Back to Index

Seeking solutions
Media Monitoring Project Zimbabwe (MMPZ)
Weekly Media Update 2006-27
Monday July 3rd 2006 - Sunday July 9th 2006

THIS week the government media continued to obscure the root causes of the country’s worsening socio-political and economic crisis by narrowly projecting it as a by-product of a bilateral dispute with Britain over government’s land reforms.

Twenty-seven (82%) of the 33 stories these media carried (official Press [23] and ZBH [10]) seeking to explain local and international initiatives to find solutions to these problems peddled this view. To reinforce their slant, they used the endorsement by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan of former Tanzanian president Benjamin Mkapa to mediate on the alleged dispute to muddle all other issues related to the subject. Besides, they also celebrated the development as a diplomatic victory for President Mugabe against the ‘prophets of doom’, which affirmed government’s claims that Zimbabwe’s ills were not self-inflicted but a creation of Britain.

Because of such myopic coverage of the matter, there was hardly any space reserved for alternative views. For example, there was no input from Mkapa himself on the issue or comments from SADC, under whose auspices these media claimed he would be working. And in rare moments that British responses were sought – noting that Zimbabwe’s problems stemmed basically from government’s lack of "tangible and sustainable reform of economic and political policies" – they were presented in a dismissive manner (The Herald 7/7).

Otherwise, details surrounding the planned mediation efforts were largely based on President Mugabe’s narration and interpretation of the development or these media’s amplification of his stance.

Consequently, there was no coherent discussion on the circumstances leading to Mkapa’s appointment or the context in which Annan backed the former Tanzanian leader. Neither did the official media query why the authorities seemed relieved at avoiding a UN inspection of the country’s problems if they had nothing to hide, nor why they believed Mkapa would succeed where at least two other African leaders had failed.

Instead, these media simply focused on how Mugabe had prevailed over Annan and averted a planned UN intervention in Zimbabwe during their meeting in Banjul.

ZTV (4/7, 6&8pm), for example, passively quoted Mugabe saying Zimbabwe had accepted Mkapa’s efforts to mediate in its "dispute" with Britain as it didn’t want "Annan tarnished during the last six months of his career", adding that the UN boss had said "he just wanted to use his good office in order for Europe to realise that Zimbabwe’s sanctions are wrong."

Without establishing the truth of these claims, ZTV and Radio Zimbabwe (5/7, 8pm) quoted Media and Information Commission chairman Tafataona Mahoso hailing Mkapa’s appointment saying he was a "a true Pan-Africanist" and an "integral part of the movement for African Union" as compared to Annan who would have been "peripheral and external". He then castigated the opposition for raising reservations over Mkapa’s mediation, saying the MDC was "scared" of him "because he is going to expose the wolves they have been working with".

Similarly, The Herald (5/7) approvingly reported on the development as a Mugabe victory over his ‘detractors’ who had "feverishly" claimed that the UN chief would tell him to step down by using Banjul as the "altar on which Zimbabwe’s sovereignty was to be sacrificed with Annan scalping Mugabe as his trophy ahead of his exit from the UN". There was no attempt to measure the benefits Zimbabwe expected to accrue from the mere "shaming" of its detractors, especially when these were raising important questions on difficulties facing the country. Instead, the official Press remained adamant that Zimbabwe’s problems emanated from Britain’s disapproval of government’s land reforms, resulting in the ‘former colonial master’ campaigning for the country’s isolation.

Pro-government commentators, including some church leaders were cited lending credence to this simplistic claim.

In fact, while The Herald (7/7) reported Bishop Trevor Manhanga, one of the church leaders involved in the local initiative to resolve the Zimbabwe crisis, welcoming Mkapa’s planned bridge-building exercise, it did not explain how the two initiatives complemented each other. It also did not ask the logic of pursuing a local solution to the Zimbabwe crisis if government was certain it originated from Britain.

Although the official media appeared as having balanced government views with alternative comment, these were mainly used to support Mkapa’s mediation. See Figs 1 and 2.

Fig. 1 Voice distribution on ZBH

Fig. 2 Voice distribution in the government Press

Notably, the alternative voices the official papers quoted mostly comprised comments from Bishop Manhanga and other like-minded church leaders who supported the mediation process. Similarly, with the exception of the British, most views from foreign diplomats were those of Annan’s alleged endorsement of Mkapa.

By comparison, the private media carried 26 stories on the matter. Seventeen appeared in the private papers, seven were aired by private radio stations, while online publications (New Zimbabwe.Com and Zimdaily) featured two.

Except for the five stories carried by the Mirror stable, which echoed the official stance, the rest of the stories doubted Mkapa’s impartiality and his chances of resolving the crisis, whose causes they noted had been misrepresented by Mugabe.

Studio 7 (5/7), for example, quoted British diplomats, the MDC and independent commentators agreeing that Mkapa’s mediation efforts were bound to fail if he were to work within the parameters defined by Mugabe since Zimbabwe’s problems were not due to a "bilateral dispute" between Harare and London, as Mugabe claimed, but as a result of bad governance.

It was in this context that commentator Dhewa Mavhunga (Studio 7, 5/7) viewed Mkapa’s role as part of Mugabe’s "tactics" to "try and delay the resolution of the Zimbabwean crisis" as he was "calling the shots, initiating the discussions and (had) self-appointed the so-called mediator" who did not have "a lot of power" but was merely "a messenger".

The Zimbabwe Independent (7/6) agreed, questioning why government preferred building bridges with Britain before making peace with the local opposition.

Earlier, The Financial Gazette (6/7) carried an unconfirmed report alleging that Mkapa would "shock" Mugabe because, it was claimed, he would insist on "an exit plan as a precondition to resolving the diplomatic standoff between London and Harare". To support this, it quoted unnamed diplomatic sources saying Mkapa would be under pressure to silence critics questioning his impartiality, adding that he was also keen to "eclipse" previous attempts by other African leaders to resolve the crisis.

However, analysts like Lovemore Madhuku did not see any positive result coming out of the process saying Mkapa was just "Mugabe’s ambassador who will provide more energy to Mugabe’s parochial view that land is at the centre of the crisis".

SW Radio Africa, New Zimbabwe.Com and Zimdaily’s stories echoed this sentiment.

The private media’s critical approach was a result of their attempts to get a wider range of alternative views as shown in Figs 3 and 4.

Fig. 3 Voice distribution on private radio stations and online publications

Fig. 4 Voice distribution in the private Press

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