Countering a Stalling of Media Freedom in a Post-Mugabe Era

By Takura Zhangazha*

Where it concerns freedom of expression in Zimbabwe’s ‘new
era’, there are a number of urgent matters that need to be placed on the
table.  Not only by government officials
(even though there is a current political vacancy in the relevant ministry).   At the same time, the ministry exists and
has its current permanent secretary and spokesperson for President Mnangagwa, Mr. George Charamba. 

In an interview with the Zimbabwe Independent, Charamba, as
presidential spokesperson explained his perspective(s) on media stories
concerning the new cabinet and wait for it, toward the end, his evidently strong
views on any immediate calls for (democratic) media reform.  His key reaction to calls for the same was as follows (to quote at length),

“The only problem that
I have is that the agitation for media reforms is prompted by transient
calculations of elections due in six or seven months. I am not an elected
officer, I am a bureaucrat and my reflex is to build a law that endures, a law
that competently encompasses a sector…

“I cannot proceed on
the basis of transient calculations. The state of Zimbabwe subsists ad
infinitum and the state is much more than institutions that make it. There are
seismic changes happening in the media sector. It is futile hurrying to write a
law which will prove perishable only the morning after.”

It is not difficult to discern a number of issues that
emerge from these statements.

The first being that the permanent secretary in the Orwellian  ministry of Media, Information and Broadcasting Services is not
keen on any quick or far reaching media reforms before the 2018 harmonised
elections.  Even if he is only a
bureaucrat who, it turns out was the author of a discontinued controversial but far reaching weekly column in The Herald
daily newspaper, ‘The Other Side with Nathaniel Manheru ( remember that ominous statement ‘chine vene vacho chinhu ichi’), and therefore probably has a great deal of political influence in what has been referred
to as Zimbabwe’s ‘new era’. 

So his statements as 
the senior civil servant in the ministry responsible for the media
should be taken very seriously.  Not in
order to massage his ‘policy making’ ego or gate-keeping role for Mnangagwa’s
government (he is also the official presidential spokesperson). 

Instead it should be in order to advance media freedom,
diversity and the cornerstone democratic rights of every Zimbabwean to
freedom of expression, conscience and access to information. All in sections 60, 61 and 62 of the constitution respectively. 

But in the aftermath of the ‘military/war veteran
intervention on behalf of Zanu Pf ’ and the intention to control the mediums of
access to information as announced by now minister of foreign affairs and more recently retired Lieutenant General Sibusiso Moyo when he ‘asked’ all journalists and media houses
to ‘report responsibly’ there is an urgency to re-position the media and media freedom as a fundamental public concern of the Mnangagwa’s political era.

This is despite the fact that it was an
instruction issued at the height of ‘Operation Restore Legacy’ which was recently announced as having ended.  It is an instruction that probably and with great trepidation remains at the back of the mind of many a journalist and media
owner including those at the helm of state owned/controlled entities such as the Zimbabwe
Broadcasting Corporation (ZBC) or the Zimbabwe Newspapers Group (Zimpapers). 

In this sense it would appear that the media and what it puts out must be kept in
stasis as directed by those at the helm of the ‘new era’. Or be allowed to function in the regulation of old that has always been underpinned by an approach of ‘benevolence’ toward the media.

That means that an attempt at wholesale
democratic media reform would be anathema to the current ruling military-political
establishment.  There is still an
unfortunate need, on their part, of a retention of controlling the national
conversation or narrative via the media and its social media offshoots.  (They polished up on their Gramsci).

Such a control includes stalling any anticipated media
reform(s) and ensuring that a dominant popular ‘any change is good’ or ‘give the new leaders a chance’ narrative is placed in
the public domain.  The latter would
include ensuring that the broader public is persuaded that the ‘military
intervention’ is not viewed in a negative light and that it presents the
changes that occurred in the ruling party as not only a change for the better,
but the only change that was and is currently a better, if not a ‘best’
option. 

That is why where the mainstream media will not play ball,
there has been (and will be) the pursuit of popular alternative avenues such as social media influencers. And also the creation of platforms that will rise to
hegemonic popularity such as the military-political ‘change of consciousness’ artistes
as exemplified via music bands/songs 
that place the military at the centre of not only popular musical
entertainment but also public acceptance of the establishment’s version of  ‘political change’. 

In this the probable intention of Mnangagwa’s government,
complicated as it is by its own military political complex, is to give the
impression of a liberal media environment without changing the same’s  repressive legal frameworks.  Not at least
until after it has retained power via what will inevitably be a highly disputed
but not as contested election in 2018. And if it does retain power, it is least likely to be persuaded to urgently review its media policies. 

Hence the significance of Mr. Charamba’s perspective (as a powerful bureaucrat)
on the limited possibilities of media reforms prior to the elections.  On the face of it, government is keen to
allow international media players to be in the country to report on its political/electoral processes.  But structurally it has no intention
to do so holistically in relation to local media.   

So there will be no new era of free expression in and of
itself.  Except when one is talking about
the economy and reflecting what would be a ‘national will/acceptance’ of the
status quo as led by the military-political complex that is Zanu
Pf. 

What Charamba does in his interview statements is to throw down the gauntlet on stalling media reform and thus presenting a direct challenge to Zimbabwe’s media stakeholders.  Be they media  freedom activists, non-governmental organisations,
state or private media companies. And he also does this at the general public in relation to the extent that media freedom is a popular issue or one that Zimbabweans may not be as concerned about as they should.   

If they are going to contradict his opinion and policy making
influence, they had better do so with strong democratic values, principles, technical knowledge
and policy alternatives of/for a democratic, de-criminalised media in Zimbabwe.  And its not going to be easy.   

*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity
(takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com)