SOUTH AFRICANS need to become more used to vigorous political exchange. Why is it so terrible, as PWV premier Tokyo Sexwale suggested in his attack this week on certain “liberal newspapers”, if a columnist uses “innuendo”? Is this not a legitimate traditional weapon of writers?
Why, on the other hand, does the community of journalists always react with such shock and horror the minute they are criticised, as they did in response to the premier’s remarks?
There is a history here. ANC politicians have often felt in the past — with some justice — that they faced a situation where media ownership and control were completely out of kilter with the demographics and politics of the country. To add to this, almost all of the newspapers have a long tradition of harsh antagonism to the ANC, notably in the days when, as a banned and exiled organisation, it was difficult for the ANC to respond.
South African journalists, who have suffered repression and censorship for decades, are naturally super-sensitive about any government suggestions that there are acceptable limits to their criticisms of government or that press freedom is confind to the practice of “responsible” journalism.
Sexwale suggested precisely these two things, purposefully fudging the distinction between criticising the reconstruction and development programme and undermining it, and turning a critic of his person into an enemy of the people.
This is a dangerous mixture: a populist politician, making huge and almost certainly unfulfillable promises to a restless constituency, turning on his media critics and blaming them for undermining his programme.
The warning signals are there — and these go beyond the sensitivities of journalists.
There is a thin line between vigorous debate and destructive abuse. South Africans have some way to go before they learn to enjoy and thrive on tough and even harsh political exchange.
If there is a commitment to free speech, it cannot be easily qualified. It is a freedom that only has meaning if it includes the freedom to say rough, unpopular and even irresponsible things. It certainly must include the right to criticise and even mock a popular leader.