BY JUMA DONKE
Before his damascene conversion to Zanu PF in 1999, Professor Jonathan
Moyo was famous for his intelligent analysis of Zimbabwean politics and
his proclivity to deliver harsh criticism to naughty affiliates of the
ruling elites.
In one such inspired moment, Moyo gave a signally important insight
into the public role of the media in a democracy: arguing that as it
exercises its oversight function; the media must not allow its logic to
be clouded by partisanship and other intrinsic prejudices.
Writing in the Financial Gazette in 1992, Moyo said: There is
something morally crushing about giving us, as the official Press is
fond of doing, national character to the prejudices of a leader of a
particular idiosyncratic ruling party just because the leader happens
to be the head of state. In a multi-party democracy which this country
is supposed to be, at least constitutionally, the media should draw a
sharp line between party and national affairs.
But this is where the government controlled media fails the nation.
Their brief whether decreed from above or self -imposed, is to report
Zanu (PF) affairs as if the ruling party is greater than the nation.
This docility sometimes takes on disgusting proportions when the
government controlled media reports whatever Mr Mugabe says, whenever
he says it, without analysing its contents. Presumably, this is in
keeping with the Zanu (PF) doctrine of presidential infallibility.
Although Moyo later presided over the iniquitous strangulation of the
state media, and bashed the hypercritical press into extinction, his
earlier pluralist thinking was unmistakably attuned to the maturing
putsch for a new a democratic culture in the country.
Media and democracy
As a matter of fact, international legal norms which are in the main
founded on Western liberal theory, view the media as the centrepiece in
the battle to foster and preserve democracy.
As Kwame Karikari, executive director of the media foundation for West
Africa says: It is generally accepted that the more press and media
freedom a country enjoys, the greater the respect for human rights.
Furthermore, it is often in those countries with greater media freedoms
that the structures and practice of democratic governance are likely to
show stability and strength.
Indeed, democratic societies vouchsafe the media to act as community
watchdogs and not merely passive recorders of events. In light of this,
the media is expected to hold power accountable although this is only
possible if citizens are well informed about the actions of officials
and institutions.
The watchdog press is guardian of the public interest, warning
citizens against those who are doing them harm. A fearless and
effective watchdog is critical in fledgling democracies where
institutions are weak and pummelled by political pressure.
When legislatures, judiciaries and other oversight bodies are
powerless against the mighty or are themselves corruptible, the media
are often left as the only check against the abuse of power. This
requires that they play a heroic role, exposing the excesses of
presidents, prime ministers, legislators and magistrates despite the
risks, argues Sheila Coronel of United Nations Public Administration
Network (UNPAN).
Here, the state media typified by The Herald, The Sunday Mail and ZBC fail to pass the mark.
State media used as proxies
Since Zanu (PF) launched the country on the path to repression and
economic ruin a decade ago, the state media have been used as proxies
in the fight to win the minds of the citizenry. The government media
blindly praise the government's chaotic farmland seizures, justify
oppression and pitilessly attack government opponents, including the
private press.
During the 2008 elections, for instance, these media dropped all
pretence at adhering to the public good and switched to a propaganda
frequency. In view of this, the Media Monitoring Project of Zimbabwe
(MMPZ) noted that before new regulations governing media conduct during
elections were promulgated, ZBC had failed to stick to basic national
public broadcasting standards. These norms entail providing fair and
equitable coverage of diverse opinions.
Instead, the airwaves were saturated with Zanu PF propaganda disguised
as news… coverage of Zanu PF still dominates the news bulletins of
the national public broadcaster, ZBC, and the columns of the
government-controlled Press… the MDC activities, particularly their
rallies, are still largely ignored in the official Press, while [Simba]
Makoni's visibility is still mostly restricted to reports relating to
his betrayal' of the ruling party, said the MMPZ in a March 2008
Weekly report.
Yet, state media because of their dominance of both the newspaper and
broadcast sectors are better placed to serve the public good: the
gargantuan media empire is easily accessible to larger sections of the
populace – even the poorer end of the community which is heavily
dependent on radio.
While the private sector media has attempted to attenuate the
government controlled media's influence on the public sphere by hosting
voices banished from the columns of state media, stringent media
regulations, however, have forestalled their efforts to wrestle a more
substantial market share and audiences.
Equal participation in discourse
Jurgen Habermas, in The Structural Transformation of the Public
Sphere, argues that a healthy democracy must be under-girded by a
public sphere which permits equal participation in discourse on matters
of public interest. Ideally, the public sphere must be free of control
by the state or the market, thus allowing it to host variegated
rational voices on public matters regardless of how dissenting.
Although Habermas has been criticised for idealising the public sphere,
his standpoint resonates well with international human rights law.
Various international legal instruments have declared that media must
be unhindered in their operations.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), in Handyside v United
Kingdom, for example, declared that: [F]reedom of expression is
applicable not only to information' or ideas' that are favourably
receivedbut also to those which offend shock or disturb the State or
any other sector of the population. Such are the demands of pluralism,
tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no democratic
society.
Also, in Miami Herald publishing v Tornillo the United States Supreme
Court clearly stated that governments had no business running
newspapers. Regardless of how beneficent-sounding the purposes of
controlling the press might be, we remain intensely sceptical about
those measures that would allow government to insinuate itself into the
editorial rooms of this nation's press.
In short, these decisions which have been replicated with alacrity in
other legal jurisdictions have acquired force of law globally as
customary international law. These customs obligate states to refrain
from interfering with citizens' right to free expression and the twin
right of press freedom.
In this connection, the Zimbabwean media environment in which the
government still holds sway grossly negates international standards and
impugns citizens' right to receive uncorrupted information.
The net effect of this arrangement, particularly in the wake of the
banning of foreign media deemed hostile to Zanu (PF), is the shortage
of credible information on malfeasance, and inept administration. In
addition, the majority is denied access to the public bulletin board
to debate national matters.
Tawana Kupe, the Dean of Media Studies at the University of
Witswatersrand says the suppression of the media space has created an
external network of radio stations, online news sites, activist
websites which carry news and advocacy material.. These publications
include The Zimbabwean and its stable mate, The Zimbabwean on Sunday
which have recently emerged as a credible sources of alternative
information on the Zimbabwean imbroglio.
These media, Kupe adds, essentially aim to provide news and information
that the state-controlled media is deemed to suppress; provide a
platform for Zimbabweans in the Diaspora to debate and discuss the
crisis at home and what needs to be done; to mobilise for democracy.
Ideally, these publications which ascribed to themselves the role of
being the voice of the voiceless should be domiciled inside the
country, augmenting public media.
Because privately-owned media habitually pander to the whim of the
commercial interests of the owners, non aligned public media are
considered more trustworthy in producing undiluted news and information
on the polity.
Fate of Zimpapers
In this regard, the new government has promised to lift the ban on all outlawed media.
Whilst Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai has encouraged foreign-based
Zimbabwean media to seek registration in terms of the restrictive
Broadcasting Services Act and the draconian Access to Information and
Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA), he nevertheless remained silent on
the fate of Zimpapers.
Anton Harber a professor of Journalism at Wits University believes that
the government must not privatise Zimpapers. The need for diversity
will not be served if such a large and dominant group is simply sold
off to a new owner, reproducing the imbalances inherited from the
colonial era, he argues.
At independence, the government inherited broadcast services from the
outgoing Rhodesia Front government and paid US$5 million (ZW$2. 7
million) extended to it by the Nigerian government to the Argus Group
of South Africa for Zimpapers.
The group fronted by The Herald and The Sunday Mail also includes The
Chronicle, The Sunday News, Manica Post and Kwayedza-Umtunya.
The government could break up the state media group, though they
would have to be careful to ensure the bits and pieces remain viable
under what will be tough economic conditions for some time at least.
They could also try and convert it to a true public service media,
relinquishing control over the trust and ensuring it falls into the
hands of the great, the good and the independent, said Harber in the
Business Day of South Africa.
New private monopoly
This will ensure that the country sidesteps the pitfalls of creating a new private monopoly from the ashes of Zimpapers.
Indeed, transforming the unbundled newspapers into public media that
are accountable to the community through a board that is carefully
insulated against political or economic influence could also prevent
the possible replacement of state censorship with institutionalised
chaos.
As Harber notes whatever reforms the government embraces must open up
the private media sector, privatise some state media, and establish a
well insulated public service trust drawn from a cross section of
society, including civil society.
The public press could then be deployed to bolster democracy by
educating the public on their constitutional rights, promoting
discourse among the citizenry and taking errant public officials to
task over their misdeeds.
In this way, the new government will go some way toward fulfilling the
African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights' 2002 (ACHPR)
Declaration on Freedom of Expression in Africa which enjoins states to
ensure that: any print media published by a public authority should be
protected adequately against undue political interference.