Ebrahim Harvey left field When Minister of Defence Mosiuoa Lekota played down press reports about a defence intelligence agent, Carien Pieterse, attempting to recruit an editor and other journalists to spy for them, and went on to say that he had no problem if this was done in the “national interest”, I recalled the controversy Thami Mazwai stirred when he said in interviews for appointment to the board of the SABC last year that press freedom and editorial independence should never be above the “national interest”, which is the “highest priority” and that the media must “keep quiet” when it is threatened. Mazwai was rewarded with appointment to the board. I have been trying to fathom why the new, free, non- racial and democratic South African government is so preoccupied with security and intelligence matters. With no military threat from anywhere in Africa we spend R32-billion on arms and less on health, which is in such a crisis that patients are dying in hospitals through lack of adequate care and resources. There is a plethora of intelligence agents prowling this country when there are no serious security threats. While it is due to the lack of funds that the government cannot meet basic needs, it spends much on the National Intelligence Agency and other police and military intelligence operations. Although we have one of the best democratic constitutions in the world protecting us we are surrounded by intelligence agents, which is reminiscent of the spy-infested Cold War period. Pretoria has become a place buzzing with hundreds of police and military intelligence operatives, which has created stifling paranoia in government and diplomatic circles. That is how it was during the apartheid era. When it ended, we thought the paranoia would end with it. Yet today in a “free South Africa” there is still so much of it, only this time in the service of a government we thought would not need it as much. During apartheid there was one ministry of law and order, which included the security police and intelligence operations. Today, with the overthrow of that regime, we have a ministry for safety and security and another for intelligence. Why, especially when the government has budgetary constraints that limit much-needed development work? Intelligence work is given a status and prominence that even the former regime did not do. The information Pieterse wanted from journalists about their travels in Africa is absurd. Have we become the self-appointed guardians for the African continent or is this part of an imperialist strategy in which we are playing a role similar to the CIA in South America? The latest news clearly has sinister implications for the media and the open and democratic functioning of the government. We are facing distinct dangers that threaten us all in various ways. But it is also creating an atmosphere that breeds paranoid secrecy, suspicion, distrust and tension that will have a very negative effect on transparent government and open discussion and debates about where we are going as a society.
It is specifically in this regard that editorial independence, press freedom and the watchdog role of the media could be severely compromised. Chillingly, Pieterse said that many journalists in Pretoria are already collaborating with defence intelligence. And once the media is compromised, the whole of society suffers as a consequence because the free flow of information is interfered with. Information will either not reach the public or it will reach them only after being sanitised and filtered. And if this bad doing is leaked it will be justified, as Lekota tried to do last week, by invoking the sanctity of the all-encompassing and highly questionable “national interest”. But this country has been growing up since 1994 and people will want to know who and what defines the “national interest”. This concept, which is amorphous, begs definition. The premise from which Mazwai and Lekota proceeds to define it falsely assumes that we have a united nation, not divided by racial, class, social and political factors. Therefore what is decided is in the national interest could justify any action, however unsavoury. This is a very simplistic and convenient basis upon which to take critical decisions that affect our country.
The implications of this are particularly dangerous in the context of a growing convergence between the ruling party and the state. If this approach is not contested and debated it will, as is already evident, have serious implications for the media and society. By implication the logic of the present approach is that if you oppose what the government claims is in the national interest you could be accused of being unpatriotic. This narrow and self-serving nationalism will present a serious threat to the vibrant democracy that the media has a very important role to play in building. In order to fulfil this role the media cannot accept that they have any holy cows before which to bow. Instead, when necessary, it must question and expose that which is, perhaps mistakenly, taken for granted to be in the national interest but is in fact a guise for furthering an agenda opposed to the real interests and needs of the public. Defining what is or is not in the national interest must be the result of a process of public debate and not arbitrarily determined by the government. Even a democratically elected government cannot automatically assume it is the sole custodian of the nation and the national interest. History is replete with tragic examples that explode the myth that the state always acts in the best interests of its citizens. No country better illustrates this than the United States, which, in the name of the “national interest”, has committed some of the most heinous acts inside and outside its borders. So when Lekota again refers to the “national interest” to justify a reprehensible act he should know that the media and the public will probe beneath the nationalist veneer of these words and make up their own minds. But for now he has much to answer in this ominous disclosure to which he has shamefully attempted to impart a sense of propriety.