It’s election time again in crisis-ridden Zim. So what’s new? South African and foreign media have less interest then they did in the 2000 parliamentary elections and 2002 presidential elections. Even the announcement by the main opposition that it would now contest the elections didn’t make front-page news.
Of course, the lack of interest might partly be the result of the successful expulsion of foreign journalists and media from Zimbabwe, through the use of the stringent provisions of the Access to Information and Privacy Act. In short, foreign and South African media have succumbed to the restrictions.
But another reason is one that has very much to do with this troubled transition in Zimbabwe and its implications for South Africa. In 2000 and 2002 the foreign and South African media had an overwhelming interest in Zimbabwe because of the possibility that the ruling party and President Mugabe could be toppled from power after two decades in office. The defeat of Zanu-PF would have been nothing short of ”revolutionary”.
For those that would like to be alive on the day the ANC loses an election, it would have been a sign that defeat can indeed happen to a party that’s waged diplomatic, mass internal and armed struggles. Proof that liberation movements are not infallible. To some, especially Tony Leon, Douglas Gibson and Ryan Coetzee of the Democratic Alliance (and not forgetting Professors Lawrence Schlemmer and R. W. Johnson) Zanu-PF’s fall would have been conclusive evidence that democracy is possible in Africa.
Now it appears that this prospect has somewhat receded, because until early February the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), the principal opposition, was not contesting the elections. It appears that the MDC has lost momentum and Mugabe has regained the upper hand through closing down space to organise. So, to the media, the elections have become something of a non-story.
It’s here I have a problem with reporting of the Zimbabwean story. It focuses on dramatic value, rather than what it can teach us about struggles for transition from one-party domination to political diversity and the role of the media in such processes. This story has been reported as if the defeat of Mugabe would result overnight in a democratic dispensation.
Little regard has been paid to similar contexts in Southern Africa, where a long ruling party and leader were defeated and replaced by corrupt buffoons masquerading as democrats. Zambia is a case in point. The media have failed to contextualise the situations where authoritarian stability has been replaced by chaotic instability presented as democratic pluralism.
There has also been a failure to properly report on the full implications of the SADC guidelines on elections, not only in Zimbabwe’s case but also in the case of elections conducted in Botswana, Namibia and Mozambique in 2004. These guidelines are critical in that they were agreed to by all heads of state in the SADC region, and therefore set benchmarks for free and fair elections. They especially address electoral processes and institutions, rather than the single event of voting on election day.
Publication of the guidelines would enable the media and audience to judge for themselves whether elections reflect the choices of the voters. Instead, the media tends to report the accusations traded by political parties about election conditions. While such allegations are interesting, it’s a fact that at election time parties do trade accusations – it’s part of the game plan. But where one has guidelines, one can independently test the allegations.
In the case of the Zimbabwe elections, were are fed daily with accusations by the MDC, civil society and the private media and counter-accusations by Zanu-PF, electoral bodies and state media. This is called balanced reporting. Both sides of the story, as the saying goes. Who is one to believe in the absence of an independent test?
Professor Tawana Kupe is Head of the School of Literature, Language and Media Studies at Wits University.
