Back to Index

The National Budget - as reported in the media
Extract from Weekly Media Update No. 42
Media Monitoring Project Zimbabwe
November 11-17, 2002

General comment
Basic media practice dictates that events should be covered fully and fairly, especially when these relate to speeches so as to avoid distortions. But that was not so with The Herald (14/11). The paper censored a speech by French Ambassador Didier Ferrand in which he stated that the revitalization of Zimbabwe's economy and tourism sector required reconciliation through political dialogue and the normalization of relations between Zimbabwe and the donor community, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. Ferrand stated, in his address at the rebranding of Rainbow Tourism Group's Mercure Hotel in Victoria Falls that there was a need for Zimbabwe to work with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) on the land issue.

The Herald cut this part of Ferrand's speech to suit its editorial stance, which has for long been that of trying to convince its readers that Zimbabwe can solve its economic ills alone. As a result, the excision served to deprive the public of a balanced and accurate account of the Ambassador's speech.

Nonetheless, those who read The Daily News and The Zimbabwe Independent (15/11) had the opportunity to read what The Herald had left out.

MMPZ deplores the slavish commitment of the public media in its efforts to suffocate alternative viewpoints that are not aligned to government policy. It was not surprising to see this lopsided perspective reflected when the 2003 national budget was announced (14/11). The public media gave it glowing coverage and narrowly hailed it as a demonstration by government of its determination to resuscitate the economy and improve the living standards of the people.

So engrossed were the public media in celebrating Murerwa's budget that they ignored questioning government's priorities in allocating more funds to such ministries as Defence ahead of Health, which received about $17 billion less than its minimum requirement. Notably, ZBC merely announced the defence allocation in its evening bulletins without questioning why Murerwa had omitted to mention the figure during his budget presentation broadcast live by the national public broadcaster.

Attempts to analyse the budget more critically only appeared in the private media, who observed that Murerwa's financial chart, though eloquent on the reasons bedeviling the economy, fell short in addressing them.

National budget
Prior to the budget announcement, all media agreed that Minister Murerwa was faced with the difficult task of coming up with a budget that would turn around the fortunes of the economy. However, this superficial unity among the media crumbled after Murerwa spelt out government's financial plans for 2003. The public media unquestioningly welcomed the budget and hailed it as people centred, while the private media dismissed it as a "non- event".

For example, ZBC (ZTV, 14/8pm) reported: "The budget proposal has sought to address various issues that bog down the economy and with its emphasis on boosting agriculture, curbing the parallel foreign currency market and increasing disposable income for the public, it has been termed positive."

Six ZANU PF MPs and three of ZBC's favourite analysts were quoted showering Murerwa with praise.

The public Press adopted a similar stance. The Chronicle (15/11) comment eloquently summed up the Zimpapers celebratory mood: "We applaud the spirit of the budget, where the Government is calling for transparency in the utilisation of taxpayers' money. We now look forward to the implementation of the budget in the same spirit in which it was presented - transparently - so that the country can reap the gains from the economic policies set out in the budget for 2003".

Conversely, The Daily News of the same day noted that the minister "painted a gloomy picture of the country's economic performance and projected an even bleaker picture for next year," adding that it was against such a background that he appealed to "God to save Zimbabwe from further economic decline". The article then catalogued excerpts of Murerwa's speech highlighting economic woes besetting the country.

Similarly, The Zimbabwe Independent (15/11) presented the budget as "'hollow' because it was long on promises but short on implementation". MDC's shadow finance minister Tapiwa Mashakada told the paper that the budget was "hopeless.because it is predicated upon distorted macro-economic fundamentals". Mashakada was earlier quoted in SW Radio Africa (14/11) making similar observations.

The Daily Mirror of the same day concurred, adding that the "fire- fighting 2003 national budget" dashed "hopes of an immediate economic turnaround for Zimbabwe", as it failed to "look into real fundamental issues to correct the current skewed policies that have hampered economic growth".

However, the paper seemed to contradict itself when its editorial echoed the public Press in embracing the budget. In fact, The Daily Mirror's comment and The Herald (15/11), Budget brings tax relief and ZBC (ZTV and radio, 14/11, 8pm) sought to sell the budget as people-centred by emphasizing the widening of tax bands by Murerwa from $90,000 to $180,000 per annum. ZTV quoted ZANU PF MP David Chapfika saying: "The tax bands, obviously I think the minister's intentions were meant to take care of the interests of the majority particularly those in the lower income bracket."

However, the next day ZTV (15/11, 8pm) quite validly noted that this measure was insignificant saying: "The tax-free band is below inflation levels and the poverty datum line is currently pegged at $35 000 per month for a family of six which is way above the tax bracket".

Nevertheless, it maintained, in the same bulletin, that the budget had gone a long way towards improving the welfare of workers. However, The Daily News (15/11) Budget likely to exacerbate economic problems -analysts, quoted an array of economists saying the broadened tax band fell far short of relieving taxpayers. Economist Eric Bloch was quoted as saying the minimum taxable income should have been raised from $7,500 to $30,000 "and not $15,000 because it was nothing". The paper however muddled its coverage by erroneously reporting in the same issue that, "Zimbabweans earning less than $180, 000 a month would, with effect from January 1 next year be exempt from income tax".

The Zimbabwe Independent (15/11) also observed that whilst the thrust of the budget appeared people-orientated, it was "effectively taking with one hand what the other had given", pointing out that while Murerwa's intention was to cushion workers, it had deprived the some workers of employment by closing bureaux de change.

The article also quoted unnamed analysts as having said Murerwa misled the public when he said the projected inflation rate of 96,1% by the end of 2003 would result in a deficit of 11.5% of GDP, when "a simple calculation" shows that it would be about 30%.

While the public media uncritically announced Murerwa's projected inflation rate of less than 100% by end of 2003, the private Press was sceptical. For example, The Zimbabwe Independent quoted one South African economist, Henry Flint, who dismissed the projections asking: "You have negative real interest rates so what is going to bring inflation down?"

Likewise, The Daily News (15/11) quoted economic expert Tony Hawkins as having said the "IMF projection of 500% inflation rate at the end of next year was closer to the truth than Murerwa's unsubstantiated figures". The president of the Confederation of Zimbabwe Industries Anthony Mandiwanza concurred, adding that the budget deficit "would only accelerate inflation".

Notwithstanding these observations, The Sunday Mail (17/11) justified the deficit in its comment by saying the minister had "to eat into the future" to address the hardships people were enduring in 2002. It was not surprising then that the paper and other public media, unlike the private media, merely endorsed vote allocations without question. For example, The Daily News (15/11) criticised government for allocating $76 billion to Defence while allocating $3 billion less to Health. Eric Bloch was quoted as saying this illustrated that government "is more committed to killing than to keeping people alive". `The same article quoted another economist, John Robertson, as saying the country would experience a "dramatic revision of figures soon, even more and sooner than what happened in the current fiscal year. The amounts allocated will not be enough to cover the costs given the high rate of inflation."

The paper also quoted Zimbabwe Farmers Union (ZFU) director, Sylvester Tsikisayi, who said due to inflation, the 2003 Lands and Agriculture allocation was less than last year's in real terms. David Hasluck, CFU director agreed, noting that the budget did not cater for compensation of commercial farmers whose properties were seized under the government's resettlement programme.

Similarly, The Daily Mirror (15/11) lamented that "critical ministries of Health and Child Welfare, Lands, Agriculture and Rural Resettlement, which had hoped to benefit immensely from the budget, only got half what they requested." It quoted Health Minister David Parirenyatwa expressing disappointment at the amount allocated to his ministry. He said: "I will not say I am pleased with the $73,4 billion we were allocated. We had asked for $90 billion, which we thought was the barest minimum".

Visit the MMPZ fact sheet

Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.

TOP