4.3 Regulation of Community Broadcasters: Kenyan Broadcast Regulation since the 1990s . 84
4.3.2 Negotiations around Community Broadcasting Legislation
As the implications of the removal of the clause about funding are not clear, community radio stations, through the Kenya Community Media Network (KCOMNET), moved to lobby the regulator for a revision of the legislation in 2016. The network also asked to be involved in further consultations regarding community broadcasting regulations, in their position as stakeholders in the sector. Below is an excerpt from the letter sent to the regulator:
We seek this section to be re-inserted pending consultations with community radio stations and stakeholders on the full import of what is referred to in the new draft regulations 2016 in Section 13(1) (e) Receive Sponsorship. This needs to be considered bearing in mind that community radio in Kenya are facing dire financial constraints amidst a competitive media environment and shrinking donor funding which has threatened their survival. The deleted clause, with clear specifics and parameters of application, offered a lifeline for community radio stations with means to diversify their sources of generating revenues.41 (Githethwa, N; Personal Communication 02.02.2016) Interestingly, drafters of the legislation at the National Communication Secretariat (NCS) claimed to have no knowledge of the network, and stated that they had never seen KCOMNET representatives at any of the public stakeholders’ meetings held in the course of revising the broadcast regulations.42 However, KCOMNET’s social media feed features photos and tweets of a consultative meeting with the CA, and a petition dated 20th April 2016 asking for reinsertion of the deleted section.43 According to its representatives, KCOMNET works
“closely with the government…[…]…in terms of policy advocacy” (Githethwa, KCOMNET Coordinator 2014).
41 From Memorandum to the CA dated 20 January 2016, provided in personal communication with KCOMNET
42 Interview with NCS representative in October 2016
43 See http://www.kcomnet.org/news/
These contradictory narratives about the involvement of the various players in the community broadcasting sector provides some insight into the influence of various actors in the discourse around community broadcasting in Kenya, and the levels of voice that each of them has. One of the characteristics of voice as a process is that it is socially grounded, meaning that it is not practised in isolation, and one of the symbolic resources that it requires is the ‘status necessary if one is to be recognized by others as having a voice’(Couldry 2008, 7). As such, voice matters only when it is met by listening, and conversely, is devalued when it meets a lack of listening space. This seems to be the case for KCOMNET. While the network views itself as the legitimate representative of community media and as speaking for them, it still experiences challenges being recognised as legitimate in some government circles.44 It is therefore not accorded a serious hearing, much as it may be genuinely speaking in the interest of community broadcasters. Consequently, the discursive space that the network has to contribute to the ideas about the ideals and parameters for community media operations in Kenya is narrow, because its voice in the legal discourse is limited, and perhaps almost muted.
For instance, KCOMNET’s website features a report on ‘Policy Guidelines for Community Radio in Kenya’45, which details the broadcast policy regarding community radio and the issues which should be considered in order to strengthen the community radio sector. There is however no indication if this report has been shared with or considered by the individuals and institutions responsible for drafting Kenyan broadcast policy documents. Thus, KCOMNET participates in the formal actions delineated as vital to drafting broadcast legislation for the sector, that is, giving their opinions on policy in stakeholders’ meetings, but the network may not experience voice as value because there is no ‘social process of listening’ (Couldry 2015) taking place. When it comes to the actual drafting of broadcast policy; their opinion does not seem to be given much weight by those holding the power to make the final decisions about the policy.
44 The issue of KCOMNET’s credibility partly arises from internal disagreements experienced by the organisation in 2009/2010, which resulted in the formation of an alternative body, Community Radio
Association of Kenya (CRAK). The discussion that led to this reorganisation is captured in a community radio mapping report (Fairbairn and Rukaria, Poised for Growth: Community Radio in Kenya in 2009 2010). During the research, both KCOMNET and CRAK described themselves as representing community radio, but the tangible activities available for observation at the time were those by KCOMNET.
45 See http://www.kcomnet.org/policy
On the other hand, the KCOMNET enjoys legitimacy with at least twelve of the existent community radio stations, whom it officially represents, and with international organisations including UNESCO, HIVOS and GIZ Civil Peace Service.46 These organisations have funded or facilitated projects by KCOMNET which target strengthening the community radio sector, such as content development and conflict sensitive reporting. They view KCOMNET as an easier route to connect with a variety of radio stations that are already networked, rather than working bilaterally with individual radio stations. The network bases its engagement with community radio in Kenya on what the KCOMNET coordinator refers to as “the five principles of community radio which are recognized globally”, that is community participation, non-profit model, community service, community ownership, and independence. The network uses these principles to delineate the community broadcasting sector in Kenya, as explained by the coordinator:
Many people say four [pillars], but for me I like putting the 5th. If you look at the religious stations, some of them don’t fall in those pillars. If you look at the ones for the government, you can’t say really they are independent…[…]….so the ones we are talking about 12 now, are only those ones which are formed by community based organisations. These CBOs are the ones we work with directly. (Githethwa 2014) KCOMNET thus seeks to work with the stations that do not have overt controlling interests such as the state or religious organisations. It leans towards the linking of community media to civil society actors, which is one of the ways of thinking about alternative and community media, as argued for instance by Carpentier, Lie, & Servaes (2001) and Bailey et al (2007).
From observation of its operations and projects, KCOMNET is in a position of legitimacy with external, non-governmental actors due to similar ideological values regarding what community broadcasters should be, based on prevalent global rhetoric in the sector, especially the communication for development (C4D) strand of development communication. However, this legitimacy is diminished because of organisational disagreements which resulted in the formation of an alternative representative body for community radio, Community Radio Association of Kenya (CRAK) in 2010.47 Nevertheless, KCOMNET experiences more of a voice with these non-governmental players because it is vested with the symbolic status to deserve being listened to. While the fact that KCOMNET enjoys some legitimacy with
46 See KCOMNET Projects page on http://www.kcomnet.org/projects/
47 As per the UNESCO representative interviewed, if KCOMNET and CRAK could combine and seek funding as one organisation they would experience more success. For as long as they are operating as two separate organisations both representing community radio, then donors find it hard to be involved.
governmental players is positive in that it affords community stations mileage for example in terms of skills training, the limited legitimacy with the government limits KCOMNET’s ability to effectively advocate for community broadcasters when it comes to the legal framework. The organisation’s scope of action is thus limited by its lack of alignment with national players, even though it has gained some leeway due to alignment with international players.
The issue of alignment with global values versus national regulations as a benchmark for the community media sector is played out not only in legislation, but also in the operations of regulatory bodies and community broadcasters, as further discussed in the following sections.