The rhetoric against media freedom is shooting through society.
In the establishment the ante has been upped by President Thabo Mbeki and his political associates, Ronald Suresh Roberts and Christine Qunta, all of whom have conducted a sustained verbal assault on the media in the past three months.
Now the left has joined the pack with increasingly furious attacks. Witness recent speeches by Cosatu general secretary Zwelinzima Vavi and SACP secretary general Blade Nzimande. Both men have attacked newspapers by name and each accuses the media of inchoate conspiracies.
What is striking about the attacks is that they are almost entirely self-interested. Supporters of Thabo Mbeki have no objection to damaging coverage of Jacob Zuma or of their left-wing opponents. Similarly, Zuma’s backers are quite content to see Mbeki trashed.
Politicians of all stripes claim to be deeply concerned about the media’s low professional standards, promotion of factionalism and pursuit of commercial advantage to the detriment of truth. But what they are really deploring is unflattering coverage of themselves, their pet causes and their organisations. And their objections have become more strident as South Africa’s ideological and leadership struggles have intensified.
This is not to say that the media are infallible or that criticism of journalists is inherently undemocratic. Under deadline pressures — and with newsrooms weakened by the poaching of senior staff by the government and industry — newspapers err. But under the watchful eye of the courts and the press ombudsman, they frequently retract and apologise for their mistakes.
If only South Africa’s politicians were as willing to admit their blunders.
Criticism we can accept, but what is truly ominous is the mounting clamour for controls. Zuma wants them and the ANC policy conference suggested them.
In classic Stalinist double-talk, Nzimande objected this week to newspapers “taking positions” on debates in popular organisations and proposed curtailing free expression in favour of “other human rights”.
While having a surface plausibility, the SACP’s idea of a media regulator independent of the state and the media is dangerous and unrealisable. It implies control by bureaucrats, rather than people who understand the media, its pressures, problems and constraints.
One bright spot in this gloomy picture has been Mbeki’s refusal to endorse the control freaks, despite his own evident irritation with the media.
His lieutenants, however, are not beyond dirty tricks like piping advertising revenues into supportive newspapers and spreading whispering campaigns against targeted editors.
Mbeki understands that freedom of expression is critical to any constitutional state and that government controls in any form would do incalculable harm to South Africa’s standing as a democracy. His supporters and opponents should all take note.
First step or false start?
It’s easy to be cynical about the Movement for Democratic Change’s support for a constitutional amendment sponsored by Zanu-PF this week, though it is being hailed as a watershed.
But if the measure will pave the way for a more free and fair election in 2008, then it is indeed a step to be welcomed.
The instinct of disbelief is one we should avoid; these first fruits of political negotiations should be welcomed, for, without them, Zimbabwe risks becoming a failed state.
For one thing it shows that the two main protagonists in the political drama have agreed, finally, to a common position on a fundamental issue. The MDC has repeatedly questioned the legitimacy of the Robert Mugabe government and the president has routinely refused to speak to the MDC, castigating the opposition as a puppet of Western imperialist forces.
In terms of the amendment Mugabe’s powers have been significantly reduced. He won’t be able to appoint MPs to the lower house of Parliament — a mechanism he has used to put cronies in the legislature. He can no longer be both player and referee. He has lost his power to appoint an electoral boundaries delimitation commission. Now the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission will manage the delimitation of constituencies and will be responsible for the voters’ roll and voter registration.
However, Zimbabweans are far from celebrating and they won’t be doing so as long as repressive legislation — such as the Public Order and Security Act, used to prevent any protest gatherings, and the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, used to imprison journalists and ban publications — remains in place.
The South African government has welcomed the breakthrough and sees it as a vindication of its seven-year policy of quiet diplomacy. It seems a turning point, but there is still a lot of work to be done to ensure that this is not another false dawn.
Over the years as this bright African light has dimmed, numerous breakthroughs have been hailed, only to come apart in the implementation.
However, the developments this week must be cautiously welcomed.