By Takura Zhangazha*
In the immediate aftermath of this year’s World Press
Freedom Day commemorations, one is struck by the serious possibility that there
are too many interpretations of the meaning of media freedom, freedom of
expression and access to information. This, despite the fact that the new
constitution guarantees these same said rights in Sections 61 and 62 of the
Bill of Rights respectively.
Furthermore, the willingness of the Ministry of Information
and Broadcasting Services to have broad consultations on issues affecting the
media is not necessarily shared either in Cabinet or by the Zimbabwe Republic
Police (ZRP). Hence there is a general insistence by the Ministry of Justice
and Legal Affairs to retain clauses in Acts of Parliament that continue to
criminalise freedom of expression. Or the unfortunate banning of a Zimbabwe
Association of Community Radio Stations (ZACRAS) and Media Alliance of Zimbabwe
march on World Press Freedom Day by the police int he capital city.
Add to this the perhaps necessarily ‘cautious’ response by
journalists and media organizations to the currently ambiguous policy framework
for fear of scuttling government goodwill,
and key issues become less clearer.
What these relatively recent developments point to is a
delineation of new thought lines over the full import of the role that the media should
play under a Zanu Pf government. It is a
mixture of the old with the new. 'Old’ in the sense that there is evident resistance
in parts of government to decriminalize freedom of expression and of the
media. ‘New’ in relation to an actively quantitative
approach to improving the media and its contribution to the economy as an ‘industry’
but with direct state regulation of the work of journalists.
Either way, the media is in a bit of a fix that relies more
on political goodwill than democratic principle for its concerns to be
addressed holistically.
It is government, and at the highest level, that must agree to repeal or amend repressive legislation
such as AIPPA, POSA and the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Acts. And in
doing so, government has sought the direct input of not only media stakeholders
but also the public through the Information Media Panel of Inquiry (IMPI). Because the latter’s full terms of reference
have not officially been made public, it can only be surmised that they intend
to establish a ‘common ground’ media reform agenda.
Whether this ‘common ground’ leans more in
government’s favour is perhaps something to be left to hindsight.
The dilemma however for Zimbabwe’s media with all the goings
on at policy making level is that whatever possible changes that are brought to
bear on media regulation via statute or ‘industry’ considerations, these may
become more or less ‘permanent’. Or at least it will take a herculean task to
revisit and change them. To therefore say
the media has to be lucid on what it wants in relation to policy reform would be
a literal understatement. It has to be certain beyond reasonable doubt and ambiguity
together with attendant fine details in its demands on the state.
Even where key media organizations are part of IMPI, their participation
should be premised on ensuring that
their democratic principles are not compromised by working directly with
government or on the basis of an incremental framework that leads to
regression.
There are therefore key elements that must be considered in trying
to establish a somewhat consensus based holistic way forward.
These include having a firm understanding that what the new
constitution offers is flawed in relation to media freedom. It gives with one
hand and takes away with the other through not only retaining state regulation of
the media in section 248 which establishes a Zimbabwe Media Commission (with
the possibility of continued criminalization of the media). But also through Section 86 of the Bill of
Rights which does not list freedom of expression or media freedom as ones that
cannot be tampered with should the state deem it necessary to do so.
It is perhaps the reform or repeal of existing enabling Acts of Parliament that will, in the
final analysis, be the determinants of any changes to media regulation, with
the devil being particularly in the detail of alternative legal frameworks. And in order to be able to give less
rhetorical input, media stakeholders have to be very focused on the details of
their profession’s/industry’s propositions and principles.
All ranging from media training through to broadcasting/telecommunications;
access to information,; media self regulation; national employment councils for journalists; media owners interests; media diversity; gender
in the media; decriminalization of the media; ICTs and above all serving the democratic
public interest.
All of these key sectors need to considered holistically as
they are all now interlinked and must be spoken to with, as far as is
democratically possible, with a united voice.
Given the fact that the last three years in our country’s politics
have been referred to as being those of ‘opportunity’, the media has to deal
the hand that it has been dealt. Both by way of the new constitution, but also
by way of government intentions and a broader vision for the democratisation of
the media in Zimbabwe. This however does not mean the hand must be dealt with
casually or without firm commitment to democratic principles, media professionalism
or in a bid to settle old scores.
Where the media rises above the political fray and commits to
its specific democratic values as a profession, history will absolve it.
*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity
(takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment