So is this democracy?

Throughout the world, World Press Freedom Day serves as an occasion to inform the public of violations of the right to freedom of expression and as a reminder that many journalists brave death or jail to bring people their daily news.

Throughout the world, World Press Freedom Day serves as an occasion to inform the public of violations of the right to freedom of expression and as a reminder that many journalists brave death or jail to bring people their daily news.

In Southern Africa the media continues to come under attack from repressive governments in the region and those institutions and individuals who wish to restrict the free flow of information. Media practitioners face detention, arrest, imprisonment and even death.

Therefore once a year, if only for a day we pay tribute to the fact that in many cases journalists are our sole “window’ to the world and, although this day would probably receive a lot more media and public attention if we were to report on the deaths, assassinations and bombings of journalists and media houses, very few people give thought to the fact that censorship – at least in my opinion – is the greatest violation against a journalist and the public. If a journalist is prevented from accessing information, how then will the public have access to that same information? And if the public does not have access to that information, then we can surely cease our discussions about media freedom being a prerequisite for good, just governance and sustainable development.

Information is a basic right and need for all people. Only with information can citizens fully participate in a democracy and actively exercise their human rights. Moreover, because it enhances knowledge, information is fundamental to the empowerment of the poor and disadvantaged in society and provides them with the opportunity to fulfill their human aspirations. Likewise, an effective information flow is crucial to a functioning market economy. Providing information to society is thus arguably the most important role of the media. This includes disseminating a balanced picture of current events, social issues, business affairs, culture and other topics of interest.

During 2004, 22 journalists were beaten, 42 detained, 37 were threatened, 27 were censored and 2 institutions were raided in the 11 countries where the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) monitors media freedom and freedom of expression violations. The countries monitored include Angola, Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

This year, MISA’s annual state of media freedom and freedom of expression report – aptly titled “So is this democracy” – revealed interesting data. MISA issued 169 alerts in 2004 about media freedom and freedom of expression violations in the above mentioned 11 countries. This is a decrease of 10 percent from the 188 alerts recorded the previous year in 2003, and a 100 percent increase from the 84 alerts issued in 1994, when MISA first began monitoring media freedom and freedom violations in the sub-continent.

Strangely, in Zimbabwe a country which has in the last few years accounted for more than 50 percent of the annual violations recorded, MISA reported a sharp decrease in violations (from 102 in 2003 to 47 in 2004). Should we be celebrating? Sadly not!

This difference can be attributed to the fact that the independent media in Zimbabwe has been effectively silenced with the vigourous application of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA) and the Public Order and Security Act (POSA).

The closure of the Daily News and Daily News on Sunday in September 2003 and that of the Tribune in 2004, have impacted decisively critical and independent reporting.

In addition, AIPPA’s brutal ‘licencing and accreditation’ provisions so diligently imposed by the Media and Information Commission (MIC) in Zimbabwe have disqualified a multitude of journalists from the work place. Who then is left to harass?

While Zimbabwe recorded a decrease, Swaziland on the other hand, showed a significant increase in the number of violations recorded in 2004, in fact, a total of 29 individual incidences, as opposed to the official three recorded in the previous year.

In an environment where citizens have been stripped of their right to political participation, where all judicial, executive and legislative powers are concentrated in the person of the king and where the entire Bill of Rights has been expunged (which enumerated the protections and entitlements of citizens) how can the media possibly report freely?

It must be noted however, that in those countries where the media freedom situation has not overtly deteriorated, there remains a need for media law reform as the environment is littered with legal hurdles that stifle media freedom. The media in Lesotho and Swaziland especially are economically crippled as a result of an increase of civil defamation cases which result in high financial penalties being awarded to successful litigants.

But good laws in themselves do not ensure an improved environment for media freedom. In Zambia, the benefits of the enactment of the Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA) and Zambian National Broadcasting Corporation (ZNBC) Acts have not yet filtered down to the populace. A coalition of media bodies are challenging the legality of government’s decision not to take all the recommended names appointed to sit on the IBA and ZNBC boards to parliament for ratification.

MISA’s report goes further to include a gender component in terms of which media violations are broken to show how many men and women were affected by violations of their media rights. In 2004, 6 female and 104 male practitioners were affected. There is a stark difference, yes, but then so is there in the number of male and female media practitioners in our newsrooms.

An important finding of the MISA and Gender Links Gender and Media Baseline Study (GMBS) released in 2003 – and one that has a direct bearing on media freedom monitoring figures – is that women media practitioners predominate in the soft beats. The GMBS reveals that there is a marked absence of women journalists in the economic, politics, sports, mining and agriculture bets. These are the specific areas for which, in terms of media freedom monitoring, MISA is recording violations of journalists’ rights.

In monitoring individual violations we have also noted that there is a gender element to media freedom violations. In Malawi in 2004 for example, MISA reported on an incident in which The Nation journalists Emmanuel Muwamba and Pilirani Semu-Banda came under attack. Whilst the Malawi police beat up Muwamba and confiscated his equipment, they merely locked up the female journalist in the car.

On the other hand, over the last few years by way of violations, female journalists especially have reported threats against their personal safety from both government officials and private individuals. On those rare occasions where female journalists came under physical attack or were imprisoned, MISA stepped up its support to those journalists to ensure speedy medical or legal support, and if necessary, targeted trauma counseling.

Nonetheless, in my review of MISA’s media freedom monitoring work, I feel that although the organisation is providing a critical service, important monitoring and research work is not being done about and in the media in our region. Having worked in a newsroom myself, I can verify that sexual harassment is a major violation perpetrated against many female journalists. Should this not also be reported as a violation? Most of these cases go unreported and when they are indeed reported, they are written off as ‘labour issues’. Perhaps it is not MISA’s place to take them up and if not, it makes a strong case for the need for active unions in our region.

Also, gender inequalities in the newsroom have a great impact on media content. It predetermines who goes into the newsroom, who writes the stories, which in turn impacts on the sources used and ultimately on the quality of information that reaches the public.

In all, MISA will undoubtedly contest the notion that there is a free and independent media in SADC. We have the data to prove it. Another question though, is to what extent the media in our region, itself a gross violator of gender equality, is adding to the quality of our democracies.

Hard copies of the publication may be ordered from MISA’s Regional Secretariat. Contact Eric Libongani at resource@misa.org or libongani@misa.org for details. The publication may also be downloaded from MISA’s website at http://www.misa.org

Zoe Titus is the Specialist:Media Freedom Monitoring at the Media Institute of Southern Africa.

This article is part of the GEM Opinion and Commentary Service that provides views and perspectives on current events.

janine@genderlinks.org.za for more information.