A brief presentation to the Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe
(ANZ) Discussion Forum by Takura Zhangazha (Executive Director, Voluntary Media
Council of Zimbabwe)
Wednesday 24 April 2013, Trust Towers, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Let me begin by thanking the editorial staff of the
Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe (ANZ) Group for inviting the Voluntary Media
Council of Zimbabwe to this pertinent discussion on Media, Elections and
Democracy in Zimbabwe. It is important from the outset to highlight the
democratic value of elections and electoral processes to democratic societies.
Elections can broadly be referred to as the sum total of processes that
lead to the establishment of what has been referred to in American history and
political parlance as ‘government of the people, by the people and for the
people’ (shall not perish from this earth).
This is also a phrase that was
cited by one of Zimbabwean politics’ most recognized historians Terrence Ranger
as having been used in our own Zimbabwean liberation history. In his recently
published memoir, ‘Writing Revolt, Anengagement with African Nationalism 1957-67’ Ranger cites one of our liberation
struggle leaders (name supplied) using this line in the early 1960s when
addressing rallies in the then Highfields township (much to the delight of the
hundreds of people present at the same).
In fast forwarding to our contemporary political context,
elections have however not be seen or referred to popularly as resulting in us
having ‘government of the people, for the people and by the
people’. The disputed and controversial elections that have occurred
since 2000 in Zimbabwe have not necessarily reflected the unfettered will, even
by majority dictate,of the citizens of our country.
And the reasons for
this are many and well documented in various electoral reports by observers and
election related organizations. However it must be emphasized that one of the
key reasons has been the deliberate stifling of the media, access to
information and broader freedom of expression by the state. And this is
where the topic I have been asked to discuss jointly with other panelists
becomes relevant.
The culture and practice of impunity and criminalization of
the media and freedom of expression by the Zimbabwean state has contributed
significantly to how elections have not necessarily reflected the democratic
will of the people. This is a point however that is made not in order to
assume that the media must only have freedom to operate during elections in
order to accentuate access to information of the citizenry around electoral processes.
Because elections are as I have indicated in my introduction are the sum total
of the processes that lead to government of the people, by the people and for
the people, they are not only time based democratic processes. They are in fact
processes that reflect more the democratic culture and people centered
stability of a country over the long term.
So in discussing the media, democracy and elections there is
need for us to understand that these three issues transcend the harmonized
elections we are expecting some time this year. These are issues that in effect
reflect the fundamental values and principles of our society and that must
always be considered for posterity and not as is the current case in Zimbabwean
society, for incremental or elitist gain.
I say this latter point because in the lifetime of the
inclusive government, there has been largely token appreciation of the
democratic value and importance of the media, access to information and freedom
of expression. This tokenism has found expression through the incremental
and ‘gatekeeping’ approach to media reforms that have been undertaken by the
inclusive government where it comes to opening up the media in its holistic
sense (print, broadcast and ICT based). Moreover, the government has
sought more a quantitative approach to media reforms with the simplistic
assumption that ‘the more the merrier’.
Such an approach is one that foregoes the qualitative impact
of the media on society as well as skirts the questions of the fundamental democratic
value of media freedom, freedom of expression and access to information.
This is why the Zimbabwean media has at least four statutory regulatory bodies
where and when it comes to elections, electoral processes and in general. These are namely
the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission, the Zimbabwe Media Commission, the
Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe and the Postal and Telecommunications
Regulatory Authority.
Further still, the state's paternalistic attitude toward the
media sadly has come to be reflected in our recently 'referendum approved' draft
constitution which has retained clauses that are inimical to democratic media
freedom. Particularly in section 86 where freedom of expression is not listed
as a right to which limitations should not apply. And also sections 248 and 249
where statutory regulation and criminalization of the media is enforced with
greater emphasis than before.
These clauses reflect a contemptuous, paternalistic and
undemocratic attitude by the state toward media freedom, freedom of expression and
access to information. It is also reflective of an ahistorical approach toward
media freedom where the state and those that drafted the constitution failed to
understand the full import of the statement made in 2001 by the late national
hero Eddison Zvobgo to Parliament when the latter was debating the notorious
Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA). In his adverse
Parliamentary Legal committee Report, the late Honourable Zvobgo asked, and I
am paraphrasing, ‘Where in the world have governments licensed its people to
speak?’ This unfortunately is the contemporary state of affairs.
So as we debate the Media, Democracy and Elections, it
remains imperative that we do not lose sight of the bigger picture over and
about the same. The media can only play its rightful role if its freedom
is democratically respected. Elections can only result in a government
for the people and by the people if the media operates in an environment that
does not criminalise freedom of expression and access to information. Such an
environment cannot and should not be defined incrementally. Nor should it be
invoked only during election periods as appears to be the case where and when
political parties scramble for media coverage. Instead it must be viewed
as a cornerstone and founding principle of a democratic society. To think and
do otherwise would be to betray the people of Zimbabwe.
Thank you.
Ends//
good presentation
ReplyDelete