8/12/2019 JSS-26-3-211-11-1031-Ikpe-E-H-Tt

1/6

INTRODUCTION

We are witnesses in this age to the realizationof the global village. Numerous communicationnetworks are making distance, and consequently,

boundaries of ethnicity, cultural diversity, andindeed, national sovereignty, matters of reducedsignificance. Consequently, this is a time of greatimportance for those who are concerned aboutthe relationship between the emerging forces ofliberalized telecommunications and the values ofsociety.

Around the world today, liberalization hasbecome the dominant trend in telecommunicationspolicy. It may help at this point, though, to definewhat we mean by this concept. At the risk ofoversimplification, liberalization means, as aformer American President Ronald Reagan said,the unleashing of the magic of the marketplace(Lenert 1998: 3). The hallmark of a policy ofliberalization is a relatively easy-to-understandfocus on achieving competition geared to movinginformation as quickly and inexpensively as

possible. A programme of deregulation and laissezfaire usually accompanies this.

In Nigeria today, the telecommunicationsenvironment has been deregulated, allowing

private companies like Vmobile (Celtel, Zain), MTNand Globacom to provide mobile telephoneservices to Nigerians through the Global Systemof Mobile Telecommunications (GSM). Where the

Nigerian Telecommunications Limited (NITEL)

Kamla-Raj 2011 J Soc Sci, 26(3): 211-216 (2011)

Liberalizing Telecommunication in Nigeria:

Argument for a Democratic Model

Essienubong H. Ikpe* and Nsikak S. Idiong**

Department of Communication Arts, University of Uyo, Akwa Ibom State, NigeriaE-mail: *, **

KEYWORDS Deregulation. Democratization. Participation. Equality and Free Access. Democracy

ABSTRACT In this discussion, we assess the liberalized telecommunication sector in Nigeria against the backdrop ofthe social and economic realities of a developing society such as ours. In doing so, we demonstrate that thecontemporary telecommunication policy in Nigeria is based on a transmission model of communication, a situationwhich has several negative socio-economic implications, chief among which are economic disempowerment andsocial exclusion. In the alternative, we advocate a different model for telecommunication policy-making. Suchrecourse, we argue, can lead to greater democratization of telecommunication and satisfy the communal, cultural andritual exigencies which Careys model expects communication policy to satisfy. The model being proposed here is the

community - cultural - ritual model of democratic telecommunications. Such an approach is also in keeping with theemancipatory theory of media. It is expected that a recourse to this model will safeguard the participation of allsectors of the society whether rich or poor, majority or minority.

held monopolistic sway, private enterprisesare free to provide competitive services. In bro-adcasting, this trend has been replicated in thelicensing of private broadcast operators, boththose operating terrestrial transmission states andthose providing satellite-based broadcastingservices. In this paper, however, our focus shall

be on the liberalization of public telephony inNigeria and how this affects socio-economicdevelopment, particularly in the rural areas.

The goal of telecommunications liberalizationregimes all over the world is to harness maximum

public good from free markets and globalcompetition (Lenert 1998: 10). However, the so-called universal service provided by privatetelecommunications operators has been shownto reflect an imbalance in the allocation ofcommunication resources, through the action ofmarket mechanisms which are naturally skewedin favour of the higher income-earning classes ofsociety (Barber 1995: 237).

The question then revolves around the extentto which economic exigencies must be balancedagainst social objectives of inclusion and equalityof opportunity (Dordick 1995). When this ques-

tion is considered, democratization becomes anurgent alternative to the present liberalizationcraze. As a process, UNESCO (1981: 166) ope-rationalizes democratization as the processwhereby:(a) the individual becomes an active partner and

not a mere object of communication,

8/12/2019 JSS-26-3-211-11-1031-Ikpe-E-H-Tt

2/6

ESSIENUBONG H. IKPE AND NSIKAK S. IDIONG

(b) the variety of messages exchanged increases,and

(c) the extent to which the quality of social repre-sentation or participation in communicationare augmented.Therefore, from the preceding explanation,

democratization as a concept recognizes that itwould be unfair, for instance, to allow people fromhigh-income levels access to the informationresources of the internet while denying access tothose in the low-income levels.

In a political democracy, such glaring dispa-rity becomes a political problem necessarily add-ressed by political means. It therefore seemslikely that in the important area of universal(telecommunications) service, we are faced with

negotiating some mix of market forces and statecoordination.The thrust of this paper, therefore, is first to

show the fundamental contradiction embeddedin the practice of liberalization in the Nigeriantelecommunications industry. Second, we attemptto demonstrate that this conflict can be usefullyaligned with the competing communicationtheories of transmission and community, aframework based on the work of James Carey(1989). This framework, originally conceptualizedfor the critical analysis of communication andculture in the United States of America, can beemployed to illuminate the underlying tensionsand complexities of telecommunications po-

licy alternatives in Nigeria as well. In doingthis, the goal is to show the socio-cultural valuesthreatened by the adoption of the policy of li-

beralization in its present form. In addition,this essay attempts to bridge the gap betweencommunication theory and politico-economic

practice by advancing specific communication-based approaches to the analysis and resolutionof telecommunications policy conflicts.

COMMUNICATION THEORY ANDTHE TELECOMMUNICATION

POLICY QUESTION

The basic question of whether commu-nication resources and structures need to beliberalized more than democratized or vice versa,has been in the public domain for nearly as longas the modern communication structuresthemselves have existed (Lenert 1998: 6). The

problem, however, is that most communicationscholars have not paid much attention to what

they can contribute to public policy in this area.Noam (1993 : 200), for example, observes that:

When a discipline (communication) that is bynow fairly substantial in terms of numbers andmaturity is largely absent in the shaping ofsocietys treatment of the very subject of itsstudy, one must take note.

Similarly, Mueller (1995: 459), in his reviewof the relationship between communicationscholarship and U.S. telecommunications policy,expresses the idea that the closer we get toideas which have directly shaped public policy,the more communication scholarship recedesfrom the picture. If this paucity of communi-cation-based research on telecommunications

policy is so noticeable in developed countries

like the USA, it is even more obvious in adeveloping country like Nigeria. Mueller notesthe contributions of other disciplines, such asEconomics, Political Science, and Law, andconcludes that the almost unnoticeable role

played by communication constructs in thisprocess is disturbing.

It is this absence of a genuine effort to addresstypical communication questions in the practiceof liberalization - questions of equality and freeaccess, of culture and community, of participationin and maintenance of society - that gives rise tothe conflicts that this paper attempts to address.Our goal is to answer Muellers question What(does) communication bring to the table that has

not already been put there by technologists,economists, and lawyers?

A Theoretical Appraisal of Modern-DayLiberalization

One significant way of answering Muellers(1995) query is to harness the communicationtheory perspective embodied in the work of Carey(1989). This approach certainly leads us in thedirection suggested by Rowland (1993: 208), whosees telecommunications as part of the socialtheory of communications technology. Careysconceptualization of communication as both

transmission and community, culture and ritual,can help us identify and classify the consequencesof present-day liberalization, and plot a roadmap,as it were, towards a more equitable re-arrangementof the status quo in favour of greater democra-tization of telecommunications infrastructure andresources in Nigeria.

Carey (1989) argues for recognition of the dual

212

8/12/2019 JSS-26-3-211-11-1031-Ikpe-E-H-Tt

3/6

LIBERALIZING TELECOMMUNICATION IN NIGERIA: ARGUMENT FOR A DEMOCRATIC MODEL

nature of communication. According to him,communication simultaneously has transmission

or transportation, as well as community, cultural,and ritual (CCR) aspects. In other words, thedefinition of communication includes both (a) themovement of messages in space, and (b) thecontinuity of human existence in time.

The first sense of communication, transpor-tation, is the one with which most people arefamiliar. It would appear that this is the sense inwhich most advocates of present-day liberali-zation understand the term. To them, when youcreate more diversity you create more access. Withmore access the entrepreneurs and economicelites smile and the demands of modern-daycapitalism are satisfied. Under this paradigm, no

regard seems to be given to the economicallydisadvantaged sections of the society - thesection, which has no economic power to acqu-ire for itself the means of telecommunication.Unwittingly, these become the communicationhave-nots of the society. Indeed for them there islittle means of participation in society.

In the second sense, communication is linkedto the ideas of sharing, participation, association,and fellowship (Carey 1989: 18). It concerns therepresentation of shared beliefs, rather than theimparting of information, and is directed towardthe maintenance of society in time as well as theextension of messages in space. In other words,to communicate does not only mean two or more

people exchanging messages. The overall goalof communication is the creation and main-tenance of bonds of community and inclusive-ness.

From this second perspective, then, one isable to recognize the need for the democratizationof communication structures and resources.When applied to telecommunications, this ideamakes possible the creation of a concept ofcommunal involvement for most sections of thesociety. Furthermore, it brings about the creationand maintenance of a public sphere, a discursiverealm in which individuals and groups create thesocial-psychological space of a common world

having common meanings for those who inhabitit. The key element is a dialogic flow of communi-cation in a public sphere (Habermas 1989: 23).

Democracy, in the context of this paper, is tobe understood in Careys (1993: 3) sense. To him,democratic arrangements are in place wherever

people can actively participate in the social,cultural and economic transactions that enervate

society. In other words, democratic society goesfar beyond the mere act of voting in elections. It

is about communication in the context of social,economic, and political structures.

From the perspective of communicationtheory, then, the central lesson for tele-communi-cations policy concerns the linking of democratictheory with democratic communication practiceto create a modern democratic nation, for, as Abe-rcombie and Longhurst (1998: 6) have rightlynoted, no nation can be termed democratic untilits media of communication are free

LIBERALIZATION: WHAT DOES IT ENTAIL?

Nigeria today has been caught in the wake of

the liberalization fever that began in the UnitedStates in the 1960s (Nicolaidis 1995). Altogether,the country seems to have woken up to the needto move away from previously held policies ofcentralized planning and strict state control overtelecommunications. But as Venturelli (1997)observes, this process all over the world is beinginfluenced by new international regulatoryregimes, such as the World Trade Organization(WTO), which emphasize the role of free marketsand competition.

In this emerging scenario, the newtelecommunications environment has created asystem of interconnectedness that is becoming,at least for the well-to-do sections of the society,

a dominant day-to-day reality. But in these newcircumstances, Greider (1997: 334) notes that thesocial question - How does society sustainequitable relations among its own people? - isbeing brushed aside by the exigencies of theeconomic sphere. In his view, there is an inherentimbalance in the so-called liberalization policiesthat can only be addressed by reconnectingcommerce with social consciousness andclarifying what we believe about human society.Peter Drucker, who argues that liberalization aloneis not likely to produce equitable access totelecommunications facilities, has made a similar

point. In an interview with Wiredmagazine, he

asserts that the collapse of state control doesnot necessarily mean the triumph of democracy.According to Drucker,

Now that there is nothing to compare thedemocracies with, they will have to provethemselves on their own merits ... Above all, weare learning very fast that the belief that a freemarket is all that it takes to have a functioning

213

8/12/2019 JSS-26-3-211-11-1031-Ikpe-E-H-Tt

4/6

ESSIENUBONG H. IKPE AND NSIKAK S. IDIONG

society-or even a functioning economy-is puredelusion (quoted in Schwartz and Kelly 1996: 116).

These are strong words indeed and it willprove instructive to examine further the relation-ship between liberalization of telecommunicationsand a functioning (and inclusive) democraticsociety.

As new technologies emerge and take theirplace alongside their traditional counterparts,those involved with telecommunications policyhave struggled to answer difficult questions aboutthe democratization of technologies under new

political and technological circumstances. Suchquestions, according to Lenert (1998: 12) includethe following:

How will the new technologies relate to

democratic practices? Will the new technologiesincrease or decrease access to the channels ofcommunication? Who should have access tothem? What economic interests will they serve?

In discussing the need for democratization oftelecommunications, it is often erroneouslyassumed by advocates of liberalization thatderegulation and privatization of telecommu-nications lead automatically to the democrati-zation of telecommunications. The wisdom ofsuch a laissez-faire telecommunications policy ishowever open to question. Douglas (1987), in herhistory of early American broadcasting, suggeststhat it is typical for the advocates of a newtelecommunications technology - whether it be

radio, cable television, or the Internet - to saythat a technologys social adoption means

progress for all.The arguments for such a bland acceptance

of the new telecommunications situation areusually two-fold. First, financially interested

parties usually assert that there are no significanttensions between the ambitions of the privatetelecommunications providers and the desires ofcustomers. Second, it is routinely argued that thediffusion of new technology is inevitable (Lenert1998: 12). Thus, it is assumed that resistance tothe social force of new telecommunications

practices is irrational.

Although some compelling arguments can bemade that liberalization leads to democratization,the conclusion is by no means certain. In general,it has been noted that much of the marketing ofthe information age is greatly overstated leadingto difficulty with distinguishing fact from fictionand hope from hype. As Douglas (1987) and othercommunication scholars have shown, the history

of communication suggests that the forces ofliberalization and democratization coexist in the

context of a struggle for economic and politicalpower, and their contradictory demands are noteasily reconciled.

Thus, when applied to telecommunicationspolicy, the relationship of liberalism to democracyand freedom of access is problematic, and thescholarly literature all over the world reflects ahistorical continuity of concern. The fundamentalconcerns are the same: how to avoid the dangerof domination by the few, avoid the excesses ofunchecked competition, and realize the greater

public interest. Various scholars such as Altschull(1984), Bagdikian (1987), Barnouw, (1978) andKellner (1990) seem to agree that for much of

the last one century, the telecommunicationsenvironment in most countries of the world hasbeen dominated by a few well-financed conglo-merates in alliance with the dominant commercialinterests that function as their sponsors.

Consequently, McChesney (1996: 110) opinesthat,

Although we are promised that deregulatedtelecommunications will provide great benefitsto all members of society, we also know fromexperience that capitalism tends to generate highlyskewed and class-based divisions that permit asmall section of society (i.e., the wealthy) to haveinordinate power ...

We can conclude from McChesneys asse-

rtion that a central requirement of tele-communi-cation policy-making is to present options andevaluate the effects of a new technology beforeadopting it. In other words, to look before weleap. This is easier said than done, however. Howare we to restrain the complex transformations intelecommunications practice now taking place inour nation and in the world?

Democratized Telecommunication:Recommendations for a CCR-Based Approach

As already noted, Careys (1989) view ofcommunication is directed towards the main-

tenance of society in time rather than the extensionof messages in space. The community-cultural-ritual perspective links the concepts common-ness and communion, community and communi-cation (Carey 1989: 18). These concepts should

be the concern of all telecommunications policyinnovations, if the outcome of such innovationsis to be termed democratic. While adopting

214

8/12/2019 JSS-26-3-211-11-1031-Ikpe-E-H-Tt

5/6

LIBERALIZING TELECOMMUNICATION IN NIGERIA: ARGUMENT FOR A DEMOCRATIC MODEL

communication innovations, it must be remem-bered that communication forms the basis for

society because it produces social bonds that tielocalized individuals together and makes asso-ciated life possible. As the American philosopherJohn Dewey noted,

Men live in a community in virtue of thethings which they have in common; and commu-nication is the way in which they come to possessthings in common. Society is possible becauseof the binding forces of forces of shared infor-mation circulating in an organic system (quotedin Carey, 1989: 22).

Going by these precedents, it becomes obvi-ous that to allow purely market forces to determineaccess to telecommunications is to create a third

world within a third world. In so doing, the poorersections of society are shut out of society, sincethey have no means of acquiring the technologiesthat make them active participants in it. Govern-ment, therefore, must exercise some form of ef-fective regulatory control to ensure that the costof acquiring access is kept within reasonablelimits. The definition of reasonable limits musttake into consideration the income range of mostmember of the society. To do otherwise is to makeeffective communication in this modern age anelitist preserve. This would be to fall prey to theallegation made by some scholars of the cynicalschool such as Joseph Pilotta who says that thetelecommunication process is an alienation

process (Pilotta 1992: 106).At the present stage of the development of

the mobile telephone sub sector in Nigeria, thenetworks are either unable or unwilling to extenttheir reach to most small towns and other ruralcommunities in the country. They prefer toconcentrate their activities in major urban centers.The reason for this situation is obviouslyeconomic. Why waste your time with villagesthat for the most part will not generate sufficient

profit to make the venture worthwhile? In pureeconomic terms, it is irrational. But is the need forcommunication purely an economic one? Ifgovernment wishes to cater for the needs of all

segments of the society, a way must be found toby-pass the economic rhetoric. By so doing thetelephone industry can be helped to navigate acourse between the transmission and community-cultural-ritual views of communication.

A review of the history of the telephoneservice in the United States will reveal how asimilar compromise was once reached. Tracey

(1997: 25) recalls that shortly after the expirationof the original patent held by the Bell Telephone

Corporation, the U.S. government and thetelephone industry entered into a social bargainthat was honoured until the breakup of AT & T in1984. The result was a policy of universalservice that required AT & T to provide equitableand widespread distribution of telecommu-nications services in exchange for guaranteed

profits. As a consequence of this telecommu-nications policy, nearly all the communities in theUnited States, including the smallest and mostrural, were linked together by a single tech-nologically advanced system. This pact, thus,

provided for a system of regulation in whichprivate companies served social goals in the

context of a capitalist economy, and it stressedthe relationships between telecommunications,commerce, and the social fabric.

CONCLUSION

Linking Communication Theory withTelecommunication Policy

It may be wondered why it is necessary toundertake so elaborate an analysis of the issuessurrounding telecommunications policy - exceptas an academic exercise. Indeed, sometimes it may

be hard to see how telecommunications policymatters at all because, as some would argue,

communication infrastructures are essentiallyinvisible. They are of increasing importance,though, to the development and evolution of acountry like Nigeria in global economy. With thecontinuing shift toward an information-drivenworld, no country can afford to be left behind inthe march forward. For a country like Nigeria,where the present liberalization movement hasrevealed conflicts occasioned by the glorificationof private business as the principal means towardsan ostensibly better future, the present chal-lenge for policy is to curtail what has been calledthe untrammeled sovereignty of economics(Will 1997: 7).

The key political (as opposed to economic)telecommunications policy question, then, is whatvalues should be sheltered from the unrestrictedworkings of the market mechanism (Polanyi 1957).While liberalism would argue for the totalelimination of all government control, demo-cratization, which this paper advocates, concedesthat it is necessary to encourage innovation and

215

8/12/2019 JSS-26-3-211-11-1031-Ikpe-E-H-Tt

6/6

ESSIENUBONG H. IKPE AND NSIKAK S. IDIONG

private enterprise, but demands that governmentmust devise some mechanism to ensure that some

sections of society are not disadvantaged in theprocess of development.

The important issue, therefore, is to whom,not to what, we are connected by the newtechnologies. We must begin to ask such ques-tions as How are individuals linked into units ofdemocratic social organization through commu-nication technology? (Lenert 1998: 19). To fulfillthe promise held by the new communicationtechnologies, communication scholarship needsto address alternatives to the ascendant trans-mission model of communication.

As illustrated in this paper, it is clear that thepresent public-policy conception of tele-commu-

nications in Nigeria is more closely aligned withthe transmission model than with a commu-nity-cultural-ritual model. But as we have equallyshown, an unalloyed policy of liberalization inthis context requires that citizens yield controlover the resources of communication to a verysmall number of powerful economic interests. Tofocus only on the transmission aspects ofcommunication invites us to ignore questions of

power, which Careys model explicitly demandsthat we address. As Garcia (1996: 47) has noted,we need to inform our regulation of the newtechnologies with a clear vision of the role ofcommunication in society and a clear set of prin-ciples linking telecommunications deregulation

to a large set social and economic goals.

REFERENCES

Abercombie N, Longhurst B 1998. Audience s: ASociological Theory of Performance and Imagi-nation. London: Sage.

Altschull JH 1984. Agen ts of Power: The Role of theNews Media in Human Affairs.New York: Longman.

Bagdikian BH 1987. The Media Monopoly. 2nd Edition.Boston: Beacon Press.

Barber BR 1995. Jihad vs Mcworld. New York: TimesBooks.

Barnouw E 1978. The Sponsor. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Carey JW 1989. Communication as Culture. Boston:Unwin Hyman.

Carey JW 1993. The mass media: Between the modernand the postmodern. Journal of International

Affairs , 47: 1-21.Dordick HS 1995. The social consequences of libera-

lization and corporate control in telecommuni-cations. In: WJ Drake (Ed.): The New Information

Infrastructure. New York: Twentieth Century Fund,pp .155-172.Douglas SJ 1997. Inventing American Broadcasting, 1899

- 1922. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Garcia DL 1996. The failure of telecom reform.

Telecommunications, 30: 43 - 50.Greider W 1997. One World, Ready or Not: The Manic

Logic of Global Capitalism. New York: Simon andSchuster.

Habermas J 1989. The Structural transformation of thePublic Sphere. (T Burger, Translator). Cambridge,MA: MlT Press. (Original Work Published in 1962)

Kellner D 1990. Television and the Crisis of Democracy.Boulder, Co: Westview Press.

Lenert EM 1998. A communication theory perspectiveon telecommunication policy. Journal of Communi-cation, 48: 3 - 23.

McChesney RW 1996. The internet and U.S. communi-

cation policy- making in historical and criticalperspective. Journal of Communication, 46: 98 -125.

Mueller M 1995. Why communication policy is passingmass communication By: Political Economy as themissing link. Critical Studies in MassCommunication, l2: 459 - 473.

Nicolaidis K 1995. Inte rnationa l trade in informat ion-based services: The Uruguay round and beyond. In:WJ Drake (Ed.): The New Information Infrastructure.

New York: Twentieth Century Fund, pp. 269 - 302.Noam E 1993. Reconnecting communication studies with

communication policy. Journal of Communication,43: 199 - 206.

Pilotta J 1992. Cultural integrity in the globalcommunication order: Action research principles.In: C Okigbo, Y Abubakar (Eds.): New Perspectivesin International News Flow.Lagos: CommunicationResearch Projects, pp. 105 - 122.

Polanyi K 1957. The great transformation: The Politicaland Economic Origins of Our Time. New York:Beacon.

Rowland WD 1993. The traditions of communicationresearch and the implications for telecommuni-cations study. Journal of Communication, 43: 207- 218.

Schwartz P, Kelly M 1996. The relentless contrarian:An interview with Peter Drucker. Wired, 408: 116.

Tracey LV 1997. Thirty Years: A brief history of thecommunications industry. Telecommunications, 31:24 - 26.

UNESCO 1981. Many Voices , One World:Communication and Society Today and Tomorrow.Ibadan: University Press, Paris: The UNESCO Press.

Venturelli S 1997. Information liberalization in theEuropean Union. In: B Kahin, E Wilson (Eds.):

Nat ion al Inf ormat ion Inf ras tructur e Ini tia tiv es:

Vision and Policy Design. Cambridge, MA: MITPress, pp.457 482.

Will G 1997. Revolt against economics. Austin AmericanStatesmen, P.7.

216