Press Freedom in the Former Soviet Union: A Report Card
The overall picture for independent media in the 12 countries of the non-Baltic FSU is grim. Journalists face enormous obstacles in settings where authorities have denied an enabling environment for independent journalism and the free flow of information. Despite the considerable attention and resources devoted to the issue of press freedom, the overall trend in recent years in the FSU has been toward even tighter control by the authorities. Ten of the 12 non-Baltic FSU countries are ranked "Not Free" in the 2005 edition of Freedom House's "Freedom of the Press" survey.
On the most repressive end of the continuum is Turkmenistan, where the government controls all radio and television broadcasts and the print media. An Orwellian-like domination of the information sector leaves a gaping information vacuum that is filled only by the bizarre musings of President Saparmurat Niyazov.
The Turkmen authorities seem determined to demolish any remaining vestiges of contact with the outside world from a country that is already severely isolated. A recently issued Niyazov decree forbids foreign postal services from delivering to Turkmenistan. This measure means, among other things, that foreign newspapers and magazines are effectively barred from entering the country.
Just ahead of Turkmenistan are Belarus and Uzbekistan, both of which feature dreadful environments for independent media and have intensified restrictions in light of recent political developments in other parts of the FSU. These highly repressive regimes maintain near total control over the news media, using a mix of intimidation and control of state resources. The judiciary, which operates at the whim of the executive in both of these countries, is a favored tool for selectively applying laws against reporters and news organizations that stray from these regimes' strict line.
The next group of countries -- Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Azerbaijan, and Kyrgyzstan (judged by conditions in 2004 under the rule of recently ousted President Askar Akaev) -- allowed slightly more pluralism than the worst performers but nonetheless were extremely unfriendly environments for independent journalism in 2004. Apart from Kyrgyzstan -- which has enabled some modest openings for a free press since Akaev left office on 24 March -- these countries have also tightened the screws recently, at least in part due to the political changes that emerged in Georgia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan.
Russia, which joined the ranks of "Not Free" countries in 2003, enjoys a print media that can express a diversity of viewpoints. The Kremlin, however, has worked diligently to bring the country's most influential media, the main national television networks -- Channel 1 (ORT), NTV, and RTR -- under its control. The extent of television news convergence came into full view during the presidential election campaign in March 2004, when coverage was steeply slanted toward President Vladimir Putin.
The picture in the FSU stands in stark contrast to the new EU member states, where a basic consolidation of press independence has been established. The Baltic states, which were involuntary members of the Soviet Union but nonetheless have had to overcome the legacy and pathologies of Soviet-era media, have managed to establish both the framework and practice supporting press freedom. Estonia has distinguished itself with a widely recognized effort to boost Internet access, making it one of the most cyber-oriented countries in Europe.
The media in Southeastern Europe are a mixed picture. Although media are active and diverse in much of the region, many countries still confront difficult challenges in anchoring unfettered and independent news media. Intimidation and violence against journalists who report on corruption remains an issue. A lack of transparency of ownership in the postprivatization phase is another major challenge confronting the countries of Southeastern Europe.
The degree to which each country permits the free flow of information determines the classification of its media as "Free," "Partly Free," or "Not Free." In the wider regional context, over the last five years the ranks of "Not Free" countries have grown from seven in 2001 to 10 in 2005 (Armenia, Moldova, and Russia moved to the "Not Free" column). Ukraine this year moved from the "Not Free" category to "Partly Free." In 2001, 11 countries were ranked "Partly Free;" today, there are nine countries in this category. Nine countries were categorized as "Free" five years ago. The eight new EU member states are the only countries in this category in 2005, as Bulgaria slipped from "Free" to "Partly Free" in 2004.
The countries that have enjoyed recent political change are worthy of attention over the coming cycle. While Ukraine and Georgia remain in the early stages of their political transition, the rotation of power in those countries brought with them changes in the media landscape. As a result of this opening, Ukraine moved from the "Not Free" to "Partly Free" category. These two countries -- as well as Kyrgyzstan -- have an opportunity to build on the nascent changes to create the sort of enabling environment for independent media that could be a model for others in the region, whose press freedom performance is so woefully deficient.
Christopher Walker is director of studies at Freedom House. 2005 is the 25th year in which Freedom House has issued its annual publication, "Freedom of the Press: A Global Survey of Media Independence," which assesses the degree of print, broadcast, and Internet freedom in every country in the world.