By Takura Zhangazha*
The government appointed Information and Media Panel of
Inquiry (IMPI) has been engaged in at least a month’s long public outreach programme. It has been reported that some of the public
meetings have been characterized by low to reasonable attendance and also that members of the public that have attended are
generally in the dark as to what exactly the inquiry is all about. Until they
get to the scheduled meeting where initial explanations are given as to why senior journalists and civil
servants are soliciting their opinions on the media in general.
The reported input thus far has been that the members of the
public that have been consulted are emphasizing the need for community radio
stations. In some cases they have also been asking about the impartiality and
lack of broadcasting reach of the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation (ZBC). On other occasions there is mention of
serious concerns as to existent media
laws and the unethical conduct of journalists.
In all of these reported submissions to IMPI, the common
thread has been that there is limited public knowledge of the specific mandate
of the public outreach or those that are conducting it. Either by way of occurrence
(venue, date, time of meetings) or by way of the terms of reference that inform
it.
The latter two points can possibly be explained by lack of
adequate publicity around IMPI. Or if the publicity has been adequate, it might
be due to a lack of public interest, a possibility which is highly unlikely. The Zimbabwean public has a general interest
where and when it comes to government officials soliciting their views. Sometimes
for politically partisan reasons (as was the case with the constitutional reform
exercise) or for the mere spectacle of giving a rarely solicited opinion to government
officials that talk more than they listen.
So the truth of the matter is that the IMPI outreach
programme, perhaps well meaning, was badly planned and is being executed with a
stubborn determination in order to probably ‘just get it over with.’ Particularly given the fact that it is no
longer ‘early days’ of either the appointment of the panel or the launch of its
public outreach. How else can one
explain its low public interest? Or alternatively its muted explanation of its full
terms of reference? Perhaps the latter are not too clear or if they are, the
panel may not feel it necessary to explain them fully, a development that would
be as unfortunate as it would be undemocratic.
What this regretfully points to is that IMPI has started off
on a bad footing. While it is a good
thing that the panelists that are in charge of IMPI are from a multiplicity of
media houses, organizations, that alone does not make the process credible. Especially where it comes to issues of
soliciting public views.
For media practitioners, given their training and the
significant trust that the public has placed (or should place) in them, it behooves
them to explain what they are seeking from the general citizenry in a much more
democratic and transparent manner. Especially
where they are willing participants in a government sanctioned policy review
process.
The immediate and still assumed optimistic significance of
the process that IMPI is undertaking has been that it is the precursor to an improvement
of both the media environment and the capacity of the journalism and the media
to effectively carry out their role as the fourth estate. This would mean that
IMPIs review and public consultation processes are essentially meant to have
the end effect of further democratizing the media law environment and ensuring
that the media, in its totality, plays a much more significantly democratic
role in the affairs of the country. Especially where it rides on the back of
the new Sections 61 and 62 of the constitution which guarantee media freedom
and access to information respectively.
The signs in reality might be pointing to a different and
less preferable end result. The very
fact that IMPI’s terms of reference and eventual accountability mechanism are
either not officially known or deliberately vague points to the serious risk
that this might be an exercise that is not as honest as expected.
Furthermore, the failure by media stakeholders to explore the full import of IMPI through
either further analysis or alternatively establishing public debate platforms in their publications or
stations raises eyebrows as to how much confidence they place in the
process.
That those that would be directly affected have not shown enthusiasm
in broader publicizing of the process or flagging out key issues might point to
the possibility that there is no anticipation of fundamental changes to the
media policy framework as it obtains. At
least not without direct government benevolence.
The debate around challenges and prospects of the media under
the aegis of IMPI, as broad based as it appears, must be bigger and have a
direct resonance with the public. At the
moment it is neither. As a result, the media profession, media businesses and
media organizations, run the risk of being seen as peripheral to the day to day
lives of ordinary citizens. Let alone
the democratic culture of the country.
With whatever time it has left in carrying out its mandate,
IMPI has to perform better, even if we do not really know its terms of
reference. The opportunity it has to
review the media might have been granted by the current Minister of Media,
Information and Broadcasting Services, but the results of the same should transcend
either his tenure or his benevolence. Not
only because these are things that should have been done long back but also
because, the media is so integral to our prospects of realizing meaningful democracy
in Zimbabwe, its stakeholders and government cannot afford to be casual, vague and
elitist in seeking to democratize it further.
*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity
(takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment