Assange’s plight demands as much attention as Navalny’s

That societies can be measured by how they treat their vulnerable members, as Mahatma Gandhi purportedly remarked, has stood the test of time. The adage resonates in our current global discourse, particularly for advocates of truth, transparency and democratic access to information. In the information age, such principles are powerful tools for empowering the underprivileged.

One such individual to whom this adage undeniably applies is Julian Assange. His plight exemplifies the complex interplay between power, justice and media influence in our modern world. Assange has been unfairly, if not illegally, incarcerated for well over a decade for his commitment to truth. In many ways, he embodies the spirit of Nelson Mandela for our time.

The Australian editor, publisher and activist, founder of WikiLeaks, rose to prominence in 2010 when Wikileaks published a series of “leaks” from US army intelligence. This included footage exposing the illegal invasion of Iraq by the US. Since then the US has relentlessly pursued Assange, demanding his extradition to face 17 charges under its 1917 Espionage Act for publishing classified information. These charges carry a maximum sentence of 175 years in jail. If extradited, Assange is likely to spend the rest of his life behind bars.

Recently, in the UK High Court, the US argued that Assange put innocent lives at risk by releasing hundreds of thousands of classified US government documents. Additionally, the US contends that he cannot be treated like an ordinary journalist and that WikiLeaks should not be regarded as an ordinary publisher.

However, it is the deafening silence of global society and the entire ecosystem that should have us worried. The Western media, in particular, including our own here in South Africa, has treated this unfolding tragedy as a non-issue. On February 21, the date of his last scheduled court appearance, Assange was again not in court due to poor health conditions, according to his lawyers. In January, he was reported to be in a frail mental state, raising alarms of a potential suicide attempt.

Assange’s lawyers argue that this case is politically motivated, and they are correct. Assange is effectively a political prisoner whose “crime” was to share information with the public that was in the public interest.

In a recent statement, Amnesty International urged the US government to cease its “unrelenting pursuit” of Assange and to “drop charges” against him. The organisation argued that the pursuit of Assange for publishing disclosed documents, which included potential war crimes by the US military, amounted to “nothing short of a full-scale assault on the right to freedom of expression”.

To highlight that the media is not entirely blind, the tragic death in prison of Alexei Navalny, the Russian opposition leader, lawyer, anti-corruption activist and political prisoner, unleashed a flurry of media attention and condemnation, particularly in the West. Western leaders and media suddenly became attuned to the crucial issue of justice, praising Navalny for his courage, condemning his death and squarely placing responsibility on Russian President Vladimir Putin and his regime.

Here at home, some political parties and media outlets capitalised on the situation, offering their “heartfelt condolences” as a display of solidarity with the Western narrative.

Amid this orchestrated uproar, a deafening silence continued to envelop the case of Assange. The glaring omission of his story reveals a troubling disparity in how the media chooses to champion certain causes while neglecting others.

While Navalny’s tragic fate rightfully warrants scrutiny and outrage, Assange’s prolonged incarceration and persecution should demand equal, if not greater, attention from those who claim to uphold the democratic principles of free speech and transparency.

Assange stands as a living testament to the power of investigative journalism and the importance of holding power to account. Yet, as he languishes in prison, facing political persecution and a systematic erosion of his basic rights, the media that clamoured for justice in Navalny’s case has turned a blind eye to his plight. The hypocrisy and double standards inherent in this selective silence speak volumes about the underlying power dynamics and vested interests that shape media narratives.

Nevertheless, the media’s treatment of figures like Navalny and Assange reflects the larger structural nature of the global system. Many scholars argue that the media apparatus, intertwined with political elites and corporate interests, serves to perpetuate a dominant narrative that aligns with the status quo and reinforces existing power structures. The Assange case serves as a poignant example of this analysis.