PARLIAMENT AND DEMOCRACY - Inter-Parliamentary Union

A parliament that is open and transparent I 49
citizens and between them and their representatives. In the context of media
reporting of parliament, it is essential that any limitation on this right should
be drawn as narrowly as possible.
Under standard human rights conventions and their jurisprudence, any
restrictions on the freedom of expression are subject to a threefold test: they
should be a) ‘prescribed by law’; b) such as are ‘necessary in a democratic
society’, for example for the protection of national security or of the rights
and reputations of others; and c) ‘proportionate’ to these necessary purposes.
The most frequent restriction that has been used to limit what can be said
or written about parliamentarians concerns the damage to reputation, or
‘defamation’.
In most democratic countries it is accepted that the public role of politicians
should make them more open to public scrutiny, and tolerant of a much wider
range of comment and criticism, than might be reasonable for private persons.
This assumption has also been endorsed in international jurisprudence on the
freedom of expression. Nevertheless, some countries still have defamation
laws which can be used to restrict the range of media reporting of politicians
unduly. These can be particularly restrictive where they form part of the criminal
law, with a possible penalty of imprisonment for journalists who overstep
the line. In other countries it is the level of damages that can be awarded in
civil cases which may act as a deterrent to robust public disclosure or criticism.
In addition, some parliaments have broadly drawn contempt of parliament
provisions which can be used to limit criticism or punish journalists for
reporting leaked information. Other means that have been used to hamper
legitimate journalistic reporting or criticism have included the withdrawal of
accreditation to report parliamentary proceedings.
It is probably a good test of the robustness of a country’s democracy that
parliamentarians are reluctant to have resort to such means to limit criticism
or the flow of information to the public. But it is also in their hands to review
restrictive legislation which may date from a less democratic era. In this
context it is worth noting the report of a study group of the Commonwealth
Parliamentary Association (CPA) on ‘Parliament and the Media’ held in
February 2003. Among its many recommendations are these:
(6.2) Parliaments should repeal legislation, rescind Standing Orders
and/or publicly abandon their traditional authority to punish the media
and others for offending the dignity of Parliament simply by criticism
of the institution or its Members.