Washing dirty linen in public

BY ITAI DZAMARA

Several cultural and social values or practices impinge upon investigative journalism in Africa compared to other regions such as Europe and America.

Africans have a somewhat outdated approach towards the handling of information, particularly if it is negative or portrays problems. They believe so much in the adage that they should not wash dirty linen in public.

In addition to this, there is in Africa an exaggerated norm for the respect of elders or those in positions of authority, which translates into fear. These beliefs or values extend to how media practitioners are required to operate, especially by those in power with the general expectation being that there should be some issues that are thought of as ‘sacred’ and as no-go areas for investigative journalists. The same attitude also affects the manner in which consumers of media products react to reports about bizarre goings-on, such as massive corruption by the leaders, or abuse of state resources.

For example, attempts by journalists to investigate or criticise the ancient cultural values of the Swazi Kingship, where King Mswati still practises stone-age marriage and sexual rituals, have been frustrated by the usual autocratic, chauvinistic arrogance. Yet on the outside, the society presents an image of normality with even the victims choosing to see or hear no evil in order to avoid washing dirty linen in public.

Another example is that of several corruption allegations against leaders in African states, such as in the case of Mobuto Seseseko of the Democratic Republic of Congo, Fredrick Chiluba of Zambia and Charles Taylor of Libya. These leaders made sure to manipulate the social and cultural beliefs to shield themselves from exposure and investigation by journalists.

Another example is Zimbabwe, where President Robert Mugabe’s handlers have enshrined in the law clauses that try to protect the person and office of the president as well as shield him from criticism. The Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act makes it a criminal offence if a journalist is adjudged to have “portrayed the president in an insulting or demeaning manner”.  

Several journalists have already been arrested charged with committing that offence against Mugabe, and interestingly, the State.

An example is that of the arrest of four journalists from the Zimbabwe Independent in 2004 – Iden Wetherell, Vincent Kahiya, Itai Dzamara and Dumisani Muleya – after a story exposing how Mugabe had grabbed the national airline’s plane for his family holiday in the Far East.

In comparison, journalists in the United States of America have access to their leaders and get to grill them as well as freely report on their misdemeanours, and the public appreciates their role. The same applies to most of the democracies in Europe.