Despite the media attacks, the IBAis doing a good job, argues Willie Currie
THE Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA) has been closed. Not by Parliament, but by the press. This prediction, which coincides with nominations for the South African Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (Satra) Council, is premature.
The IBA is alive and not about to disappear. Despite staff allegations of mismanagement and financial irregularities as well as a Supreme Court case concerning its judgment on the licensing of Radio Jacaranda, the IBA has an important role to play in regulating an increasingly competitive broadcasting sector, thereby building a real radio and television industry in South Africa. This is what the press coverage of the IBA as a carriage on the ubiquitous gravy train misses entirely.
The press has forgotten why we need an IBA. Broadcasting is subject to political manipulation. If we have forgotten this lesson, perhaps the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) should place the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) in the dock and remind us how the apartheid state’s control of the airwaves attempted to hide and mislead people about the horrors of apartheid. A democratic state requires a diversity of voices to be heard so that citizens can make informed decisions.
The apartheid state retained a statutory monopoly over broadcasting. Only privileged groups with special connections to apartheid politicians could get access to the airwaves (as was the case with M-Net, Radio 702 and Capital Radio). The demand for diversity of voices in a democracy needs to be translated into a diversity of radio and TV stations. This means opening the airwaves to a range of broadcasters who compete for audiences and advertisers. Competing broadcasters create the possibility of building a broadcasting industry that can contribute not only to informing, educating and entertaining citizens but also, through advertising, to the circulation of goods and services which, in turn, helps to build the economy. In addition, a competitive broadcasting market creates the conditions for quality South African programming which can then be sold on international TV markets.
A diverse and competitive broadcasting market can create the conditions in which radio and TV contribute to our collective sense of ourselves as South Africans. The extent to which radio and TV hold up a mirror and reflect our society is something of a cliche. But the importance of this aspect of broadcasting cannot be under- estimated. In the United States (US), despite its diverse range of racial, gender and class identities, all citizens recognise themselves as Americans. Ninety-five percent of all programming on US radio and TV stations is US in origin.
What do these political, economic and cultural reasons have to do with the IBA? Simply, that you don’t create the conditions for a diverse, competitive broadcasting by doing nothing. You need someone to lay down fair and impartial rules and regulations as to how broadcasters get access to the airwaves, the basis of fair competition between them and appropriate local TV and music content regulations that will make sure our musicians and TV producers can compete with the deluge of US music and television that swamp South African audiences.
How well has the IBA shaped up? On the task of moving us away from the uniformity of His Apartheid Master’s Voice, the IBA in its triple inquiry into public broadcasting, cross-media ownership and local content, helped redefine the SABC’s mandate as a public broadcaster rather than a state broadcaster, and moved the SABC away from statutory monopoly by selling six of its commercial regional radio stations. This marked the beginning of the country’s privatisation programme and was undoubtedly a welcome sign to investors as well as preparing the SABC for competition.
In terms of creating a diversity of voices, the IBA has licensed more than 80 community radio stations countrywide – the latest licence going to the Rural Women’s Movement to open a radio station in Moutse. This dramatic democratisation of our airwaves is one of the IBA’s greatest feats and one that is most ignored by the press. Community radio stations provide local communities with a voice and enable citizens to exchange views and ideas at grassroots level. The scale of this expansion and empowerment of local community broadcasters has never been achieved elsewhere in the world.
In terms of its goal of building competitive broadcasting, the IBA is in the process of licensing eight new private radio stations and a new private national free-to-air television station. The emergence of these stations will not only provide citizens with a greater choice of programmes, but also bring the discipline of regulated competition to bear upon the SABC. More than anything else, the competition will force the SABC to transform itself into the kind of public broadcaster capable of fulfilling its public service mandate on a level playing field with the private broadcasting sector. The IBA will achieve this by setting fair and equitable regulations for both private and public broadcasters – with regard to language, provincial coverage, local content and the quality and range of programming.
The IBA also has the task of promoting the ownership and control of radio and TV stations by members of disadvantaged groups. It is doubtful whether the advantaged owners of Primedia would have entered into partnership with trade union and women’s groups in their successful bid for Radio Highveld, if this had not been a requirement of the IBA. The value of this sea-change in the ownership and control of broadcasting should also not be under-estimated.
To achieve these goals, we need a broadcasting regulator. Why do we need an independent broadcasting regulator? The IBA has the delicate task of choosing between different groups that want licences to broadcast. The frequency spectrum is a scarce resource. Not everyone can have access to it. One needs a visibly fair and impartial group to decide openly and in the public interest which of the competing groups should be licensed. In a democracy, it is not right to make decisions on the basis of patronage or reward. All citizens are meant to be equal. Hence it is not appropriate for government to award scarce licences, as there will always be the suspicion that government is rewarding someone for loyalty or service.
Similarly, it is not appropriate for members of the broadcasting industry to issue licences as they will not be willing to license their competitors. Hence, modern democracies have introduced independent regulators who are tasked to make these difficult decisions in the public interest.
Has the IBA successfully made these difficult licensing decisions, fairly and impartially? It is fair to say that in over 100 public licence hearings conducted by the IBA, it has only been challenged on one occasion – that of Radio Jacaranda. That is a pretty good track record for a new institution in a new democracy which has never had any history of independent regulation before. The Federal Communications Commission in the US, on the other hand, spends much of its time in court and on Capitol Hill explaining decisions.
The press may rail about the gravy train and financial irregularity in the IBA but there is barely a public institution or structure of state that is not faced with the spectre of corruption, financial irregularity and the gravy train. Very few commentators are calling for the closure of the Department of Health, Transnet, the SABC or any other institution bedevilled by mismanagement.
Our entire society is on a steep learning curve trying to build a new democracy and we must take steps to tighten financial controls, discipline offenders and strengthen our institutions.
Allegations of financial mismanagement at the IBA must be addressed by the Public Protector. But the concept of independent regulation and the opening of the airwaves should not be punished. One would be surprised if the Public Protector took a view on the independent regulation of broadcasting. He is more likely to make recommendations on financial controls and fiscal management. As far as the press’s prediction that the IBA will be swallowed up by the Telecommunications Regulator, Satra, goes, it is important to point out that Satra is going to have its hands full re- regulating Telkom and opening the telecom sector up to competition.
Willie Currie is a communications expert and a director of Media and Broadcasting Consultants in Johannesburg