The mass media – often referred to as just “the media”– are usually understood with reference to the printed press and to radio and television broadcasters. In recent years, the definition has perhaps become broader, encompassing the Internet in its various forms and other new forms of electronic distribution of news and entertainment, such as short message services (SMS) to mobile telephones.

The mass media are essential to publicize of democratic elections. A free and fair election is not only about casting a vote in proper conditions, but also about having adequate information about parties, policies, candidates and the election process itself so that voters can make a wise choice. A democratic election with no media freedom would be a contradiction in terms.

Political parties and candidates tend to find the media, and in particular television, more and more important for campaigning. They hence try to make themselves visible as much as possible on the television. Television is widely regarded as the most important medium for campaigning and communicating to the voters in countries with widespread coverage and audience.

It is a truism that the media plays an indispensable role in the proper functioning of democracy. Discussion of the media’s functions usually focuses on their “watchdog” role: by unfettered scrutiny and discussion of the successes and failures of governments, the media can inform the public of how effectively its representatives have performed and help to hold them to account. Yet the media can also play a more specific part in enabling full public participation in elections, not only by reporting on the performance of government, but also in a number of other ways:

· by educating the voters on how to exercise their democratic rights.
· by reporting on the development of the election campaign.
· by providing a platform for the political parties to communicate their message to the electorate.
· by allowing the parties to debate with each other.
· by reporting results and monitoring vote counting.
· by scrutinizing the electoral process itself in order to evaluate its fairness, efficiency, and probity.

The media are not the sole source of information for voters, but in a world dominated by mass communications, it is increasingly the media that determine the political agenda, even in less technologically developed corners of the globe. Thus, election observation teams, for example, now routinely comment upon media access and coverage of elections as a criterion for judging whether elections are fair. In parallel, monitoring the media during election periods has become an increasingly common practice, using a combination of statistical analysis and the techniques of media studies and discourse analysis to measure whether coverage has been fair. There are, broadly speaking, diverse areas of media election coverage. Each operates according to different principles and requires a different role of the electoral supervisory body.

Until relatively recently, the press was the sole mass medium. It had a limited reach, simply because functional literacy only extended to a minority. Thus, the development of broadcasting was potentially revolutionary in communicating political ideas to a mass audience. Yet in many instances, the very potential of radio and television was frightening to those responsible for administering broadcasting. The British Broadcasting Corporation operated a “14-day rule” that prohibited coverage of any issue within two weeks of it being debated in Parliament. It was not until 1951 that the first party election broadcasts were screened. The compulsory blackouts of coverage in the days before an election that continue in countries like France are a relic of that period - when the media seemed to go out of their way not to influence the outcome of an election.

Times have changed. Received wisdom is that contemporary elections are dominated by television, a development that can be traced back to around 1960 - the date of the historic first television debate between United States presidential candidates. But this view is only partly accurate. The majority of the world’s populations does not watch television - they do not have electricity or they could not afford the set, nor is this only a phenomenon of dictatorships - the world’s largest democracy, after all, is India. For such countries, radio remains the most important medium.

Crucial role that the media play in democratic elections are their political and social responsibilities. Yet on a day-to-day basis, editors and journalists do not think much about their role in society – rather they are concerned with reporting the news in a way that is quicker, better and more interesting than their rivals. This focus is quite legitimate, yet being first and best with the news is not incompatible with professional responsibility. Indeed, proper planning and training, combined with ethical standards, will make for better election coverage.

What remains to be seen is the long-term impact of the most recent developments in media technology. The Internet has already transformed the way in which elections are reported. It has effectively ended, for example, the practice of “news blackouts” or “reflection periods”, since it operates largely beyond the reach of regulators. But if the majority of the world’s population still does not have television sets, still fewer have personal computers. The precise impact on election coverage remains to be seen.

Potentially, even more significant is the future role of mobile telephony as a news medium. In many parts of the world, access to telephones has skipped a technological generation. Many relatively poor people who have no landline own a mobile telephone. Text messages have already been used in political campaigning and for distributing news. The next stage, which is already developing fast, is the use of “Pod casting”, broadcasting audio and video files.

Guiding Principles of Media and Elections:

The single guiding principle underlying the role of the media in elections is that without media freedom and pluralism, democracy is not possible. This has been underlined in the decisions of numerous international tribunals. It has also been stated very clearly in the recent past by the United Nations Special Reporter on Freedom of Expression, who went on to elaborate a series of steps that governments should take to guarantee freedom of media during elections.

There are a number of different dimensions to media freedom that are of relevance in elections:
· Freedom from censorship

· Freedom from arbitrary attack or interference

· Free access to necessary information

· Pluralism of voices in the media

The last of these is especially important. It is often interpreted to mean that the media should be owned by a variety of different interests, resulting in a “market-place of ideas”. This is important, but it is only one aspect. For countries emerging from authoritarian rule, usually characterized by tight state control over the media, ensuring pluralism within the publicly funded media may be equally important. This is because often it is only a government-controlled national broadcaster that has the capacity to reach all sections of the electorate.

In order to ensure that the publicly funded media are not, in practice, government-controlled, a clear regulatory intervention may be required. This is the central paradox of the management of media in elections - the frequent need to establish a fairly complex regulatory system in order to enable the media to operate freely and without interference.

At stake are three interlocking sets of rights:

· The right of the voters to make a fully informed choice.

· The right of the candidates to put their policies across.

· The right of the media to report and express their views on matters of public interest.

Of course, these rights, which are essentially all aspects of the right to freedom of expression guaranteed in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, apply at all times, and not only when there is an election pending. But it is the very formality of the election process - the fact that it is conducted according to procedures that are clearly set out in law - that has stimulated the interest of those who are concerned with issues of media freedom. How far media freedom and pluralism are respected during an election period can be a fairly sensitive index of respect for freedom of expression in general - itself an essential precondition for a functioning democracy. Conversely, an election can be an ideal opportunity to educate both the authorities in their obligation to respect and nurture media freedom and the media in their responsibility to support the democratic process.

Looking at relations with the media from the perspective of the electoral management body (EMB), two other important principles come into play: transparency and confidentiality.

· Transparency means that the operations of the EMB are open to public scrutiny and hence accountability.

· Confidentiality means that the security of the EMB’s operations is safeguarded against those who have no right to unauthorized information and who may undermine the integrity of the election process.

Clearly, these principles may come into conflict in practice. Complete transparency and confidentiality are clearly incompatible. However, establishing the precedence of these principles in any given case may be less difficult than it might at first appear. It will almost invariably be true that the plans and activities of the EMB should be open to public scrutiny. It will, without exception, be true that the vote itself should be secret. The borderline cases in between are likely to be few.

Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in Article 2 [distinctions of any kind such as race, color, sex, language, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status] and without unreasonable restrictions.  To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections this shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors.

Taken together, these provisions have been understood to impose an obligation on governments to ensure the diversity and pluralism of the media during election periods.

Obligations of Pluralism:

The media in an election play a key role, not only as a means of scrutinizing government actions, but also ensuring that the electorate has all the necessary information at its disposal to make an informed and democratic choice. Governments have an important negative obligation not to impede the media in playing these functions. In addition, and at least as importantly, governments have a positive obligation to facilitate media pluralism in order to expose the public to the widest variety of sources of information. Indeed, the obligation contained in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), guaranteeing freedom of expression and freedom of information, applies only to governments and certainly not to individual media organizations.

“Because of the development of the modern mass media, effective measures are necessary to prevent such control of the media as would interfere with the right of everyone to freedom of expression....”  The court found that the protection of freedom of expression applies not only to the content of information, but also to the means of transmission and reception of such information. A restriction imposed on the means of transmission or reception necessarily interferes with the right to receive and impart information. Any monopoly that has the effect, whatever its purpose, of hindering the right to receive and impart ideas and information violates the protection of this right.

It is important to stress that the role of the media is not just as a vehicle for expression in the narrow sense. The media are important also - indeed, primarily - as a means to enable the public to exercise their right to freedom of information. The media play a role of watchdog over the activities of the government and other powerful institutions. Clearly they cannot play this role if they owe a narrow loyalty to the government or ruling party of the day. The most detailed guidelines produced by the United Nations reflecting best international practice on pluralism and access to the media were those issued by the UN Transitional Authority in Cambodia. These stated:

“An independent and free media should have a diversity of ownership, and it should promote and safeguard democracy, while opening opportunities and avenues for economic, social and cultural development.”

In the most definitive statement from a United Nations authority on Freedom of Opinion and Expression - “There are several fundamental principles that, if promoted and respected, enhance the right to seek, receive and impart information. These principles are: a monopoly or excessive concentration of ownership of media in the hands of a few is to be avoided in the interest of developing a plurality of viewpoints and voices; State-owned media have a responsibility to report on all aspects of national life and to provide access to a diversity of viewpoints; State-owned media must not be used as a communication or propaganda organ for one political party or as an advocate for the Government to the exclusion of all other parties and groups...”

 A series of obligations on the State to ensure “that the media are given the widest possible latitude” in order to achieve “the most fully informed electorate possible”:

· There should not be bias or discrimination in media coverage

· Censorship of election programmes should not be allowed

· Media should be exempt from legal liability for provocative statements and a right of reply should be provided

· There should be a clear distinction between news coverage of functions of government office and functions as a party candidate

· Air time for direct access programmes should be granted on a fair and non-discriminatory basis

· Programmes provide an opportunity for candidates to debate each other and for journalists to question them

· Media should engage in voter education

· Programmes should target traditionally disadvantaged groups, which may include women and ethnic and religious minorities.