Gentle waves: Media position in a nation state
By: Dr. Yasir Mahgoub Elhussein
In light of the rapid and dramatic changes that afflict the inherited geopolitical conditions, whether in the region or across other regions in a turbulent world, especially countries that are almost ravaged by fragile foundations of their national composition in terms of political, economic, and social aspects; the importance of media systems is evident in preserving the national state and protecting it from the winds of negative change and its eventual extinction. The national media systems represent a common denominator for addressing these challenges, as they play crucial roles in preserving the form of the national state, roles that may outweigh the military and material force in their effectiveness.
A nation-state is defined as an entity based on certain communities connected to a specific piece of land. Citizenship is a covenant that brings together the segments of this country under one political authority that can be called the national state. A nation state is the development of known characteristics that have gained an existence and are employed to play a useful role in achieving security and means of living. It may include an extended spectrum of tribal, regional, and religious units within a national scope, and is even capable of including more than one nation-state in a treaty system. There is no doubt that political awareness, economic development, support, and strengthening of social cohesion are the foundations upon which the nation-state is built with the help of the media lever. Perhaps political reform is a continuous process, and it is a concept that represents the process that aims to rebuild society politically and then economically and socially, so that it becomes in line with all developments and continuous changes internally, regionally, and internationally, and is immune from what is negative.
The relationship between the political and media systems is usually described as a relationship of mutual influence, but the magnitude of the influence varies between the two according to the nature of the connection. between them, the form of the political system and the degree of democracy, the degree of political freedom the media enjoys in addressing political and social issues, and the degree of response of the political system. For the observations and opinions of the media regarding the issues, and towards the government performance of these issues. At the same time, for the media to be able to carry out its political functions in supporting and developing democracy, there must be major determinants: the ability to represent different trends within society; It is necessary for these trends to be allowed to reach the masses, and to present their ideas without any restrictions from the ruling authority. The media must also undertake the task of protecting the interests of society, informing the public of any failures that may be committed by the institutions of power. In addition to the task of providing information for the benefit of individuals and society at the same time, and through this the role of the media is integrated with the role of other institutions such as educational and educational systems. The fourth determinant for the media to perform its functions is the contribution to achieving social unity. The media contributes, by sharing knowledge, to achieving unity and interdependence in society about the basic environment and its issues.
Perhaps the well-being, development, and security of states depend on their political stability, and political stability can only be achieved with the political awareness of all sectors of society, leaders, and individuals. And since there is a close link between politics and the media, as well as the mission of the media associated with raising awareness; There is a heavy joint responsibility that rests with each of the political elite, especially the ruling ones, and the media. It should also be noted that the impressionistic approach to media issues in general results in a negative mental image that may hold it responsible for the political, economic, and social distortions of the Arab system. Therefore, there is agreement that the media, which suffers under authoritarian restrictions, necessarily imposes political and economic pressures on it that prevents it from playing its developmental role in society.
Perhaps the biggest challenge for the media in the countries of the Arab region after what was known as the Arab Spring revolutions has always been the political environment that is thick with deep differences between the components of the political classes. Therefore, many may agree with the opinion that the state of sectarian, ethnic, sectarian, and political hate speech constituted one of the most prominent features in the Arab region after the Arab Spring revolutions, as such hatred seemed to explain part of the political stumbling blocks and fluctuations in the transitional stages that were overshadowed by the features of political incompatibility between the blocs. And political currents, growing tendencies for revenge, mutual exclusion among them, and even mobilization on the ground of hatred towards the other who is different politically, ideologically, sectarian-wise, or regionally, in addition to not hesitating about capitalizing on the political other and removing patriotism.
The state does not mature without a media that is aware of what it has and what it is, and this is only possible with a political reference that believes in media work as an essential companion to the work of the state, but rather it is its face and icon in the crowd of competition and temptations. Modern media policy is based on truthfulness in information, continuous and regular communication with people, dialogue that allows for differences, allowing different and opposing opinions to express themselves freely, and not being stingy in providing detailed information to explain the point of view of the institutions of power.
Unless the media system in the national state succeeds in establishing the concept of accepting the other, it will fail in its primary mission. Perhaps the acceptance of the other is nothing more than a communicative and dialogue process, and through communication, knowledge is accumulated, the exchange of experiences increases and the experiences of individuals vary. Dialogue enriches intelligence through a mutual process and an equivalent relationship that is3 completely away from the problematic zero equation. At the level of the national state, the concept of accepting the other between political entities and actors establishes the rotation of power and legalizes the phenomenon of difference as a natural phenomenon in politics. Hence, achieving the goal of the political system, which is to preserve the state and society from disintegration through the mechanism of peaceful transfer of power. Noting that the absence of this concept makes the zero equation present in the relations between the parties of one nation through one party stealing the rights of another party, so it becomes a cause for coups and conflicts, either to restore rights or with the intention of acquisition.