A one day strike by 22 newspapers cannot be taken lightly. It demonstrated -- despite the varying stands of the newspapers that suspended publication -- a consensus amongst the independent and private press against the imposition of custodial sentences for publishing offences. In today's world, where technology has rendered control of information a futile exercise, the notion of press censorship in its traditional form has become an outdated concept. Governments like Saudi Arabia and China may have gone to great lengths to ensure that their populations cannot surf the Internet freely but in the digital world no one can fully control the free exchange of information. In Egypt, the situation is as confused as the country's political life. There is no obsession over access to information along the Saudi and Chinese models and the state has thus far been unsuccessful in manipulating the private press. Dissent exists and is to some degree tolerated. Pick up an independent or opposition newspaper and nobody is immune from criticism. One time taboos have faded in what officials describe as the age of the "free press" -- or that was until recently the impression. Now the press community must face the sentencing of 11 journalists to prison terms: what they have been found "guilty" of -- offending senior state officials -- does not, by the standards of the modern world, justify depriving them of their freedom. This is why 22 newspapers decided to protest against sentences for which provisions continue to exist in the penal code and the press law. The other telling development of the last week has been the gap that emerged between pro-state newspapers and the independent press. The former lambasted the 7 October strike as a redundant gesture that passed mostly unnoticed by the reader while the latter pointed to the extensive coverage of the strike in the international media. In both cases two points went missing. First, publishing offences involve the expression of thoughts, views and opinions which should not be met with custodial sentences. Second, the Press Syndicate, which should guard the profession and those associated with it, has failed to protect journalists. The fact that the Press Syndicate's board and chairman oppose custodial sentences and supported the 7 October strike, yet the syndicate has repeatedly failed in having custodial sentences for publishing offences removed from the penal code and the press law. A weak syndicate, a divided press community and the imprisonment of journalists help no one, including the officials who have been offended. The recent press battle is a microcosm of a wider struggle with democratic practice. If we are not following the Chinese archetype what model are we adopting? A weak civil society and a strong state is not conducive to development and progress while a confident government in a free democracy promises a better and brighter future. The choice is ours.
