Katy Williams asked political debate show presenters in Nepal and Afghanistan about the real-life changes their programmes have helped achieve. Successes include getting more people with disabilities working in government ministries and prompting other organisations to support communities.

Nepalis and Afghans alike are used to politicians making pledges they don’t fulfil. So, when the studio lights fade on a political debate broadcast, audiences have little expectation that decision-makers will follow up on any promises made on stage.

It’s often understandable why politicians don’t always honour the promises they make on air. Their efforts may be thwarted by a change in government, putting them out of office before they can enact change. They themselves may not be senior enough to take the necessary steps. And, moved by first-hand accounts of hardship, they often over-promise on what they can actually deliver, when answering candid questions put to them directly by ordinary people.

Sometimes leaders defy expectations

Yet ministers do sometimes take action after appearing on talk shows, notes Daud Junbish, presenter of Afghanistan’s Open Jirga (Open Assembly) debate show. One of the highest profile examples of this was when double amputee Asadullah Kamawi challenged then-President Karzai on the lack of provisions made for people with disabilities. After the programme, Karzai invited Asadullah to a ministerial meeting. Karzai later decreed that every government ministry should employ a person with a disability to act as an adviser - a commitment that he lived up to.

More recently, Nepal’s debate programme Sajha Sawal (Common Questions) covered pollution in the Kathmandu valley. The production team took the environment minister to the area where people were most affected by road dust, so he could see the extent of the problem for himself. “He promised to water the roads to dampen down the dust and immediately followed up on that pledge after the show”, said the show’s presenter Bidhya Chapagain.

As to what Sajha Sawal panellists think, ten from the last two years were randomly selected and asked if the programme had led them to take new action. Five said it had. The remainder generally blamed their relative inactivity on a change in government, which meant they’d lost power before they could enact their promises. Perhaps not surprisingly, those who succeeded in doing things differently were mainly ministers, state ministers and heads of parliamentary committees.

It’s more about supporting debate than being a ‘watchdog’

In reality, our governance programmes work on a far more nuanced level than ‘question, answer, response’. A ‘watchdog’ approach, whereby an assertive media and empowered citizenry demand accountability from their leaders can be overly simplistic and not necessarily effective in certain settings.

“We expect our guests to follow up on their commitments but we don’t expect overnight changes in policy,” says Bidhya. “We hope it creates debate. We hope it has that power. The debates often kick-start a wider debate which other media outlets follow up on.”

Open Jirga presenter Daud also notes that playing hardball with politicians is a dangerous game in a country damaged by four decades of war. “Every politician is under pressure. They are suspicious. They can become aggressive. And they may suspect me of taking sides.”

He insists his role is to coax people to be brave and speak up, to give voice to the marginalised – often illiterate women from rural areas. “At the start, five years ago no one raised their arm. Now we have lots of people, including women, asking questions. I can safely say we have given voice to real people.”

Indeed, amplifying people’s voices, creating safe spaces for debate and providing information are ends in themselves, in addition to serving as core pillars of a functioning democracy.

Gripping, real life stories can bring about change

Bidhya has written before about how Sajha Sawal transformed the life of Ujeli, a 15-year old girl displaced by Nepal’s devastating 2015 earthquake.She believes in the power of ‘immersive programmes’ to prompt other organisations in Nepal to help communities. For example, one episode of Sajha Sawal was shot in a very poor Dalit community in the Terai, in southern Nepal.

The team spent six days living there during the recording. “I am not from that community but for several days I ate, sat and slept alongside them. It was a remarkable way of ensuring that unheard voices were heard.”

Viewers – and panellists – were able to ‘experience’ that children didn’t attend school, the poor sanitation, lack of clean drinking water, high levels of illiteracy and low likelihood of having citizenship. “The response was huge. Now, an NGO and student volunteers are supporting children to be back in school – and helping build toilets.” recalled Bidhya.

This kind of approach is more likely to engage audiences, and catalyse on-the-ground changes.

Building bridges or bridging divides?

Concrete improvements to public services have certainly followed in the wake of many of our shows. But there are less tangible changes that run deeper, Daud insists. He says that other broadcasters have copied his technique of flipping from one official language to the other (Dari to Pashto) to ensure that everyone understands what’s happening. It’s now something he’s noticed even the president of Afghanistan himself do.

“There has been real rivalry between the two language groups. By speaking in both languages we bridged this divide. That is creating real change by bringing people together.”

Bidyha points out that women in Nepal now feel safe about sharing their issues and problems with her on air. “With this growing acceptance of women asking questions and putting themselves forward I think our society is gradually changing. I am hoping that, the day is not that far away when every family will feel proud to have a girl in their family.”

There’s a lot more to find out about how political programmes affect people’s lives. Finding the answers will involve going beyond measuring tangible successes – like building a bridge. But it’s also about taking stock of less concrete, more long-term changes – like bridging societal divides.

Katy Williams is Research Editor at ��tv Media Action, she tweets as @KatyMediaDev. Daud Junbish presents Open Jirga (Open Assembly) in Afghanistan, he tweets as @DaudJunbish. Bidhya Chapagain presents Sajha Sawal (Common Questions) in Nepal, she tweets as @cbidhya.

This blog follows the launch of our new practice briefing, ‘Doing debate differently: media and accountability’ which looks at how media can help people influence their leaders, drawing on research from nine countries.

Blog: Media, participation and social inclusion: what are the links?

Research report: Media and political participation: fostering inclusive governance

International development organisations need to understand the viewpoints and experiences of women and girls if they are to improve opportunities for them.

��tv Media Action’s research editor Katy Williams spoke to Ahmad Tamim Sharifzai, the organisation’s senior research officer in Afghanistan, about the challenges of conducting formative and evaluative research with women in the country.

Q What are some of the broader challenges you face when conducting research in Afghanistan?

Research is not a new phenomenon in Afghanistan, but I find that when I am out in the field, especially in rural areas, people can be somewhat suspicious of it. They sometimes think it’s a form of spying – that researchers will pass covert information to untrustworthy foreigners who may then attack them.

It’s also difficult to travel to remote areas because of the mountainous terrain, bad roads (or even no roads at all), harsh weather, long distances and insecurity. In addition, since there is not much reliable up- to-date population data (the last census was carried out 40 years ago), it’s hard to ensure that research participants are representative of the public-at-large.

Q What specific challenges do you confront when gathering information from women?

Women often aren’t permitted to talk to any member of the opposite gender who isn’t a close family member. So we always need to use women researchers to talk to women. But finding female researchers isn’t easy, as education levels are low among Afghan women – just 3% of women over the age of 25 have completed any formal education. Ideally, researchers also need to be able to speak both Pashto and Dari - which are spoken by roughly 35% and 50% of the population respectively - if they are to be able to communicate with the majority of female interviewees. But of course it’s hard recruiting researchers with such language skills.

Then we have the problem of finding women researchers who are able to travel to other provinces, as their travel tends to be more restricted. It’s not just practical obstacles that prevent women from travelling alone, there are cultural reasons too. Women face considerable resistance to taking on roles outside the home, as demonstrated by the recent killing of five female airport workers, who had previously received death threats because of their jobs.

On one occasion, we spent a whole week trying to hire a female researcher in Kandahar province. The search eventually came to an end when we managed to recruit two women from the same family so they could travel together. They had some experience conducting research for other organisations, but none in media research. This is the kind of compromise we have to make in our work.
Often the best way of finding female researchers is to ask village elders to identify local women who may be able to help us – then we can train them.

Q Tell me why conducting focus group discussions with women is not really an option in Afghanistan.

To take part in a focus group, women need to leave their homes to go to a neighbour’s house or to a public space. For many, this is culturally unacceptable. What’s more, they often feel inhibited in a group and many do not feel comfortable sharing information or speaking publically.

Due to these constraints, we tend to opt for in-depth interviews, rather than focus group discussions. When they’re not in a group, women tend to be more confident about sharing information.

Q How do you go about arranging in-depth interviews with female participants?

First of all, we have to get permission from a male relative – typically a father, husband or brother. We also have to allay the fears of village elders and other influential family members, such as mothers, grandmothers and other older female authority figures. We have to convince everyone that we aren’t trying to extract information that could compromise anyone’s safety or cultural practices.

To pave the way for a smooth interviewing process, we discuss the questions with the women and their families in advance and reassure them that we won’t reveal any names, addresses or take photos. People are sometimes suspicious about why we want to interview certain women and not others, so we show them that we use random sampling techniques, such as drawing matchsticks, in order to determine who will be spoken to.

Q What are the most effective techniques you’ve found for ensuring you can record the views of women in Afghanistan?

Our main technique is to explain to everyone involved – village elders, husbands, fathers and the female interviewee herself – exactly what we are doing and why, which helps dispel their fears and suspicions.

On one occasion, in Laghman province, one of our female researchers was attacked with stones as she came out of a house. This was because we had failed to ask the permission of the interviewee’s husband. Once I had spoken with him to explain what we were doing and why, it was all OK. The attack was prompted by fear, which could be addressed with information.

Often, people want money for participating in an interview. On these occasions, we explain that our research has development goals – that it ultimately aims to improve specific aspects of their lives – and that we cannot pay them for their time.

Most of the time, we manage to persuade women to take part in our surveys – as long as we don’t attempt to contact them directly. However, it can sometimes take some time to recruit women that match the profile we’re looking for.

In addition, it’s often worthwhile to train local women to carry out our research because they’re already known and trusted in the area and more easily able to go from house to house. However, it can be challenging to find women in rural areas who are educated or who have any experience conducting interviews.

Q Are some topics particularly hard to discuss?

Gender is the hardest. There’s a perception that this is all about how to take a stand against a man. Some topics related to governance and local politics are also tricky to cover; some women (and men too) are just not ready to talk about this – they are too frightened of local power-holders, the government and/or their husbands.

Q What’s the most surprising experience you’ve had conducting research?

One time, while working for ��tv Media Action in Laghman province, I was approached by local Taliban officials who were very suspicious about what I was doing. They held me in a car. The situation was finally resolved when local women came out and explained that I was doing research that aimed to improve the lives of ordinary people. The Taliban listened to them and released me. Women are very much respected as negotiators in Afghanistan.

Katy Williams is a Research Editor at ��tv Media Action. Ahmad Tamim Sharifzai, is a Senior Research Officer at ��tv Media Action, Afghanistan.

Media Action Insight Blog Feed

Human stories inspire positive change

Researching women in Afghanistan