A critical thought of the Zimbabwe media legislative sytem

he gave birth to AIPPA and POSA

Welcome back freinds.Today l would like to shed light on how the Zimbabwe media legislative sytem has safegurded monopoly in Zimbabwe.It, comprising of laws such as Public Order andSecurity Act[posa],Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act[aippa],ZBC Commercialisation Act and the Broadcasting services act[bsa]  has highly  safeguarded the monopoly of the states’ broadcasting. These laws are effective in doing so by creating the impression that their presence is to advance the media interests and or restrict the dissemination of information genuinely in the interests of the public.

Communication being defined as the activity of conveying information through any medium, POSA bans the communication of statements which can be offensive in certain respects to the Zimbabwean state or the President or which may endanger public order regardless of whether the information is true or false.With this isnt the law depriving the people of Zimbabwe their right to freedom of speech or to criticize the government where they feel its lacking? Are they saying, as the Ndebeles would put it, sifele ngaphakathi njengentambo yekhandlela 

As a result this control of information passage eliminates debate and criticism as one ideology is being spoke out in favor of the president who leads the state. In turn this will entail that whatever the masses are be fed as information is only the fundamental thinking capacity of the state only through the president.

Under this act, it is not clearly stated what is ‘likely to cause alarm and despondency’ within the public.Chiweshe et al [2003] further postulates that “it is difficult to foretell whether a statement is likely to result in public disorder”. Therefore this creates a culture of fear where reporters tend to self-censor themselves and or practice what Geoff Nyarota labeled as sunshine journalism in the early years of independence. As a result what will be broadcast to the public are ideas of the state as the reporters tend to give the public information that the government wants to hear or view but not what the viewers have to know.

The ZBCcommercilisation act further guarded this monopoly as evident from subsection three of the act which states that ZBC, being divided into a signal carrier company and a broadcasting company, “shall give priority to serving the needs of the state” [Chiweshe et al 2003:59].The needs of the state are to instill the hegemony of the government into the people to maintain their power. As a result, this reduces the broadcasting industry to a state apparatus catering for dissemination of the singular based views of the government.it can even be witnessed from the colonial era as a case study where the Rhodesian broadcasting company was state controlled transmitting propaganda and belittling of the citizenship and nation building.

Webster Shamu

According to McQuail [2000] the idea of public service broadcasting is publicly funded and operated in a nonprofit way and required by law to meet various informational needs of all citizens. However due to this act, the Public service broadcasting is change into a profit making organization being funded and controlled by the government. This gives the state too much power to control the broadcast media on what they can and cannot transmit thus potentially serving the needs of the government but not the public as identified by the public broadcaster definition. Thus this limits the ZBC to a state broadcast company.

Another bodyguard to the states’ singular view in broadcasting is the AIPPA through the appointment of the majority of the board members of the Media commission. It requires that the minister of information and publicity appoints the members after consulting the president.With the notion that whoever can appoint can also disappoint, it cannot be ignored that the two prominent people can abuse their power by appointing people who are loyalist to the state’s ruling party. In addition, due to the fear of being disappointed, the appointed will in turn make sure they serve the interests of the appointers by making sure that only their ideologies flourish within the broadcasting sector, killing diversity. An illustration is that of on September 30^th 2009 when minister of information Webster Shamu appointed a new board of directors with Cuthbert Dude as chair ,Doreen Sibanda wife of Misheck Sibanda who was principal secretary to the president and the cabinet as deputy chair and most of the rest of the members being army generals.What can be noted is that almost all members have a link to the majority ruling party meaning ZBC was controlled by the state which comprises of the majority sector being occupied by ZANU-PF.

Furthermore this gave rise to the accreditation of local and foreign journalists as well as media houses whose licenses can be terminated at any time as deemed by the Media Commision.This allows the state to control and monitor who, how and what can be reported. Because this law makes it a crime to report without a license  and journalists need to report to save their fourth estate role and to carter for their basic needs as identified as Abraham Maslow, they tend to oblige to what the needs of the state whom when wronged by promoting diversity or counter hegemonising can terminate their licenses.

In addition this act clearly states that when reporters and journalists apply for information it has to be released by the head of bodies within the government. Take not that when we unveil the veil of ignorance in analyzing this the state is the only body with the authority to release information through the Head of bodies such as Minister of mines Orbert Mpofu, Justice minister Patrick Chinamasa, etc. who are all government axeman.Thus in practice they could manipulate this power granted to them in releasing information for broadcasting by being selective on whom and what they release hence ensuring the watchdog role of a monopoly.

AIPPA also allows the government to suppress the publication or broadcasting of any subversive statement or false story capable of causing alarm and despondency

.The government is granted too much power on the broadcasting of information. As a result we note that if the government can control what can be broadcast they can also use the same power to instill monopolism.

A hater of sunshine journalism

According to the Broadcasting services act of 2000 the Minister of information is the sole broadcast licensing authority[Chiweshe et al 2003:62].This proves problematic as the minister may abuse his power by not granting licenses on vendetta basis or in other context such as ensuring monopolism. Radio dialogue radio station with slogan ‘giving you’re a voice’ has not been granted a broadcast license since 2000 though they have made attempts to apply several times. From their slogan it can be argued that the minister fears the radio station might give rise to diversity through the aim to enable all sections of the Zimbabwean community to engage in aspiring for a well informed and more developed Zimbabwe.

Though it was good move that a statutory body be formed to regulate the broadcasting industry that is the Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe [BAZ], the tight control in flourishing the monopoly was the power awarded to this body to set restrictions on the content of programs to be aired [Media under siege 2002:24].The members of this authority are appointed by the Minister of information which means they tend to be answerable and accountable under the minister for attaining these positions. Thus what they will allow to be disseminated through the radios and the televisions is what the minister tells them to do who in turn is answerable to the president hence a single idea being enforced to the masses.

In light to the economic situation in Zimbabwe, very few Zimbabweans have the funds or finance to establish a broadcasting station with competent enough programmes.Taking advantage of this, the state through the BS act enforced that only Zimbabwean citizens or a body whose controlling interest are held by Zimbabweans are eligible for a license [Chiweshe F G 2003:63].The notion seems to have grown from the poor relations between Zimbabwe and most of the countries. The government is suspicious of what foreign funded or owned broadcast media might disseminate. Thus they ensure the elimination of counter hegemony through the indirect force and limitation of a variety of broadcasting stations. Take for instance the way the government has labeled Studio 7 as a pirate radio station funded and saving the needs of the whites to recapture Zimbabwe in repetition of history as a colony.

Furthermore, under this draconian act only one other national license can be issued to an aspiring broadcaster to provide broadcasting services [Chiweshe FG et al 2003:63].This simply limits the platform of information dissemination to a monopoly state by promotion of one voice and elimination of competition. Critically, Chiweshe et al 20003 even postulate that people are force-fed information which is clearly manipulated to advance the interest of those in charge.

Still under this law, the provision of 75% of all programs content of broadcasting stations based in Zimbabwe being local[Media under siege2002:24], limits what can be produced. The broadcasting industry in Zimbabwe is facing a downfall with very few entertainment companies having the funds to produce programs let alone those of good quality.

However though these laws enforce and protect monopolism of the state’s broadcasting, it is not their literal that grants this monopolism but the way the states’ axe man carry out the provisions of these laws. The only way for these laws to safeguard this monopolism is if the initiators such as Minister of information and the president take the initiative of protecting and instilling their views only to the masses.

In a nutshell, these laws are pregnant with assumption and interpretations which allows the state to effectively prosecute the accused to their advantage. This clearly illustrates the negative attitude of the government towards the concept of broadcast freedom. Generally l argue that there is no political will to create a diverse environment for the press to exercise their duties most effectively. As a result the broadcast media is impartially functioning in the interest of the state for survival.