Wednesday 26^th May, 2004

Reviewing the Prime Minister’s ‘Interview’By Fitsum Getachew

A few days ago, the Prime Minister gave an exclusive interview to ETV and Radio Ethiopia, and every one who had the chance of tuning in on Radio Fana, (before all other media), Radio Ethiopia, and ETV had the chance to follow it. It was a rather long interview that took something like two hours. Although the interviewer was only one ETV journalist, (a favourite of the government at that!) the questions were many, (20) and ranged from security issues to border demarcation with Eritrea, from resettlement program implementation to food security, from trade issues to investment and tax evasion. Practically every national issue was some how put under spotlight even if the responses according to observers left a lot to be desired. Or the way the questions were designed did not seem so rough, and challenging as to induce to salty responses, as the public might have expected.

In fact, the majority of the audience has been nearer to disappointment than to admiration. Here was at stake the reputation of the PM as a true magician of words and ideas. Many were expecting the same sharp and witty answers that he had accustomed us, through the years. Many observers have since commented on it, defining the whole exercise as a sort of expression of ‘boredom and fatigue’ on the part of the ‘Chief Executive Officer’ of the country. Well, they said, thirteen years at the helm of a difficult country, full of all sorts of problems could wear out even a tenacious and diligent Meles! Many remarked that the pm was tired (and legitimately). Various thorny issues continued to ‘harass’ him from all corners, specially those pertaining to internal security, (terrorism, inter-ethnic clashes in the making), and the interminable border dispute with neighbouring Eritrea, with immense national and international implications! It is clear that these are vital issues that can determine the fate of any PM, let alone one challenged by critical internal divisions and a recent major party split.

What is more, the coalition partners as well are not enjoying the utmost of good health! Talks of the need to clean up every party has been the principal agenda of each of them, with interminable assessment sessions, interminable meetings and conferences, to such a point that the major occupation of the party officials appeared to be reunions! And nothing significant was taking place. The government and the whole public apparatus was paralysed for months, if not for years! And with opposition groups pressing ahead in their criticism, and the national elections due in less than a year, the performance of this government is becoming fundamental for the choice of the voters. Because if voters are given the appropriate chance to decide on their own, and voting is carried out in a fair and free atmosphere, the incumbent government may not be guaranteed of another victory.

The first ‘protest’ against the interview was made on the ‘choice’ of the journalist who had the privilege to meet and pose the questions. Although private press journalists have never been admitted to such interviews, people were accustomed however to seeing a host of journalists from various media, (party or non, electronic or print), trying to show a certain assortment of interests and issues. This time it was only the face of one journalist that was presented, and this has been criticized as a government’s indifference, even to certain formalities, if not outright ‘arrogance’. Other times, we have seen that the privilege to interview the PM had been given either to the Head of ETV or to the Editor-in-Chief of ‘Abiyotawi Democracy’, (organ of the EPRDF). This is the first time that a simple journalist has been entrusted with the full responsibility of covering the interview.

We don’t know to what extent the interviewer had autonomy in ‘formulating’ the questions. But from what is observable, they were carefully selected, and put down in black and white, to such an extent that the journalist seemed to never dare deviate from the pre-organized set, (little imports if they were prepared by him or others). It would be natural to expect that the PM had gone through them, no surprises of course! And this part of the whole exercise must have ‘irritated’ viewers, not to speak of opposition elements. A true journalist does not need to limit himself/herself to a prepared text, and there could be many occasions in which they might need to deviate from the text, and ask pertinent timely, reactive questions, specially based on the responses forwarded by the interviewee. In fact, this remains one of the techniques of an interview, if at all it is going to be taken as a true ‘interview’.

We know from experience that many a time, heads of government, specially in developing countries, (where democracy and rule of law are still at their primordial stage, and leaders are rarely fully accountable for their acts), do not dare face true and brave journalists, who could be as ‘hostile and rough’ as they would need to be, in their profession. If the vocation of a journalist is to find out the truth from where it is hidden, and hand it to the public, the audience, then they need to fulfill such criteria. One cannot deserve the nominative ‘journalist’ without fulfilling certain professional and ethical standards, typical of the trade. It cannot be used just as a way of winning a livelihood, nor can it be used to pursue or serve certain ‘parochial’, ‘partisan’ interests of certain cliques only! That would amount to a mockery of the respected profession! Neutrality, objectivity are key in journalism.

Interviews in the true sense cannot be fixed within certain already established limits, otherwise the sense and colour of the interview would be impaired, diminished. In the case of the PM’s recent interview, one could have called it a sort of ‘monologue’, because there was a clear sense of reverence on the part of the journalist towards the prime minister, as if the former was under the spell of the latter, and the journalist’s role in the ‘interview’ appeared marginal. That is why one could not dare call it a genuine ‘question and answer session’. Although no one would expect or hope that a government employed journalist be hostile to his own employer, his own prime minister, as would an independent or opposition party journalist, the audience had the right to expect some ‘peppered’ questions, if not provocative, that would stimulate insightful answers, and some ‘clarifications’, deeper analysis, when the answers were little more than a vague, dry and usual declarations or political statements. In this sense, the interview has disappointed many. An occasion to do more was wasted.