Back to Index

Policy inconsistencies
Media Monitoring Project of Zimbabwe (MMPZ)
Weekly Media Update 2006-42
Monday October 16^th 2006 – Sunday October 22^nd 2006

THIS week the government Press unquestioningly reported on conflicting official statements over policy issues without any attempt to reconcile them. As a result, there was no clarity on who exactly in government was in charge of various policy formulations. Neither did these papers interpret the confusion as a reflection of the authorities’ poor management of the country.

This passivity was mirrored in 40 stories the government Press featured on the economy (21) and agricultural issues (19). For example, The Herald (19/10) remained completely uncurious about the reasons why the Reserve Bank had given businessman Philip Chiyangwa’s Pinnacle Property Holdings permission to sell property in foreign currency soon after the bank had closed 16 foreign currency transfer agencies for allegedly fuelling illegal foreign currency deals. Neither did it reconcile this with previous government proclamations outlawing local trade in forex.

The paper (20/10) only added to the confusion when it passively quoted central bank governor Gideon Gono rescinding the deal on the basis that it was "fraught with irregularities, as no proper procedures had been followed for such application".

Gono was not challenged to detail the violated ‘procedures’ or explain how a business arrangement of such magnitude had escaped the attention of the bank’s regulators. Rather, he was simply allowed to blame Sigauke while expressing gratitude to the Press for exposing the issue, which he claimed "could have gone undetected…"

It only emerged through the online news agency, Zimonline (21/10), that contrary to Gono’s assertions, it was actually President Mugabe who had forced the RBZ to annul the deal.

The government papers’ failure to take government to task over its policy confusions also manifested itself in their coverage of the controversy surrounding new bread prices.

They passively reported the arrest of a senior official in the Trade and Industry Ministry, Norman Chakanetsa, for allegedly "unlawfully" approving the bread price hike without the consent of his boss, Minister Obert Mpofu, (The Herald 20/10). The paper and its sister publications did not question why it took weeks for the authorities to detect the anomaly. In fact, when government allegedly allowed bakers to increase the bread cost from $200 a loaf to $295 – about $100 less the price they advocated – the official media celebrated the development as indicative of the effectiveness of government’s interventionist policies, especially its price control regime. Notably, no government official was cited challenging the move then.

By the weekend The Sunday Mail and Sunday News (22/10) simply quoted Trade and Industry Secretary Christian Katsande announcing that government would, during the week, "finalise a set of new prices" of maize meal, flour and bread, which the paper falsely claimed had "remained at $85" a loaf before the "interim relief figure of $295 that was announced recently". No attempt was made to discuss the implications of the price controls on industrial viability.

However, except for the Mirror stable, whose slant was similar to the official media, other private papers tried to expose government policy deficiencies and contradictions in the four stories they carried on the subject. The Financial Gazette (19/10), for example, reported economists condemning the price controls and the arrests of business executives on allegations of illegally increasing commodity prices, saying the move would negatively affect industrial productivity. As an example, it noted that while government claimed the introduction of fuel price controls had brought sanity to the fuel sector, the move had actually triggered crippling shortages of fuel, which had become readily available following an earlier decision to deregulate the oil industry. It thus viewed price controls as symptomatic of government’s "policy shifts and backtracking" meant to "appease the public".

The next day the Zimbabwe Independent (20/10) reported a rift within government over its pricing policies. It noted that while President Mugabe supported the arrest of business leaders over unsanctioned price increases, Vice-President Joice Mujuru appeared to be against it. The paper quoted unnamed government sources interpreting the conflict in the context of ZANU PF’s succession battle, adding that Industry Minister Obert Mpofu was caught in the "crossfire of the political rivalry" with his colleagues accusing his ministry of approving price increases. Consequently, the "attack" on the minister had resulted in the arrest of Chakanetsa.

The private Press also highlighted the chaos and policy contradictions characterising government’s land reforms in 10 stories. The Gazette, for example, reported the continued eviction of white farmers despite Mujuru’s assurance to international guests attending the Tourism Expo that "our land reform programme is now part of our history" as it had "been taken to its logical conclusion". The Standard (22/10) carried another report exposing such evictions. In addition, the paper quoted Justice for Agriculture (JAG) and the Commercial Farmers Union (CFU) exposing the fallacy of government claims that it had either compensated or was considering applications from white farmers wishing to farm. It quoted JAG chairman John Worswick dismissing the compensation claims as "a bloody scam", saying government gave farmers only "5 to 10% of the real value of their properties". CFU vice-president Trevor Gifford concurred, saying most applications for land by white farmers had been "rejected" on "racially motivated reasons".

In a further expose of the authorities’ agricultural policy inconsistencies, the paper revealed that after declaring that it would stop allocating inputs to unproductive resettled farmers, government – "in a complete somersault" – had announced last week that it would provide fuel "to the same people who had betrayed it".

The government Press evaded these issues.

Instead, they generally rehashed official statements glossing over the agricultural problems while simultaneously projecting government as taking measures to boost production.

The official media’s uncritical coverage of the matter was illustrated by their dependence on official voices as reflected in Fig 1.

Fig 1 Voice distribution in the government Press

Although the private papers also carried a significant number of government voices as shown in Fig 2, more than half (11) of these appeared in the Mirror stable’s newspapers, which also remained blind to government policy contradictions.

Fig 2 Voice distribution in 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