These feelings were temporary primarily because with the passage of at least 48 hours, scepticism was and still is beginning to take root in the public psyche, though not yet loud enough to be of concern to the political parties. And the main reason fro this scepticism has got two key sources; the conduct of the state controlled media as well as the clauses over and about media policy reform issues that are alluded to in the power sharing agreement.
Whenever one purchases the state daily, The Herald or any other of its weekly publications, the editorial slant, even after the agreement, has remained as firmly entrenched in Zanu PF propaganda as ever before. There has been no change in the language of first, praising President Robert Mugabe and his party, nor has there been any improved coverage of Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai and his party, let alone Deputy Prime Minister Arthur Mutambara and his party.
The same can also easily be said of the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation’s affiliate radio and singular television station. Every time, one tunes in to either listen or to watch the news, the coverage is clearly intended to keep the Zanu PF reasons for signing this agreement within the realms of a propaganda tactic akin to what was witnessed in the run up to the now largely discredited June 27 Presidential run-off poll. President Mugabe is consistently depicted as the benevolent leader who has and is doing everything in his power to defend the country’s sovereignty’ even after it is clear that the humanitarian, economic, social and political crisis is well beyond the aegis of Zanu Pf or its leader. The Prime Minister and his deputy are invariably presented to the public as though they can only be but subordinates of the President through never being shown on television or listened to on radio speaking or acting on their own, but always in the presence of the Zanu PF leader or in news about the Zanu PF party position.
How this has been allowed to go on might not be for this writer to answer but it is evidently symptomatic of an unrepentant state media, still assuming, amongst other things, it is beyond reproach and beyond public accountability to give news as is. Even state media personnel other in the form of people that write stories, or those that are still directly involved in the regulation of the media (though without clear locus standi), have continued as if, it is not a power sharing agreement, but some sort of victory for Zanu Pf, a completely dishonest position. Take for example Dr. Tafataona Mahoso, who consistently appears on state media programmes such as Media Watch lambasting not only the new Speaker of Parliament but all other media with no one being given the right of reply. Moreover, his continued spewing of inappropriate language and what I consider a misrepresentation of Naomi Klein’s best seller, The Shock Doctrine in his Sunday Opinion columns for propaganda purposes, whilst at the same time still laying claim to be the chairperson of the Media and Information Commission is clearly an attempt to present the context of this agreement as being business as usual’ with Zanu PF, its apparatchiks and its state media being firmly in control.
On the other hand, the private media, in its limited presence to three print weekly papers and intermittent magazines, has been by and large trying its best under the circumstances. It has been covering not only the voices of the three political parties, but even civil society as well as the humanitarian, economic and social crisis that is ravaging the country. Even the so called pirate radio stations, have been giving ordinary people an opportunity to speak their minds on everything that is going on and by so doing indicating that there is indeed some change in the country which is not couched in Zanu PF history or some vain glorious attempts to keep President Mugabe’s image as the sole leader of the country intact.
This having been said, there are ways in which the state media must be immediately restructured in order for there to be fairer and truly public oriented representation of all the political, social and economic processes that are taking place in our country. First, is that, regardless of whether there is a cabinet or not, the three principals in this inclusive government must immediately instruct the ZBC and Zimpapers to cover all issues affecting the country freely and fairly and in line with the SADC Protocol on Culture, Information and Sport in tandem with the African Charter n Broadcasting as well as the Windhoek Declaration on an Independent, Pluralistic and African Press, all of which indicate their commitment to Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as a public serving, and independent media at all levels.
This will also mean that these three principals must set up a monitoring mechanism of how the state media behaves in the interim in relation to the aforementioned Protocols, Principles and Declarations until the convening of parliament.
Secondly, the Parliament of Zimbabwe, through the office of the Speaker, President of Senate and the Standing Orders Committee must ensure that the Transport and Communications Portfolio Committee has a greater oversight role in how the state media is administered as well as how it serves the public in terms of the same protocols, declarations and principles. This must be done in tandem with a view to reform the state media and remove it from direct government control similar to that which has characterised the last 40 or so years of state media in both the then Rhodesia and post independence Zimbabwe.
Thirdly, both this inclusive government, should it ever come into existence, and the Parliament of Zimbabwe must be cognisant of the fact that the clauses on the media that are in their agreement are completely inadequate for the establishment of a free media. The Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA) remains undemocratic both in its insistence of state regulation of the media as well as its cumbersome process of allowing citizens to acquire information from government, regardless of the January 2008 amendments. The Broadcasting Services Act (BSA) also remains repressive in limiting foreign direct investment in a capital intensive industry as well as functioning in tandem with AIPPA and POSA as well as the Interception of Communications Act.
In conclusion, this article was not premised on the need to defend the power sharing agreement, which is essentially what it is. Its intention was to put into perspective the dishonest role that the state controlled media is so keen on continuing to play by promoting one political party over and above the others, not covering social and economic issues as obtaining on the ground, and not being sensitive to the importance of serving the public over and above the interests of one political party. Over and above the inclusive government, media freedom remains a critical arena for democratic transformation of Zimbabwean society. Retaining the current structures of the media and how it is regulated under the undemocratic nuances of AIPPA, POSA, BSA and ICA, is to betray the right of the people of Zimbabwe to know not only their country but what is truly happening within it. Democratic media reform must and still remain a priority