This is my annual Thanksgiving piece. This article originally appeared in Cutting Edge Magazine in November 1992. This article and others from the Cutting Edge era (1991-1994) be found in the Cutting Edge Archive. Enjoy.

---

More than any other, Thanksgiving embodies both religious and political freedoms, and puts them in their proper place. Of the numerous holidays Americans celebrate each year, Thanksgiving is uniquely American, and uniquely Christian.

In the early 1600s a small group of devoutly religious men and women sought to worship God according to the dictates of their consciences. These Pilgrims broke from the Anglican church and were persecuted from England to Holland until they boarded the Mayflower and set sail for the New World. The Pilgrims were separatists, seeking to restore the true nature of the Gospel to Christian practices from what they believed were the pollutants of Catholicism and the Anglican Church.

Upon arrival, before disembarking their vessel they signed an agreement known as the Mayflower Compact. The text of the agreement included a vision for a new government:

“Solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politick, for our better ordering and preservation, and furthering of the ends foresaid: and by virtue to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony; unto which we all promise all due submission and obedience.”

It was this band of Pilgrims, after having lost half their population to an extreme winter, that stuck to the vision laid out in the Mayflower Compact. They were thankful for more than surviving harsh weather, they were also thankful that God has preserved their society and would see it to its conclusion.

Most interesting about the Mayflower Pilgrims is what they did considering who they were. Essentially, they were normal men and women, devoutly religious, who wanted more than to escape the religious pollutions from the home they left. They wanted to build a new society with a new government founded upon the principles they held dear. Those principles were uniquely Christian, and planted the seeds of what would eventually become American liberties.

The Mayflower Compact stated its purpose for the new colony’s existence: The “advancement of the Christian faith” and formation of a “civil body politick.” If the Compact made anything clear, it was that the new government of the colony proceeded from the religious convictions of the colonists—religious freedom giving birth to political freedom.

In the 21st century we tend to turn things around. We view religious freedom as a guarantee of the State instead of a transformation of the heart. Even under the former regime of the Soviet Union, effective missionary work was viewed as a limited possibility as long as communists remained in power. When the Iron Curtain fell, American missionary activity surged in the former Evil Empire. Yet American Christians working in Russia discovered that the Russian Church was alive and well. Likewise, American churches have discovered that in communist China a revival is taking place that will surely transform millions in that country. Many of those who have been transformed by their freedom in Christ have turned to political activism to try and free the nation from the grip of communism.

The Mayflower Pilgrims did not develop their convictions about religion, society, or government after they came to the New World. They possessed those convictions under the heavy hand of religious persecution in their native land. When they came to the New World they could have refused self-government. Instead they established their society for their own preservation. That government and the ones that followed were built squarely upon the foundation laid in their shared faith convictions. Those that would follow in the wake of the Mayflower and the footsteps of William Bradford and the colony he led, would enact laws and draft constitutions guided by many of those same principles Those early founding documents include, The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, and The Massachusetts Body of Liberties. Most of the first State Constitutions contained language that placed the burden for the survival of America upon the backs of those who lived according to the principles set down in the Bible.

The concept of liberty has changed in the last three centuries. What we think of as liberty today is anathema to the colonists of the Mayflower. Their reasons for declaring a day of Thanksgiving were quite different than the reasons most Americans celebrate the holiday today.

Let us reclaim the holiday’s original meaning. On Thanksgiving take time to read the account that William Bradford wrote of the Plymouth Plantation. For each day after we should let the principles of those first Americans guide our ideas of religious and political freedom.

---

Here are links that can help you learn more about the principles from the Scripture that guided America’s founding as a group of colonies, states, and eventually a federal unity:

• American Genesis
• Faith & Freedom

Now that I’m back into full swing in the office I want to provide some perspective about the effects of the Mongolian riots.

During the four day Sate of Emergency I read many comments from Mongolians, and even had a few discussions on the issue: Is Mongolia’s Democracy Dead?

In short, not by a long shot.

You may have read blogs or comments online that the MPRP (that handily won last week’s election) was intending to use the State of Emergency to take control of the country or reduce freedoms, democracy, the press, and so on. One person I talked with asked if this was a prelude to a declaration of martial law.

From where I sit, these kinds of verbal machinations are—and I want to be diplomatic when I say this—a great big fat load of fantasy crap. Mongolia’s democracy is not dead. I don’t see any telltale signs that the MPRP is going to seize power, restrict freedoms, or declare martial law. Nor do I think they want to. Claims such as this are just, just, just…crap. That’s about as diplomatic as I can be.

The MPRP may not be the favorite party of a lot of people, but I don’t think we can look at their activities of the last four years and credibly say they intend to return Mongolia to the days of communism or forced one-party rule. A smattering of my reasoning…

• If the MPRP intended to restrict freedoms, then the State of Emergency would not have had a built-in four-day limit. It would have been open ended. As the days went by the government made clear that it fully intended to ensure the State of Emergency was lifted by the deadline. And of course, it was.
• If martial law was really an option, it would have happened right away.

As it stands, one of the chief complaints many people have about the government is that it reacted too slowly to the riot threat. Oppressive regimes don’t react slowly to threats, they usually react quickly and with overbearing demonstrations of force. That’s not what happened last week. Yes, five people were killed, including four who were shot. But that’s not an overbearing demonstration of force. Nor is tear gas. Nor are riot police. Nor are water cannons. The only overbearing demonstration of force that went on last week was that of the rioters who would not even allow emergency personnel to put out the fires!

• As for seizing power, the MPRP doesn’t need to seize power—they already have power through legitimate elections. Nor have they tried to wield excessive power that violates Mongolia’s constitution.

There is some debate as to whether is was legal for President Enkhbayar to order all media shut down during the State of Emergency. Even Prime Minister Bayar admitted publicly on July 5th that there was no such legal requirement or allowance for such a move. But I’m not overly concerned with that issue. When buildings are burning and being ransacked and the government decides to take measures to protect life and property, I’m inclined to cooperate with their requests or orders. Cooperating with the order to stop broadcasting did not hurt democracy, or freedom of speech and press in the long term—not one bit. The propaganda that ran on State TV afterward was certainly bogus, but most people aren’t fooled by that kind of garbage. Besides that, after four days everything was back to normal. So how was freedom or democracy hurt or impeded?

Now, these comments of mine should not be taken to mean that I don’t think there wasn’t some corruption going on during the elections. I’m not in a position to make such an accusation, but it would be ignorant to assume that there were no attempts in certain areas to skew election results. Heck, we’ve seen this in the U.S. Remember the efforts in Florida to validate invalid ballots during the 2000 election? In fact, one of the reasons given last week by protesters for their actions was that as poll results were coming in early in the day, their parties were winning. But as more results came later in the day they started losing ground. They therefore accused the MPRP of corrupting the results.

Did they corrupt the results? I have no clue. But I have heard this complaint before—in 2004. John Kerry’s people said early in the day that exit polling gave them big leads. But by the end of the day Kerry had been crushed. Moral of the story? Early returns and incomplete exit polls are not a legitimate basis to protest an election!

I’ve already written about the direction that some MPs seem to want to take to legislate Eagle TV out of existence. There are some people of significance who hold us partly responsible for the riots simply because we provided live news coverage. But, let’s be honest, even if the parliament found a way to legislate Eagle TV off the air, it doesn’t automatically follow that freedom of speech or press in Mongolia would be completely dead. I don’t want to give Eagle TV too much credit, but let’s look at the facts.

Consider that Ulaanbaatar now has 12 terrestrial TV stations, plus many radio stations and numerous newspapers. While all of the stations except for Eagle TV are owned either by politicians or political interests, almost all of them have been influenced in one way or another by the work of Eagle TV. Live coverage of events, once an Eagle-only affair, is beginning to become normal. Live, uncensored viewer calls, once an Eagle-only affair, has been adopted by most stations in one form or another. In fact, once Eagle provides live coverage of a major event, the other stations usually feel compelled to contribute in some fashion. The influence of our values and practices is clearly felt across the industry, and in the halls of government.

Of course, it is my greatest hope that our work will continue unabated and unrestricted. There has been a great deal of growth in Mongolian journalism and freedom of press. But there is still a lot of work to be done and new ground to be broken. I want Eagle TV continue it’s role of leadership in this area. But if we are legislated out of existence, I seriously doubt the powers that be, no matter what side of the isle they may be on, would be able to put the genie back in the bottle. Mongolian media has grown beyond that, and will continue to grow. I hope we will continue to be part of that growth, and help it reach maturity, faster.

In conclusion, a sober look at the political situation may reveal corruption on various sides at various levels. It may reveal serious problems in election practices and the execution of law. It may also reveal persistent problems in journalism and the practice of free press. But the existence of these problems, in my view, indicates growth—and it’s growth for the better. Like it or not, the MPRP is part of that growth. The MPRP isn’t perfect. But neither are the Dems, or the other parties. Step back and take a dispassionate look and you will see that the MPRP has contributed some very positive things to the development of Mongolia’s democracy. To deny it is to dine on sour grapes.

With dismay but not surprise I read the news about Venezuela’s dictator Hugo Chavez making a move to shut down the only independent TV station in his country, RCTV—one that routinely opposes Chavez’s communism and takes a stand for restored freedoms in that South American country. Thousands of protestors took to the streets in a remarkable demonstration for freedom of speech and press, demanding that Chavez restore the license status to the station instead of letting it expire. Even worse, over the weekend military forces swept in and seized the TV station’s equipment before the deadline expiration.

Rhetorical question: Why are military forces need to seize domestic broadcast equipment?

In RCTV’s place Chavez is placing a new station patterned after his brand of communism. It will be one more in the many stations already bowing the head to Chavez’s communist propaganda machine.

Venezuela is not the only communist or former communist country to have media woes with government authorities. Two years ago Ukraine’s State TV journalist bolted against the government and made their own decision to report news in a more fair and balanced way instead of only towing the government line. In Mongolia a small group of protesters lead a temporary take-over of State TV in 2003 demanding the station air more balanced reports about the nation’s political politics after a stunning defeat for the ruling party. When the protesters were breaking down the door to get in the lead anchor went on the air and said that a group of “drunk people” had attacked the station. That same year the Putin government in Russia eliminated the last vestige of independent TV reporting not controlled by the government.

Why is it that totalitarian and socialist regimes insist on controlling media and eliminating free and open debate on the airwaves? Just last week I sat with a Mongolian man who told me, “Mongolian’s don’t like to comment on news stories unless they know all the facts (I guess Mongolians have never heard of “gossip” or “speculation?”), but on your TV you encourage people to comment and discuss the news openly before all the facts might be in. That’s not a Mongolian trait (he claimed). We see that as orchestrated by foreign influence.” Of course such a claim is pure poppycock. Of the hundreds of phone calls we take a day virtually all of them are from Mongolians, screened and placed on the air by Mongolians, discussing Mongolian issues from a variety of Mongolian perspectives. The live calls are so popular that since Eagle TV introduced the practice (originally more than 4 years ago) almost every other station (Mongolian owned and controlled) has duplicated it in one form or another. So the issue isn’t so-called “foreign influence,” rather it is an issue of control.

Totalitarian and socialist regimes tend toward media and speech controls for three important reasons:

Power

Political ideologies that are not founded first upon the idea of human freedom usually ascribe to some form of “management” or “control” of their subjects. In such systems, like communism, the State is the supreme authority and the people attain their rights from the State, granted as a privilege. But free societies take a contrary and more philosophically correct view. They view the collective citizenry as that which gives government its power, and the government exercises that power on behalf of the people for whom it works. Free societies rightly view a government not sanctioned by its people as an illegitimate government.

Arrogance

This may not seem like a “political” analysis, but consider that the whole philosophy from which a totalitarian system springs always, always has at its root the idea that people must be managed or controlled, and that there is a small class who must wield that control for so-called benefit of its citizens. Those same people also decide what those benefits are. Totalitarian and socialist systems are systems that have an innate distrust of its people and thus tend to breed distrust by its own populace.

Indefensible Philosophy

Every totalitarian system ever produced is predicated upon a philosophical system that cannot stand on its own apart from the exercise of oppressive or repressive power. This is true in religious systems as well as political systems. The great political evils of the 20th century—Communism and Nazism—could not be philosophically defended through a free and open exchange of ideas. They failed to win the masses without coercion, control, and murder. Unless deceived or driven by fear, most people will not openly or willingly embrace a repressive ideology. The same is true of Islam of Islamic governments. Even the Islamic world’s freest nation, Turkey, has seen its government make moves to solidify Islam as the State religion while hundreds of thousands stand against the move in protest. Unless deceived or driven by fear, most people will not openly or willingly embrace a repressive ideology. Ironically, it is the arrogant lust for power that prevents the totalitarian from recognizing the indefensibleness of his philosophy. He’s like a guy who has had too much beer. He might feel full, but thinks he can hold down just one more.

A free people tend to support and encourage the free exchange of ideas. But totalitarian rulers and systems predicated upon philosophies of human control (like Communism, Nazism, and Islam), cannot stand in the open light of day when their ideas are debated. Not all free societies have the right ideas, nor are all free people matured in their political notions—that’s human nature. Our political understanding grows just as our understanding of nature grows. But if we start from a philosophy that honors a free market of ideas then we allow those mistakes and immaturities to be explored and improved upon. A political philosophy of repression eliminates the good ideas along with the bad, in favor of that which is even worse, as we are seeing in Venezuela.

I used to think the days of communism were dead. How wrong I was. Communism isn’t dead; it just wrapped itself in a Lite Beer can—same skanky taste, half the calories. Sure. But what does it really do for you other than make you drunk?

You would think that by managing a TV news station I would follow Mongolian politics closely. Once in a while that’s true, but usually my attention is so focused on other issues that I don’t have the time to give it that much attention anymore except where our basic mission of Faith & Freedom is concerned. Most people don’t know that a representative of our parent organization, AMONG Foundation, was highly instrumental in helping Mongolia’s early democratic lawmakers draft a clause on religious freedom following the rejection of communism in the early nineties. The clause has changed a bit, but it still remains a shining example of religious freedom compared to other Asian countries. So when I read President Enkhbayar’s speech on commemorating the 15th anniversary of Mongolia’s democratic constitution, I was encouraged because of a short but highly significant statement made by the president that, to me, demonstrates a fundamental way of thinking necessary to advance and protect freedom.

In his speech commemorating the Constitution, the president noted:

“Today the Constitutional concept of freedom has become the belief of our citizens, and they fully understand that exercising their rights and freedom is not an extraordinary thing, but a norm of normal life. Many civil, social and mass media organizations have been established and freely conduct their activities in all types such as to support, examine and criticize the state actions realizing their opportunities according to laws. This is the change of quality and progress in the social consciousness and thinking of our people, and this is a remarkable achievement of the Constitution” (emphasis mine).

I love that! “Freedom is not an extraordinary thing” – it’s normal! That statement is more profound than you might think.

Sadly, for many centuries the ideas of freedom were extraordinary – or perhaps we should use the phrase, “out of the ordinary.” The so-called “divine-right” of kings, and arbitrary rule were the standards of history. It wasn’t until the Protestant Reformation that the idea of freedom as we understand it today began taking firm root – and even then it was only a seed. It took centuries more for that seed to grow into the modern concepts of freedom we cherish today. In the 20th century freedom gained new ground, but so did tyranny. The 20th century was the bloodiest in human history, but for all the blood spilled, more countries are free today than at any time in previous history. The 21st century faces yet more challenges. The old Evil Empires of Communism and Nazism have, for the most part been replaced by Islamic Fundamentalism. There will always be an evil to fight around the next corner. Such is the price of vigilance. But there is no denying that freedom is no longer considered extraordinary – freedom is normal. That is a radical and fundamental shift in thinking, especially in a former communist country like Mongolia.

President Enkhbayar’s statement is so right on the money it ought to be bankrolled. For how many centuries was freedom “extraordinary,” or to use our modified term, “out of the ordinary?” Far too long! We must always view freedom as the normal and natural condition of human beings, and oppose the oppressions of the so-called extraordinary.

The advancement of freedom and democracy in the Middle East may suffer yet another setback as the Iraqi government completes its negotiations on a new constitution. It was only one year ago that Afghanistan approved its constitution, with barely an outcry against its new government being framed under Islamic law (as it was under the previous regime). The new constitution implemented recognition of Islamic law as the basis for the nation’s legal system, declaring in Article 3, “No law can be contrary to the sacred religion of Islam.” Under what National Review calls the new “Taliban-Lite” religious freedom is guided by the principles of Islam, one of the most notorious oppressors of religious freedom in history. Now it appears that Iraq is headed in the same direction.

According to an August 20 report by CNN, “The role of religion has revolved around whether Islam will be termed ‘a’ main source or ‘the’ main source of legislation. Washington, which has shepherded the process, has made it clear that it would like to see Islam termed ‘a’ main source. But if there is compromise with other language espousing the principles of democracy, U.S. representatives say they are willing to agree that religion be ‘the’ main source.”

Is this what American soldiers have fought for, to build a new Islamic government?

Freedom House sent a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on August 4th, asserting, “The key provision that overrides all others is dangerous enabling language to the effect that ‘Islam’ would be the fundamental source of law in Iraq – rather than a source of law. This seemingly innocuous language threatens to subordinate rights otherwise guaranteed by international treaties, on gender equality and religious freedom in particular, to highly contestable, provisions in Sharia. Indeed, it would subordinate the entire constitution to an extra-constitutional and undefined ‘Islam’ that is itself subject to various interpretations.”

It escapes the notice of many postmodernists within the State Department that the principles of freedom and democracy upon which the Western world was built grew out of a long experience applying the principles of the Protestant Reformation in civil government. New England clergyman Cotton Mather wrote that the early settlers came to America to “express and pursue the Protestant Reformation.” What the early settlers drafted and redrafted in many colonies over the next 100 years were the principles of Biblical governance that eventually lead to the more fully developed concepts of political freedom espoused in the U.S. Declaration of Independence andConstitution.

Let there be no mistake, Christianity invented modern political freedom.

Contrary to the notion that Islamic societies can build lasting democracies – where is the evidence? Turkey may be cited as one example of an Islamic democracy, but is it? Technically Turkey is framed as a secular government, though Islamic forces within the authority structure have recently enlarged their design to further Islamicize the society by the authority of law. In March 2005 the Turkish government issued a public warning about missionary activity within their borders. “The goal of those activities is harming the cultural, religious, national and historical unity of the people of Turkey,’ Anatolia news agency quoted [Religious Affairs Directorate Mehmet] Ayd as saying. ‘These are not merely religious activities and they are not only carried out by Christian clerics. We have observed doctors, nurses, engineers, Red Cross officials, human rights defenders, peace activists and language tutors conducting missionary activities’”

If this is the case in a secular-framed Islamic society, democratic though it may be, what will be the case when Islamic law is “the fundamental” source of civil code? According to the CNN report, Washington may be willing to make compromises on the language as long as the principles of democracy are kept intact within the document. Therein lies the problem that our diplomats seem to forget – Islamic law runs contrary to democratic principles.What Islamic nation in history ever developed concepts of political freedom using the principles of Islam?

In more than 13 centuries, not a single one. In contrast, so-called Christian empires and governments were on a long road of discovery, learning how to apply principles of freedom espoused in the Old and New Testaments. As time went by, monarchies and despots weakened, and personal and political liberties advanced. Not so anywhere in the Islamic world. In fact, as industry and modern technology were applied to Islamic societies, oppression of personal liberties actually increased.

For freedom and democracy to work in a nation, any nation, certain principles must first be clearly understood – and embraced. Democracy is not simply one vote for all, or representation in the halls of government. Iran held elections this year. Are they free and democratic? Saddam used to hold elections. Was Iraq free and democratic? Even communist Russia used to hold a form of pseudo-elections to vote for local representatives of its government. Were they free and democratic?

I fear it was a mistake to move Iraq so quickly toward elections and drafting a new constitution before the true historical principles of freedom and democracy could have a chance to socially transform the country. Iraq is still a deeply Islamic culture. Its law and politics are likely to follow suit.

“All fear societies are based on a certain degree of brainwashing. State-controlled television, radio, and newspapers glorify the actions of the regime’s leaders and incite their populations against those it deems to be enemies.”

The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror, has given me extra insight into the condition of media in Mongolia – and our mission of Faith and Freedom.

My ability to read the latest western books is limited by living in Mongolia (where’s a Barnes and Noblebaatar when you need one?) but during a recent trip to the States I stocked up with a good year’s supply of reading material. Sharansky’s book was my last pick-up; at the Denver airport while suffering through an 8-hour delay. Thank God for airport delays! The Case For Democracy, is one of the most insightful books on political freedom I’ve read.

You may remember from an earlier commenterry that a recent analysis by Mongolia’s Press Institute and Globe International found that while there is sufficient media freedom for journalists to pursue their craft, there is, in practice, less freedom because of how ideological control of the media has developed over recent years. Keep in mind that Mongolia is a young democracy, without the foundation of Judeo-Christian traditions from which modern political freedom sprang (I explore this issue in my forthcoming book, Faith & Freedom: How the missionary principle facilitates political freedom). Like any nation going through a major political change, there are significant issues to grapple with and problems to overcome as the society experiments with new social concepts. Allow me to illustrate.

Yesterday a missionary friend in Mongolia said to me, “To Mongolians unity is often much higher in their priorities than truth because they have a communal society.” Brilliant! Coupled with Sharansky’s comments in his book about the differences between fear societies and free societies, I was beginning to gain greater insight into why, socially, Mongolia slipped so easily into communism. Sharansky notes, “A society is free if people have the right to express their views without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or physical harm… A simple way to determine whether the right to dissent in a particular society is being upheld is to apply the town square test: Can a person walk into the middle of the town square and express his or her views without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or physical harm? If he can, then that person is living in a free society. If not, it’s a fear society…fear societies never cross this threshold and are always unjust.”

What does this have to do with Eagle TV and state of Mongolian media? Very simply, while Mongolia has successfully transitioned from a fear society (under communism) to a free society (under democratic reform), much of its media still lags behind. Most journalists still cannot apply the town square test to their industry, or even many of their workplaces and come away saying they work in an atmosphere of complete media freedom.

The 2005 edition of Freedom of Information in Mongolia, published by Mongolia’s Press Institute, Pact Mongolia, and the U.S. Embassy, illustrates this well. It provides citation after citation of instances where Mongolian journalists were not permitted to write or produce stories on significant political or social issues. Many of those who took the risk lost their jobs, were interrogated by police, or suffered other injustices.

Even at the most free and independent media entity in the country – Eagle TV – we still see the problem of a fear society entrenched in the Mongolian media industry. During the recent Presidential elections I provided a specific set of instructions to our journalists that were designed to obey the existing laws on media and elections, while at the same time pushing the envelope – within the law – in order to gain new ground for press freedom. After the meeting was over one of our journalists came to me privately and said, “I don’t want to do this. I’m afraid.”

She wasn’t kidding, or making a mountain out of a mole hill. While there have been significant developments in media freedom during the last three years, 2003-2004 was still the period that more journalists were interrogated by authorities than any time previously. Udriin Sonin newspaper reported on April 17, 2004 that 400 journalists were interrogated, with 80 cases unresolved during that time (the Central Police Department and Judicial Authority take issue with that report). I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the reported increase happened during the period when the American-run Eagle TV was no longer on the air, serving as the standard-bearer for media freedom.

The point here is that even at the single most free, uncensored, creative media outlet in the country – Eagle TV – run by an American organization applying principles of western ethics, the fear society that still exists within the Mongolia media has not quite breathed its last. It is still able to stretch its leathery claws into our protective sphere – even if only a little.

I confess to a great deal of pride in what has been accomplished at Eagle TV. Our journalists don’t have an ideological overseer looking over their shoulder. No one on staff, or in management, has any authority to refuse airing a story on ideological grounds beyond the standard practices of fact-checking, proper sourcing, etc. It doesn’t mean things are perfect, and that our people don’t make mistakes. But it does mean that they are free to make mistakes in the exercise of their own judgment. And they are free to say no to the facilitators of the fear society within the media knowing that they will have the unquestionable backing of their fellow staff – and the boss. I believe it is this approach which best serves the growth of democratic ideals within the media – and help us set the stage for further efforts to advance freedom of conscience, and our faith in Jesus Christ.

“All fear societies are based on a certain degree of brainwashing. State-controlled television, radio, and newspapers glorify the actions of the regime’s leaders and incite their populations against those it deems to be enemies.”

The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror, has given me extra insight into the condition of media in Mongolia – and our mission of Faith and Freedom.

My ability to read the latest western books is limited by living in Mongolia (where’s a Barnes and Noblebaatar when you need one?) but during a recent trip to the States I stocked up with a good year’s supply of reading material. Sharansky’s book was my last pick-up; at the Denver airport while suffering through an 8-hour delay. Thank God for airport delays! The Case For Democracy, is one of the most insightful books on political freedom I’ve read.

You may remember from an earlier commenterry that a recent analysis by Mongolia’s Press Institute and Globe International found that while there is sufficient media freedom for journalists to pursue their craft, there is, in practice, less freedom because of how ideological control of the media has developed over recent years. Keep in mind that Mongolia is a young democracy, without the foundation of Judeo-Christian traditions from which modern political freedom sprang (I explore this issue in my forthcoming book, Faith & Freedom: How the missionary principle facilitates political freedom). Like any nation going through a major political change, there are significant issues to grapple with and problems to overcome as the society experiments with new social concepts. Allow me to illustrate.

Yesterday a missionary friend in Mongolia said to me, “To Mongolians unity is often much higher in their priorities than truth because they have a communal society.” Brilliant! Coupled with Sharansky’s comments in his book about the differences between fear societies and free societies, I was beginning to gain greater insight into why, socially, Mongolia slipped so easily into communism. Sharansky notes, “A society is free if people have the right to express their views without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or physical harm… A simple way to determine whether the right to dissent in a particular society is being upheld is to apply the town square test: Can a person walk into the middle of the town square and express his or her views without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or physical harm? If he can, then that person is living in a free society. If not, it’s a fear society…fear societies never cross this threshold and are always unjust.”

What does this have to do with Eagle TV and state of Mongolian media? Very simply, while Mongolia has successfully transitioned from a fear society (under communism) to a free society (under democratic reform), much of its media still lags behind. Most journalists still cannot apply the town square test to their industry, or even many of their workplaces and come away saying they work in an atmosphere of complete media freedom.

The 2005 edition of Freedom of Information in Mongolia, published by Mongolia’s Press Institute, Pact Mongolia, and the U.S. Embassy, illustrates this well. It provides citation after citation of instances where Mongolian journalists were not permitted to write or produce stories on significant political or social issues. Many of those who took the risk lost their jobs, were interrogated by police, or suffered other injustices.

Even at the most free and independent media entity in the country – Eagle TV – we still see the problem of a fear society entrenched in the Mongolian media industry. During the recent Presidential elections I provided a specific set of instructions to our journalists that were designed to obey the existing laws on media and elections, while at the same time pushing the envelope – within the law – in order to gain new ground for press freedom. After the meeting was over one of our journalists came to me privately and said, “I don’t want to do this. I’m afraid.”

She wasn’t kidding, or making a mountain out of a mole hill. While there have been significant developments in media freedom during the last three years, 2003-2004 was still the period that more journalists were interrogated by authorities than any time previously. Udriin Sonin newspaper reported on April 17, 2004 that 400 journalists were interrogated, with 80 cases unresolved during that time (the Central Police Department and Judicial Authority take issue with that report). I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the reported increase happened during the period when the American-run Eagle TV was no longer on the air, serving as the standard-bearer for media freedom.

The point here is that even at the single most free, uncensored, creative media outlet in the country – Eagle TV – run by an American organization applying principles of western ethics, the fear society that still exists within the Mongolia media has not quite breathed its last. It is still able to stretch its leathery claws into our protective sphere – even if only a little.

I confess to a great deal of pride in what has been accomplished at Eagle TV. Our journalists don’t have an ideological overseer looking over their shoulder. No one on staff, or in management, has any authority to refuse airing a story on ideological grounds beyond the standard practices of fact-checking, proper sourcing, etc. It doesn’t mean things are perfect, and that our people don’t make mistakes. But it does mean that they are free to make mistakes in the exercise of their own judgment. And they are free to say no to the facilitators of the fear society within the media knowing that they will have the unquestionable backing of their fellow staff – and the boss. I believe it is this approach which best serves the growth of democratic ideals within the media – and help us set the stage for further efforts to advance freedom of conscience, and our faith in Jesus Christ.