts engaged in a similar democratisation agenda included; Voice of Namibia, Voice of fighting in Algeria, Voice of Eritrean Revolution to mention but a few. From this perspective, it is plausible to argue that clandestine radio played an important role in the fight for independence and consequently the democratisation in Africa.

It goes without saying that the media played an important role in the democratisation process in Africa and that it was a major force behind the liberation and independence struggles and success in Africa. The question though, was whether these achievements and roles of the media could be transferred to the new era. If the importance of the media, as demonstrated during the struggle for independence could be harnessed towards national development and complete the emancipation of the people, then the African continent would have developed very fast. The next section examines the relationship between the media and democracy during the post independence era.

Post Independence Reality
Many commentators on African issues seem to a large extent to agree that the two decades after independence, were characterised with pessimism and the collapse of institutions. This is in part, because the new leaders were unable to resonate with the civic aspirations set in motion by the nationalist struggles of the previous decades and what Fonkem (2005:1) refer to as: “an infatuation with power and an incurable penchant for perpetuating their rule irrespective of the sovereign wish for the people.” This meant as Hyden and Okigbo (2002:38) observe: “…the transformation of the discursive realm from being civic to becoming parochial and local.” The transformation referred to above-where the new elites turned to their tribes and other allegiances in the dispensation of state power, meant that any institution that challenged them had to be suppressed. Hyden and Okigbo (2002:39) observe that:
…it did not take long thereafter for the same media to become strangled by the very masters they had helped to power…in a simplistic fashion; the radio became an instrument of political propaganda aimed at serving the interest of the incumbent elite.
The disappearing freedom of the press was carried out under the guise of national development and stability with the tacit cover of the modernisation theory of development that argued that democracy would only come after economic development and improvement in education.

The transit from democracy to dictatorship greatly undermined the role of the media in the democratisation process. Since the political space was at the biding of the political class’s pleasure and permission, there was little the media could do. Odhiambo, L (1991:23) states that,
:…in countries where the levers of power are in the hands of a state bureaucracy, the monopolistic control over the media , often supplemented by official censorship, makes it clear that the media serves the ends of the dominant elite.
Odhiambo’s observations are true to the relationship between the media and the state during this period. The dominant political class used all means at its dispose to coerce and emasculate the press, that what was left served as mouth pieces and propaganda outlets of the state. The political class enforced the control through stringent legal provisions, censorship and at times nationalisation of the media. This is akin to what Aliro; K (2004:5) alludes to when he observes:
The scary thing in Uganda today is that president Museveni and his people have figured out a way of bringing the media under their spin….by reminding Mr. William Pike of his contract that had run out to force him to support government positions… The Red Pepper has been recruited to do the dirty work of smearing opponents through access to leaked documents of bank loans, political scandals...
These measures meant that the influence of the media declined and so was the readership. Hyden and Okigbo (2002:40) use Uganda as an example when they state that: “Circulation figures for the main newspapers in the country went down by 50% or more,” during Amin’s rule from 1971 to 1979. It is not only the readership that declined, but so were the newspapers themselves. Across Africa the media houses of the previous decades went under because of the conditions they worked under. No reporter or editor would have been willing to risk his/her life for freedom and democracy. Or as Aliro, K (2004:5) aptly puts it they were not: “going to carry the banner of independence as long as it could cost them revenue from government advertising or licences.” It could be added, their life.

The role of the media was redefined in the 1960s to the 1970s because of the international community obsession with need to develop Africa. The understanding at the time was that the media was a vehicle that could lead to development. This was in line with the modernisation paradigm of development. The rationale that determined media and communication relevancy was the assumption, Hyden, G, Leslie, M& Ogundimu,F (2002:2)
The focus in those days was not directly on democracy but rather on socio-economic development, the assumption being that democracy would only be feasible once society had been modernised. Industrialisation, urbanisation, modern western education, in combination with the spread of the market economy, would provide the conditions that are congenial to the growth of democracy.
Theorists like Lerner argued that urbanisation and literacy were prerequisites of modernisation and consequently democracy. This assumption was ill-advised because it created a scenario that fostered the growth of dictatorships in Africa since the role of the media was not to criticise but blindly support government policies. This in turn, created a situation where the leaders were not accountable to the population and reduced the media to mere propagandist tools of the elite class and government. In addition governments went out of their ways to control the flow of information, which meant that the populace was not empowered to exercise their democratic rights.

The failures of the modernisation model of development led to the adoption of the New World Information and Communication Order and the New World Economic Order. The MacBride commission and the endeavours of UNESCO in the 1970s and 1980s redefined the role of communication in development. Hyden, G, Leslie, M& Ogundimu,F (2002:5 ) argue that:
the relatively linear and simple development model that they had advocated for was gradually abandoned in favour of other approaches that highlighted different aspects of development…The redefinition of development in the 1990s, therefore, has given rise to new forms of communication, to convey messages downwards, upwards and sideways.
This new model takes cognisance of the oral nature of African communication and as such is in agreement with Melkote (2001:249) where he states that:
User-initiated activity at local levels was considered essential for successful village-level development. Thus emphasis was not so much on top-to-down flows of information and messages… Bottom-to-top flows from users to sources, and horizontal communication flows of communication between people.
Such an approach does not only facilitate development but also empowers people to participate in the democratisation process of the society. If this were to happen, it would prove the Hebernas Jurgen ideal as put by McQuail, D (2004:195) as:
…the public sphere as that realm of social life where exchange of information and views on questions of common concern can take place so that public opinion can be formed. The public sphere takes place when citizens, exercising the right of assembly and association, gather as public bodies to discuss the issues of the day.
The above conceptualisation of the role of communication in the democratic process is the desirable end. All players acknowledge that the participatory approach where the civil society and the public listen to each other in terms of the important questions of the day have changed the democratisation process in Africa.

Instead of the media acting as a public sphere where issues affecting the people could be discussed and solutions got, it instead became a tool for the control and oppression of the people. This view is advanced by none other than the father of African independence, Nkwame Nkrumah. Ansah, P (1993:5) reports thus:
In the struggle for African emancipation, the newspaper became an indispensable tool. As part of the strategy for displacing colonial institutions…establishing an indigenous process to counter the propaganda served by the colonialists.
Ironically, as the media fought against the propaganda of the colonialists, it turned out to be the tool of patrimonial propaganda of the elite class. By implication, the media ceased serving the greater good of the people and society. The failure of the media to play a positive role in the democratic process and development necessitated a change of direction. The new impetus of the media is discussed in the section below.

The New Era of Liberalisation
Kaberuka, D (2008:7) observes:
While there remain pockets of instability and arbitrary rule, the democratic change is becoming the norm…taking its proper place in the global community of nations. It is clear that to get to this point, there are preconditions-good governance, removing instability, building capable states.
Many countries on the African continent have embraced democracy and this has been possible because of the involvement of people in the political issues of their society as a result of accessing information about these key debates. This relationship between democracy and communication can best be defined by Public Sphere theory. The theory of public sphere as postulated by Hebernas Jurgen and as refined by Fourie (2007:139) holds that:
…the modern market oriented media undermines the idea and ideal of the public sphere as a place for debate, where consensus can be reached on the basis of which rational decisions and actions can be taken.
Though big business undermines the notion of the public sphere as an arena where different ideas contend, it is important to note the importance of communication in the governance of a society. Following the libertarian theory, the media ought to be a market place of ideas where all ideas and views are provided to the public to choose the best.

The more recent phase in the relationship between media and democracy started in the 1990s. This period has been referred to as the new liberation and was made possible by the collapse of communism, the advancement of the liberalisation theory of development and the rethinking of development AID. The new paradigms called for participation in the Hebernas Jurgen model of the public sphere as quoted by McQuail, D (2004:195) to ideally imply:
…the public sphere as that realm of social life where exchange of information and views on questions of common concern can take place so that public opinion can be formed. The public sphere takes place when citizens, exercising the right of assembly and association, gather as public bodies to discuss the issues of the day.
The call for participative development has reinvigorated the media in such a way that it now provides the forum of discussing the important issues in society. The media is also important in creating awareness, challenging the parochial authority of the leadership, advancing accountability and reporting on corruption. This is best exemplified by the impact of The Monitor, since its inception in 1992 and The Weekly Observer in the early 2000s. The two papers have worked tirelessly to promote the democratic agenda through their reporting that they are viewed as the only credible opposition to the NRM government. This is also reflected in the restriction of government advertising to The Monitor in the 1990s and the numerous court cases that both the papers have faced.

The media has filled this democratic void and obligation due to technological advancements in communication: that has seen the mushrooming of several TV stations, FM radios and newspapers, as a result of the policy of liberalisation. By the nature of these developments and reality, the media is hard to control. The retransmission of reputable media houses’ programmes on democracy and lack of accountability in Africa, like the BBC, CNN and VOA and to a larger extent, locally produced talk shows commonly referred to as the “Bimeza,” has not only extended the democratic discursive realm, but also given a voice to the population to participate in the democratic agenda.

Nevertheless, this role of the media has not been devoid of challenges. Through legal provisions, and outright suppression, the media is constantly under attack by the government. As the former editor of The Monitor, Charles Onyango Obbo once commented, he spent half his time in court and not in the news room on one or another case. The notable among them the Candida Lakony and the Chopper stories, whereby the later resulted in the temporary closure of The Monitor.

It is true that media plays an important function in facilitating the democratic agenda. However, like elsewhere in the world the democratic space, is a space that is always contested. This is because it is never in the interest of the ruling class to be put under the scrutiny of the fourth estate. At the same time, the media expected by the people to make the other sectors of government accountable, least there is chaos in society. Given the conditions in Africa, the media in playing this role has meant lots of challenges. It is important to note that despite the challenges, it has played an important part in the democratisation process in Africa.


On the political front, communication has expanded the arena of freedom and thus created a strong opposition. This has created a situation where the government is scrutinised and consequently the people are involved in the discussion of important issues that affect them. It has also shaped the agenda of political discussions as well as providing a forum for discussing important issues. This has been as a result of the press overcoming any barriers erected by the government to get the information.

Advances in technology have contributed to the democratisation process in Africa. The wider reach of radio, the reduced cost of purchase and operation-dry cells frees radio for example- and the increased numbers of radios in Africa have done a lot to widen the space of political discussion. For example in Uganda, the “Bimezas” have greatly contributed to the political discussion in the country. The other technological advancement that has contributed to democracy is the internet. The fact that it can be accessed by anyone, any where and government can not easily control the content and access has opened up the democratic space. The case in point is the website, www.radiokatwe.com during the 2006 presidential election. The down side is the cost of access and equipment is so high.
Media ownership and financial considerations are the other factors that have had an impact on the role of communication in the process of democracy. Aliro, K (2004:3) argues that:
In resource-scarce societies the state regime often exercises a monopoly on materials and services that are vital to the media functioning: circulation inflated by government purchasing of copy and advertising revenues dependent on government advertising.
Such power means that both government and private press are under control of the government. This control must definitely compromise the credibility of the media houses. The case in point is the closure of NTV to force the Daily Monitor to transfer Conrad Nkutu as Nagenda boasted. The way out is for the media to canvass for finances from capital markets to ensure financial independence. For example The Nation Media Group being profitable on the Nairobi Stock Exchange, means that it can not be controlled influenced by the government. For purposes of economic expedience, even western powers may not push the undemocratic countries to implement democratic reforms. As Jamal, V (2008:13) argues:
In the present conjecture of depleting oil, not many people believe the great democracies of the world will risk imposing their democratising standards on Africa.
This means that economic considerations of the media owners, the government or foreign government come into play in the enforcement of democracy. When democracy is beneficial to the economic interest of the powers to be, then it will be supported. However, when it threatens the financial earnings of the stakeholders, then they will turn the other way.

Conclusion
What is undisputed is the fact that the media plays an important role in democratisation process. Though democracy is alien in Africa, since its inception, it has taken root and the almost continent coverage of democracy that Kaberuka refers to has been possible because of the efforts of the media. The role of the media has been turbulent and is closely linked to the material conditions in Africa at different times in history. The media spearheaded independence movements from the 1800s to 1950s. However, after independence it was hijacked and was used to serve the dictatorship. The new liberation offers a promise of the media working with other institution to empower the masses in a truly democratic way. Whether this is sustainable or not is another issue.



REFERENCES
Aliro, K (2004) “Media’s Role in Political Transition: The Challenge of
Manipulative Publicity. Convention Paper.
Ansah, P. (1993) “Kwame Nkurumah and the Mass Media” in Kwame
Arhin (ed) The Life and Work of Kwame Nkurumah. Trenon, Africa World Press.
Blaug,R and Schwarzmantel,J (1988) Democracy: A Reader. Edinburgh
Univ. Press.
Fourie, P.J (2007). Media Studies: Media History, Media and Society.
Cape Town, Juta.
Hyden, G, Leslie, M& Ogundimu,F (2002) Media and Democracy in
Africa. Uppsala, Nordiska Afrikainstitutet.
Jamal, V (2008) “Meaning of New Scramble for Africa.” In Sunday
Monitor, March 2nd. No. 063
Kaberuka, D (2008) “Africa No Longer A Continent of Despair.” In Sunday
Monitor, March 2. No.063
Mazrui, A. (2008) Africa –a Triple Heritage. TV Documentary aired on
WBS 30TH March, 2008
McQuail, D. (2004) Mass Communication Theory. Sage, London.
Melkote,S.R&Steeves, L.H (2001) Communication for Development in the
Third World: Theory and Practice for Empowerment. New Delhi, Sage.
Odhiambo, L. (1991) “Development Journalism in Africa. Capitulation of
the 4th Estate. African Media Review. Vol 5 No. 2
Tettery, W (2008) “The Media and Democratisation in
Africa:Contributions, Constraints and Concerns of Private Press” @http://mcs.sagepub.com/cgj
Ziegler, D. and Ashante, M. (1992) Thunder and Silence. The Mass Media
in Africa. Trenton, Africa World press.