TOYING OF THE CROATIAN GOVERNMENT WITH THE LAW

ON MASS MEDIA MEDIA

As a response to the pressure exerted by the Croatian Liberals, after a year of stalling, the Government has initiated the parliamentary procedure for the adoption of the law on the mass media. What are the distinctions between the Government's and the Liberal's proposals? Insisting on specific provisions, allegedly in order to protect national interests and to promote Croatia's cultural and linguistic identity, the Government, namely, the HDZ wishes to acquire monopoly in the establishment of private TV and radio stations as well. Although the debate on the draft law is in line with democratic procedure, as opposed to all the discussions to date relating to the passing of numerous other laws, it is difficult to believe that the numerous proposals and comments will be integrated into the final draft of the law. Although this time, precisely because of the unfavourable image the Croatian media have, and in order to promote the development of democracy in Croatia,it is necessary to weight out things thoroughly before the bringing of a final decision.

AIM, ZAGREB, December 15, 1993.

One of the major objections voiced by the Council of Europe and other international institutions and addressed to Croatia is related to the freedom, i.e., lack of freedom of the media, namely their comments in that regard pertain before all to privatization, the treatment and status of journalists as well as the lack of regulations regarding the founding of private TV and radio stations. After numerous delays, the Government finally came out, at last month's parliamentary session, with two draft laws on the regulation of the establishment of private mass media facilities and allocation of frequencies, eliminating thus at least one of the objections. Previously the most powerful opposition party, the Croatian Social Liberal Party (HSLS) had formulated a draft law that would regulate this problem matter, however the ruling Croatian Democratic Union opposed its inclusion on the agenda for the November session of Parliament, due to which the HSLS refused to take further part in the parliamentary proceedings an acation supported by two regional parties - the Istrian Democratic Alliance and the Dalmatian Action. At that time the Liberals emphasized that the point at issue was not procedural or formal but rather a first rate political one, since without free and independent media there could be no new space for the broadening of democracy in Croatia. Finally after a month-long delay, in accordance with the rules of procedure, the proposal of the Liberals was included on the agenda, so that the deputies of both parliamentary chambers could compare the offered solutions. In comparing they could see that although nearly 80 percent of the articles were indentical, a number of substantial differences existed in respect to specific solutions.

After more than a year of preparations on the elaboration of the law, presenting the bill to the delegates and to the general public, Ivica Mudrinic, Minister of Transport and Communications, pointed out among other things: "Freedom of the media is the groundstone of democracy and an integral part of market relations for which the Croatian authorities have opted. The bill on telecommunications and postal services founded upon those principles is in line with Croatia's policy and takes into consideration its specificities. The law must protect Croatian culture and promote all developments in that specific cultural and linguistic environment. Our bill is somewhat more liberal than similar laws in a large number of West European countries, although not as liberal as the one in force in the USA." Commending the constructiveness of the Liberals who elaborated their our proposals for the regulation of the future media image of Croatia, minister Mudrinic clarified the basic differences between the Government`s bill and that of the Liberals. There are three major distinctions. The first relates to the criteria for the selection of the licencee, considering that the Liberals proposed public bidding based on the power of money, while the proposal of the Goverment gives preference to the bidder who offers a greater volume of domestic topics in the programme. The second substantial distinction is that the proposal of the Government in relates in absolutely no way to HRTV, the structure of which is regulated by a separate law, while the Liberals hold that the new law should redefine the monopolistic position of the state television, by transforming it into a public institution that would maintain the right to collect subsription. The Government considers that the transmitter and communications sector remain an integral part of HRTV as opposed to the Liberals who hold that transmitters and communictions should be a independent public entity. The third basic difference is that the Government envisages in its bill a nine-member Telecommunications Council to be appointed by the Government (4) and Parliament (5), while the Liberals are more in favour of the idea that the Council should reflect the diversity of the Croatian political and social scene. In addition, they hold that political representatives should be the minority (7) in the 19 member body, as in their view politics should not be predominant in the Council. Presenting the proposal of the Liberals, their representative in Parliament, Mladen Vilfan pointed out that in the elaboration of the bill they proceeded from the notion that private media professionals should give absolute priority to the interest of the public, although enterpreneurship should not be neglected in the process.It is necessary - Vilfan added - to ensure maximum freedom in the selection and structuring of the program, while the Council proposed by the Government is acceptable for public but not for private TV and radio stations. He appealed that private intiative should not be blocked by the imposition of extremely high taxes for the leasing of frequencies and to enable equitable access to technology, created, as he said, by the people in the last thirty years. His Party collegue Fizulic pointed out that it is unacceptable to ask of private owners to devote 25 percent of the programme to the local community in which the TV or radio station is located, since that would be mean the death of private initiative. It was generally unacceptable to the opposition that news items broadcasted by HRTV should be taken over in case they are not produced independently by the private stations, as well as that domestic topic programmes and commercials should be quantified. The Government bill was also critized because it does not stipulate the minimum criteria for obtaining a licence but rather, according to their proposal the licencee depends on the will of the Council, and also because it was unclear as to who invites public tenders, under which criteria and whose word is decisive. The representatives of national minorities underlined that the Constitutional law on the rights of national groups guarantees the founding of public and private radio and television stations, a possibility that is not defined well in this law.

The representatives of the Croatian Democratic Union disagreed with the opposition, emphasizing the need to protect the national and cultural heritage through the contents of the programme, adding that those who wish to have private electronic media facilities must built transmitters with their own funds. According to minister Mudrinic, the transmitters as such should not be an obstacle for broadcasting, since they account for a "smaller part of the expenses in comparison to what has to be invested in a television studio and in the production of programmes, while in agreement with HTV the same aerial posts and energy supply could be used.

The Minister was persistent in warding off the accusations that via such a law the state was prescribing what is to be broadcasted, however, replying to the comment that the volume of Croatian programme is laid down beforehand, said " that since television is a medium which forms public opinion, the state has to take that fact into consideration too." The polarization of views, caused by fear not only of political but of professional reasons too, was also manifested in the parliamentary and public debates which followed. While the representatives of the ruling party deliberated whether their domination over the media would be threatened if HSLS's proposals were accepted and due to which, as Hrvoje Sosic said, a high price could be paid during the "pre-election campaign which according to the opposition is to commence very soon," while on the other hand, journalist and part of the public see the Government's bill as a threat of the further control of the state structures over the media, namely, the founding of fictitious private media that would be financed out of various para-state funds. The fear from the latter possibility inspired some representatives to request he withdrawl of the Government bill from the legal procedure. Part of the requests along the same lines were explained by the neccesity of keeping monopoly over the media due to the clause that in the lack of one's own news programme, news items of HRTV should be broadcasted, which to some had an Orwellian aroma since "it took away from the citizens one of their basic freedoms - to choose their own TV stations and broadcasted programmes. The belief that television is a powerfull means present in almost all homes, and that as such should be exploited by political circles, is part of a theory fully in line the Agitation Propaganda Bureau principles on telecommuncations, and hardly acceptable to democratic parliamentary societies, including those which are in the process of becoming such societies, as is the case with Croatia." According to Minister Mudrinic, precisely such a provision would stimulate the production of domestic programmes, exchange of information and finally the - pluralizing of the media. In contrast to his stands, a warning was voiced in the public debates that "monopolistic informing" will result in "small-scale, cloned HRTs" something that could discourage not only domestic enterpreneurs from investing in risky media ventures but also foreign capital, especially when it is known that Croatia holds the 113th place on the list of countries with investment risks and due to which " the inflow of foreign capital has been so modest." The opposition and journalists did not hide their fears that the legislator, by stipulating such limitations in respect to the content of the programmes, could bring into question the survival of private media,as they did not approve of the composition of the Telecommunications Council and demanded that each approval or refusal of licences be explained, as well as the transmitter and communications department be disassociated from HRTV; in addition they critized the monopoly of the government authority over the key information media regardless of the warnings of the opposition and European institutions, thereby " demonstrating that it gave greater priority to the state character of HRTV than to democracy, freedom or the reputation of Croatia in the world", to say nothing of the dilemma caused by the fact that the law does not allow parties and religious communities to be owners of radio or television frequencies. The official reply was that the proposal of the religious communities has already been accepted, and that "party skirmishing in the air" was restricted by law due to the " fear of the public that HDZ would become the owner of radio and television stations.

The public debate on the law which is to regulate the field of private mass media activities is still underway, however the firm stand of minister Mudrinic stated together with an invitation addressed to all interested parties to take part in the debate, should be understood to mean that the Government will not withdraw its bill. A compromise solution regarding the three crucial distinctions will therefore be very difficult to achieve, so the proposals of the HSLS will be presented to the members of Parliament in the form of amendmens to the Government bill, however due to the HDZ parliamentary majority, and almost habitual strict party discipline when such important legislation is at stake, the amendments, it is almost certain, have no chance to be adopted. It is also certain that the ruling party does not want to give up state and party hued monopoly over HRTV, however it does wish to ensure, through indirect influence, by way of certain legal solutions, a degree of control over the privatelly owned media.

Considering the hitherto results of the privatization of newspapers, experience with monopolistic printing houses, and in particular with the distribution of newspapers, it is not difficult to understand the scepticism of journalist and of other advocates of the broadening of media freedoms, towards any kinds of restrictions along that road, especially in the elaboration of the long awaited for and extremely significant law, such as this one on the founding of private mass media facilities. Minister Mudrinic expects that the adoption of this law will significantly contribute to "the redressing of the frequently unjust opinion regarding the situation in the Croatian media", and has announced close cooperation in the refining of the bill with experts from the Council of Europe. However, neither they nor any other international institutions will be fooled by half-way and questionable solutions such as the updating of the Law on the Mass Media, which has been labelled by the domestic public as the "law on the protection of the state and restitution of verbal delict." The addition of only nine new articles aimed at " erecting the state on the pedestal of inviolability and institutionalizing the possibility of quickly destroying any paper which dares to criticize the state, has turned out to be an unsurmountable obstacle for any serious attempt of Croatia to join the community of European states, so that at the end they were withdrwal from the legal procedure. After the passing of the law, some future radio and televesion professionals will have to wait at least three to four months for the first tender invitations totake place for the allocation of frequencies, while the existing stations will have to solve within a year fromthat date the issue of licences, so that any uncalled for delays in the adoption of the law would prolong the improvement of the picture that exists about the media in Croatia. It has been somewhat improved after receding from the passing of the "manifesto", renouncement of the pretentious requests of minister Vesna Jurkic-Girardi to control, contrary to constitutional provisions regarding the prohibition of censorship, the contents of the programmes of private media, as well as the appointment, after a year-and-a-half delay, of the Council for the freedom of the mass media. Stains still exist, primarily due to the resoluteness with which the authorities have insisted that Antun Vrdoljak remains the managing director of HRTV, due to the illegal procedures applied in the ownership transformation of some journals, scandalous behaviour towards foreign correspondents, non-professionslism among domestic journalists, etc., and there is always someone who does his very best to blemish the reputation of the Croatian media. Precisely because of that reputation, but also because of the development of democracy in Croatia, in the course of the public hearing and passing of the final draft of the law, each and every proposal should be carefully weighted so that at a later stage it would not be necessary to wash one's hands in Pilate style.

GORDANA SIMONOVIC