Back to Index

Transcript of 'Hot Seat' with foreign correspondent Peta Thornycroft and ex-minister Jonathan Moyo - Part 1
Violet Gonda, SW Radio Africa
January 04, 2007

This programme was broadcast on SW Radio Africa on January 02, 2007

Violet: On the programme Hot Seat we bring you a teleconference with foreign correspondent Peta Thornycroft and Independent MP and former Information Minister Professor Jonathan Moyo. Today, we are discussing the issue of the media situation in Zimbabwe , we will also take a look at how the draconian legislation, largely attributed to Professor Jonathan Moyo has had a negative impact on the media situation in Zimbabwe . I first asked Peta Thornycroft why the Zimbabwe story has gone flat in the international media.

Peta: Because people are expecting change. Journalists write about change OK, and Zimbabwe has great opposition in that story. Just think; if you actually go back and you think of it that in September, 9/11 2001, that happened sort of a year or just two years after the MDC was formed, it had to contend with that. But, because people thought change was coming, because there was violence, because there was visual on the television screens, it became a big story - it was a world story. There are virtually no visuals now. There are no television crews covering this story. And, while I understand this from the international news point of view; I understand why they are not covering it and I don't argue with it because there is no hard news.

I am very critical of SABC TV because it's on their background, they had crooked coverage, sorry, unbalanced coverage, I thought in the 2002 Presidential Elections and since then they are hardly ever there. They have a local stringer. They will send a whole team, a whole crew to Equador, to Venezuala, they will spend a great deal of money, and television costs a great deal of money, to all sorts of places in the world, but in their next door, they won't go and I accept it is hard for journalists to cover Zimbabwe thanks to Jonathan's legislation. We find it very difficult.

Those of us who have survived; without accreditation we've got canny, we're careful, but we don't take our cameras and the moving camera's when they come in, they do occasionally come in from very brave people, they have to skirt around, and of course, we don't get access to ZANU PF. So, to be balanced in a story is extremely difficult. So it's too difficult for journalists to go into Zimbabwe because of the fear of getting arrested. And the second point is change is not happening so there's no hard news and it's very hard to do the humanitarian stories there without them being extremely repetitive.

Violet : But you know some will still ask why it's hard to get the visuals, you know out there when there are still a few foreign correspondents in Zimbabwe . Thousands are starving, there is political unrest. How come Zimbabwe is no longer what they would describe or others would say, a 'sexy' story when the statistics on the ground demand that it should be covered?

Peta: I think that the Western Foreign press has done those stories. I can think of my colleagues who have repeatedly; once every six weeks or so, or say the New York Times have sneaked into the country and done those stories, I do think the Western press - you can't continue writing the same story even if the characters change because people, the readers, who you have to think about, get bored, they've read that before. What I am absolutely shocked about is that SABC, who can get accreditation and will not therefore be arrested when they take out their camera, SABC TV I'm saying, do not go in there.

I think that despite everything, the Western press has really tried on the humanitarian stories, but, Violet, you can't take out a camera in Harare unless you are behind closed doors. You can't do it! You will have somebody from the CIO or an informer who wants to make a bit of money that afternoon who is going to phone his superior and the next thing is you are done and so it is extremely hard to cover it. And, the visuals are important, the words are fine but, you know, how do people read story? They look at the headline first and then they look at the picture. The picture is the second most important thing and the words, I'm afraid, come last. So television is absolutely vital. It's the same with Radio. Radio can do so much but without the visuals the story doesn't happen. And, I'm afraid to say until there is news, i.e. change, whatever that change may be, but change that can challenge what's happening in Baghdad, yesterday what's happening with Hamas, what's happening with the spy, the dead spy in London, what's happening in Afghanistan, what's happening in Somalia or Darfur, Zimbabwe is going to come short. But, you know, the ones who really should be doing it are the Region, and they don't.

Violet: And Professor Moyo, Peta said this is thanks to your legislation. Now as the former Information Minister do you agree that you were responsible for the creation of media controls that have made work for journalists very difficult?

Jonathan: I don't think its media control that determines the story. What we have here is a story that was over 'sexed- up', it has lost sex appeal and other things are happening elsewhere and there's no interest. But, if you look at what is happening today, including this discussion, as the succession of Mugabe becomes an everyday issue in serious ways, and as that generates interest, activity and even opposition from within ZANU PF, you will see the story coming back to international screens and front pages. Just today, the Annual Conference is one of the headline items on BBC International Television. I think it's because the actors on the ground, the situation, you know, killed the story. You do not get a story because of rules; whether you can or cannot carry a camera and so forth. I don't think it is true even though I know that the law in question does not prevent anyone from doing that. But, I also know that the implementation of these laws has taken on a life of its own and people; the Mahoso's of this world; are making rules under the cover of the legislation on a daily basis.

But, the bottom line is it's the politics of the country that determines whether there is a story or not. How can there be a story when the opposition is dead and is doing nothing? I mean is that story in itself an exciting story? If the politics of the country change for the better, and I think this is what Peta was also saying, and, on that, I agree with her, unless there is a new dramatic development there is no reason to expect a story because people lose interest. Not only the international media. I think what is actually much more instructive about your question, if you look at it much more critically, is that you will find it's not just about the media losing interest in the Zimbabwean story. Many activists have lost interest in their own participation. Many people who used to even fund the Opposition are no longer doing that and they think this is a hopeless cause, they are looking for something else to happen. And yes, we have seen elsewhere in history around the world that something does eventually happen and the story comes up again.

Violet: But still do you agree that you did an effective job because if we were to look at the domestic coverage of the story there is no interest because journalists are not able to film or to report freely even to ensure that the general public would get informed?

Jonathan: No, but I think if you are going to make that kind of an argument, you should let me, or draw my attention to a particular regulation which says they must not do that. I don't know of anything in the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy which says people must not carry cameras and they should not carry note books or pens -

Peta : Can I interrupt?

Jonathan: or report freely.

Peta : Can I interrupt?

Violet: Sure Peta.

Peta: I have applied for accreditation, I can't remember if it's for four or five years. I apply, I pay my fifty dollars, I fill in my forms at Mahoso's office. He writes me a funny letter once a year but I never get accreditation. And we are in the majority of those left. The Wire Services, two of the Wire Services have accreditation. But, the hard news daily sloggers amongst us don't have accreditation. Every time I go out of town, and I go out of town a lot, I am terrified that someone out there from the CIO, as I said, I agree, this isn't your law, but that is the climate that has been created. I can't get accreditation and I've never been able to get accreditation.

I walked into Mozambique in October and went into the Frelimo Congress, they didn't even ask me for a letter from my employer. They just took my picture, put a card around my neck and I was accredited. It is incredible you know when we have somebody like Nicholas Van Hoogstraten, a convicted criminal with an appalling reputation who has to arrange for accreditation for Channel Four to come to Zimbabwe .

Why were Channel Four coming under cover to do a story that they hadn't declared? They are coming because it's impossible to work legally in Zimbabwe without attracting attention. And, the law was changed, and I've heard your arguments Jonathan and we've had many discussions on this. But, a climate was created where it became virtually impossible unless you're ingenious and you've got nerves of steel and a determination to carry on. I would have left Zimbabwe years ago. I felt an obligation as a Zimbabwe citizen to go and cover the story because I felt it was my duty to do so. And, that's not how journalism works. When you work like that you make mistakes, you certainly don't get balance from ZANU PF. You phone up ZANU PF; in fact I have never yet done a story, in the five and a half years I have covered this time round, without phoning somebody from ZANU PF looking for a comment. We've all made mistakes because of that situation; no question we've made mistakes. And I'm not sure it was a 'sexed-up' story in the beginning. I think in 2000, I wasn't here in 2000, but a man with Mugabe's reputation and longevity in power and up comes this pip-squeak Opposition and does so incredibly well, it's that news, news, it's about change. I think it was a real story.

Violet: Are you still in Zimbabwe Peta?

Peta: I'm in Johannesburg Violet. I've been more and more out of Harare over the last year and I've been travelling in the Region and I will be more and more out of Zimbabwe unless there is change because actually I can't make a living in Zimbabwe.

Violet: And how many Foreign Correspondents are left in Zimbabwe ?

Peta: You know I'm not going to say. You know what, I don't want to name anyone or count anything; you know who the accredited guys are. There are two, there are certainly two wire services that are accredited and SABC TV is accredited and Al Jazeera are accredited, the Chinese are accredited and there's a couple of others who are quite surprised they are accredited but they don't, they are not very much in the front line. There's others who like me, carry on, but it's really hard to do and I know perfectly well because I've been with enough foreign journalists who've sneaked across the border and I've seen them operating. They are terrified of being in Zimbabwe, terrified!
"
Violet: Now Professor Moyo, as Peta says, this is the climate that was created when you were Information Minister. Now, how would you suggest a way out of this mess?

Jonathan: I unfortunately I couldn't hear much of what Peta was saying. The line is not good at all. What I would say is that I know there have been controversial applications of the law and I know that even if the law was not there, the particular one, the situation would still be like this, probably even worse.

Peta: I agree

Jonathan: But I also know that there's something that has happened about the story itself which has created problems. I have some friends or colleagues, people I know, who work for various international news organisations who tell me that when they file stories on Zimbabwe these days they cannot be certain that they will be published or used by the broadcasters. And, when I ask them why, it is because generally Zimbabwe is not an important story any more. I am not too sure what really the actual reason for that is but I am aware that it doesn't have as much appeal or interest as it did a few years ago. But you ask about the way forward. I think really the way forward will be found out of these developments that are the subject of our discussion today. We are finally beginning to see the sort of things we should have seen long time ago. Namely, some positive reaction by ZANU PF people.

In a country like ours it is impossible to move forward when leaders in the majority party or ruling party , when members of that party act like there is no wrong that is going on around them. But, when they begin to ask fundamental questions about the state of the economy, the state of the country, and, more importantly, the state of their party, whether their party follows it's own rules, its own constitution, whether their own party is well led. When they begin to ask those questions you see movement and you begin to see new alliances, new progressive linkages in society and the story becomes a substantive story as well. And, I believe that after taking ZANU PF support for granted for some 26 years, finally, Mugabe has his back against the wall from his own party. And, I believe 2007 is going to be a watershed year. And I am almost certain that if Mugabe insists on his plan to merely use an amendment of the Constitution or a vote of Parliament to extend his rule, he is going to be opposed in the first instance by his own party, and he will not get away with it. And, that will open new doors including for media space in Zimbabwe .

Peta: Good.

Violet: And Professor Moyo, before I go to Peta, is it not certain though that the Central Committee will adopt this proposal and that also once it gets to Parliament because ZANU PF is in the majority in Parliament, they will amend the Constitution. Is that not a given?

Jonathan: No, it's not a given, not at all. It used to be. It is not going to be. Remember that this particular proposal went through the Politburo on the 12 th of December and on the 13 th of December it went to the Central Committee, and on the 14 th of December it went to the National Conference and without any success. And, to now expect it to succeed after going through Provinces then back to the Central Committee is an expensive proposition. And, I think that it's important for Zimbabweans to understand the dynamics and structures of ZANU PF that is part of the story. And, in this case, we can see clearly something new developing. Mugabe and his securocrats would have wanted this proposal to be passed as a resolution yesterday. They wanted to pass it just as a resolution and then that resolution would now be sent to the appropriate government organs for implementation. They did not get that. There is a story. But, I tell you, watch how this story is going to be told by the media. Many will ignore it, perhaps because they don't understand what's going on or because they are no longer interested in Zimbabwean stories, and others are going to distort it. And yet, you have something really, really important. How else do you expect those ZANU PF people who succeeded in resisting this yesterday to be encouraged if the media is not going to play it's role?

So, I do expect the Central Committee to be fortified and resist it as long as the content remains the same. But, more significantly, I am almost certain that for the first time this kind of proposal which would be intended to extend Mugabe's Executive Presidency by another two years outside the popular will of the people, will not see the light of day in Parliament and that might be the graveyard of this proposal. It simply cannot pass in Parliament as long as it is understood for what it is namely, a proposal to extend his rule outside the democratic process as opposed to a proposal to harmonise Presidential, Parliamentary and Local Government elections. I am sure that both the ZAU PF Central Committee and the Parliament of Zimbabwe would not entertain this, especially because it is clear to everyone now that there will not be any kind of economic recovery. And, on the economic front, people are suffering and that is why the economy has emerged as the largest opposition to this Government.

People are suffering and that is not a matter of mere politicking, it's a reality. Many Zimbabweans today go to bed without having a single decent meal and there is no sign that anyone who is in charge of the affairs of this country is worried about that. When they met in Goromonzi they did not show any concern, they just indulged in their own celebrations; over eighty beasts slaughtered and so forth. But, there was no systematic discussion of the state of this economy and any indication that people understand what needs to be done. And, one of the things that clearly needs to be done, and this is without prejudice to Mugabe or anyone who supports him, but clearly, the turnaround of this country is impossible as long as Mugabe remains in Office and we would expect a responsible Ruling Party to recognise that. And, I am convinced that there are growing numbers of people in ZANU PF who are finally coming home to this realisation and that's why I am sure, this, for the first time, is exactly the kind of proposal that cannot pass the Central Committee or certainly not Parliament. Certainly not Parliament. Mugabe is going to have in his hands a royal battle like he has never seen before if he persists. This is absolutely and utterly self destructive, I can assure you about that.

Violet: And Peta your final thoughts about this? Is this going to be self-destructive as Professor Moyo believes?

Peta: Oh I hope he's right. (Laughs) I just hope Jonathan's right. He knows far more about ZANU PF then I will ever know because he was part of it and I listen to him and I think it sounds so logical. I hope he's right but ZANU PF doesn't always act in its own best interest. If it hadn't done Murambatsvina last year they would probably all be going on holiday to Spain and Portugal right now because they would have had travel sanctions lifted. So, I sometimes wonder about the movers and shakers in ZANU PF if they are ever able to make wise decisions. We wouldn't be having to renew Sanctions, it would be a - the European Union wouldn't have a problem in February, it would just drop them if it wasn't for Murambatsvina. So I just hope Jonathan's right, that's all, so that the suffering can end.

Violet: But I'm sure for many it's difficult to comprehend what's happening in ZANU PF because you keep hearing that eight out of ten Provinces support Mugabe's plans?

Peta : That's because it's not properly reported and I have to say this. This is a domestic story of massive importance. This is a domestic story. In fact I've written the story three times already for the foreign press and I'm quite sure . . .

Jonathan: I just have to point out that while I hear the questions and the doubt and I respect that, but, in this particular instance, please note that despite the eight provinces having moved the recommendation and brought it to the National Conference, the more significant point is that the Conference did not formally endorse that resolution. And, that is the first time we see this development within ZANU PF. Let us not downplay or underestimate the significance of that.

Peta: No, no, no. No, Jonathan I also think that the domestic press did not properly report . . .

Jonathan: It's true

Peta: the eight provinces decision which was about harmonisation rather than about extending his term of office.

Jonathan : It's true, Ya

Peta: So what I am saying to you is that from inside Zimbabwe, you know, you've got one newspaper, you've got the Independent - you've got two newspapers, and the Standard and then you've got a political pamphlet called The Zimbabwean. And, clearly the Independent has really tried terribly hard and done extremely well over the exposé but there's other stories, and you had a story published this week; a piece of analysis. But, you know what, that's read by a few people in Harare mostly. 99% of people cannot afford to read the Independent, never see it. They are dependent, if they've got money for batteries for their radios to listen to ZBC.

Jonathan: Ya

Peta: Violet should be airing this programme on ZBC, we should all be talking on ZBC not talking to London .

Jonathan: Oh no that cannot be denied, indeed that is the tragedy of our country and I know that's what then causes Violet to say but we hold you responsible for it. Well, I wish really I had created a situation where what Peta is talking about now was possible because in the absence of vibrant discussion fora of the public nature, radio, television, newspapers, then the story will be buried and there will be mis-representation, distortions and outright omissions and that's one thing which is really, really odd about Zimbabwe. And that's one thing about which it is immensely difficult to do anything and I suppose until we have some fundamental change of the political system we have some fundamental change of the political system we will remain with these constraints where here we are talking to Violet who is far away and the product is broadcast on Short Wave Radio, which the State is also jamming, and many people don't get access to.

Violet: The discussion with Professor Jonathan Moyo and Peta Thornycroft will conclude next Tuesday

Transcript of 'Hot Seat' with foreign correspondent Peta Thornycroft and ex-minister Jonathan Moyo (Part 2
Violet Gonda, SW Radio Africa
January 09, 2007

Violet Gonda : Welcome to the Hot Seat teleconference with journalist Peta Thornycroft and former Information Minister Professor Jonathan Moyo. We continue from last week where we discussed the media and the quality of news emerging from Zimbabwe . It has been said the country has a suffocating media environment which is keeping people ignorant and incapable of making informed decisions. There are many who believe the government controlled press has deliberately hoodwinked Zimbabweans for years. I first asked Peta if Zimbabwe has ever had freedom of the press.

Peta Thornycroft: Well, certainly not since 1965 when blank spaces appeared in the Herald and where the media was extensively formally censored. What we've seen certainly since independence, and I joined the state media in 1982, was a creeping self censorship. It started as self censorship and then by the time that Tommy Sithole took over editorship of the Herald in 1983, and he probably did more damage to the press, than any other person. By that time one already knew that the noble hopes of the Mass Media Trust would represent a free democratic society and would guarantee freedom of speech, that it was gone. And, if one looks back at how the media in Zimbabwe covered, for example, Gukurahundi, it was absolutely shameful. And, at independence, Zimbabwean newspapers actually recruited really skilled people; mostly journalists who'd fled South Africa or fled Rhodesia ; and there were some fine people there. But they were all, every one of them, were forced to leave because of their conscience or as soon as their contracts, you know, five year contracts, were up, they quit. So there's really no tradition of free press/media in Zimbabwe .

Violet: And also now, under AIPPA, the law criminalises the practice of journalism without accreditation and provides for the possibility of a two year jail term for those found guilty. Now, this is a question for Professor Moyo. Do you think this is a proportionate punishment for such a petty administrative offence?

Jonathan Moyo: well, I think the fact that there is such a law is a reflection of the kind of society that we have been, it's not something that developed over night. It is a culmination of our twenty year practice, although it was always difficult for journalists, maybe even impossible to practice without accreditation by the then Ministry of Information, Posts and Telecommunications. One of the biggest responsibilities of that Ministry was accrediting journalists. And, as you know from various sources, major developments in Zimbabwe , notably the Gukurahundi was not reported by Zimbabwean journalists at all when there was no AIPPA. And, AIPPA was an attempt, I must admit a rather bad attempt at trying to regularise what was happening irregularly and what was giving the State a lot of discretion without any rules. You would be denied accreditation but there would be no explanation for it. I believe the worst period for journalism in Zimbabwe was during the ten year extension of the Rhodesian State of Emergency when the security apparatus was deciding on these things without being accountable to anyone and without anyone knowing what rules were being used. In AIPPA's case we know what the rules are. They continue to be applied selectively and, indeed, in a proper functioning society they would be unnecessary.

Violet: Peta do you agree that the worst period was during the Rhodesian period?

Jonathan: No, I didn't say Rhodesian. The Zimbabwean period, 1980 to 1990 when the Rhodesian State of Emergency was extended by the Zimbabweans.

Violet: Alright and then Peta still, would you agree, since you are a journalist still trying to work in Zimbabwe, covering the Zimbabwean story right now, would you say that things were worse then than now?

Peta: Violet Ian Smith deported or refused to allow at least ninety foreign journalists to work in Rhodesia . The first journalist I saw being evicted, expelled from Zimbabwe was I think it was early 1982. The headlines most made at that time was that Nick Worrall of the Guardian was deported because of what he had written about Gukurahundi, and it was an extremely frightening phase of Zimbabwe but it was confined to one area of the country. When the MDC was formed in 2000, I got there in 2001 but I had been up and down, I had no doubt that had there had been an MDC in Harare in the early '80's, Nathan Shamyurira would have dealt with the press; in Harare or in other places where the MDC had; as brutally as the press were dealt with post 2000 really, post 2002 following the Presidential election, when it has been so difficult. So, what I'm saying is that political protest, political opposition to ZANU PF in each phase of that protest, whether it was in the 80s or the 2000s has been really vicious. I don't know if I can remember accurately enough. There was then a period after the Unity Accord of relative political submission. People were oppressed enough and the foreign journalists had little really to report on, and, I'm talking from a foreign point of view. And so, it was quite OK for them, there were very few of them getting into any trouble because there was very little going on, like there's very little going on now.

But, the moment something happens politically, journalists do what journalists do, they try and tell the story, and they got cracked on now and then. Andrew Moyse, the Editor of Parade from 1984-'85 onwards, I mean, you know, what a heroic job he did, and I'm not saying it because I eventually worked for him. I mean just go back in the record spells it out for anyone who cares to look, it was the only voice in opposition, long before The Independent, long before the Daily Gazette. There was one voice and it was a monthly magazine and that magazine sold out every month. In fact, I can remember seeing the vendors coming and fighting with each other to get enough copies of it. And, go back and look at what he wrote. But it was really difficult for him, and that was before I joined him.

Violet: And what about AIPPA itself? What does that law do to people's desire to get the truth into the public domain?

Peta: Violet, you know when you stand there in court and you watch Andrew Meldrum being charged and I can't remember who was charged with him, and you see perfectly respectable journalists being hauled before Magistrates; I mean they haven't won a case yet, I can't even remember why they didn't win it because there have been such a mass of journalists getting into trouble etc. What does it mean? You'd have to ask people on a daily basis. I don't think of AIPPA; I mean I've got used to it. It's think it's lousy. I'm worried about being caught; others are worried about being caught, but from time to time. And if there is a rise in Civil Society protests at the moment and we go back onto the streets, we've learned to be clever, we've learned to avoid detection, we have learnt to keep a low profile, and, there are so few of us. If something actually happens in the streets of Harare or there is some kind of protests, well, I'm sure it will be just as difficult as it was in 2002.

Violet: And, Professor Moyo, there are some who say you created the AIPPA law which has led to people not being able to express themselves freely in Zimbabwe. That Mahoso and company are abusing the legislation is neither here nor there as you created that monster or at least the breeding ground where this monster has been well fed. Now, how would you respond to that?

Jonathan: Well what I would say to those people is that first they should recall that first of all it was not my creation; it was something that was already on the cards when I joined the Government of Zimbabwe. The aspect that can be seen as my creation, and an aspect which I accept fully, is that I was the incumbent Minister of Information and I therefore had to play the leading role in bringing that legislation to Parliament. But, this is not a Jonathan Moyo law, this is a law that came from the Government of Zimbabwe and was passed by Parliament of Zimbabwe. I don't think you are going to make any progress in personalising it and if you say 'this is a Moyo creation', you may satisfy yourself but you will not move forward because you will fail to understand that there is something deeply institutional and deeply political about this law which is why it is there in the books, well long after my departure.

Even so, I would like to bring what I think is an important consideration to your attention about this law. While I believe that in a society that is functioning as a normal democracy there would really be no need for this; and the evidence for that, as far as I am concerned, is the draft Constitution that was rejected in 2000, which I supported and in which I played a leading role along with others. We clearly had wanted, and we put a clause in the draft Constitution that sought to protect media freedom as a fundamental right. The Zimbabwean Constitution doesn't do it. It protects freedom of expression. There is, as you have seen for example in other jurisdictions like the United States, a world of difference between freedom of expression as a natural right, which we are grateful to God because we are born with, and freedom of the media where the media is an institution that is socially created and so forth. We need, in a dispensation such as ours that kind of right.

In the absence of that Violet, and given our experience over the last 20 years, one of the worst, worst aspects or worst problems really in terms of media practice and freedom of expression we have experienced is the absence of rules. That those in power make their rules, or make the rules as and when they want to in response to particular situations on the basis of whim. This is what happened during the ten year State of Emergency in Zimbabwe ; the extended Rhodesian State of Emergency. I think it's better to have rules. To know what the rules are. To find ways of dealing with those rules if you find them unacceptable than to be a victim of a rule-less environment which is dictated by the personal whim of the Director of Information or the Minister of Information. With all its defects, I believe one good aspect of AIPPA is that it tells us in black and white what the rules are. And, you can then use those rules to fight the system.

One of the reasons, and I heard Peta saying this, and, she is correct, so far, of all the cases of a criminal kind that have been brought in the courts in Zimbabwe under AIPPA, the State has not won a single one. And, that is a significant development in terms of institutionalising the rule of law, because, at the end of the day, after losing one, two three and more cases, the Government gets embarrassed and it modifies its behaviour. And I think that, then, in an environment such as ours, can be progress.

Violet: Peta, what are your views on what Professor Moyo has just pointed out?

Peta: That I hope, one day, when Zimbabwe becomes a democracy, AIPPA along with POSA and some of the other security laws will be burned on a heap; a celebrations fire; and, we will never need odious laws, odious security laws again. It is undeniable that what the Government of Zimbabwe did was put rules down which nevertheless, rules being put in the hands of tormentors of democracy, would always be abused. We've seen registered journalists being arrested, registered photographers; I'm remembering a photographer from Reuters maybe eighteen months ago being arrested and locked up. So, registration is not necessarily a protection for the Press. They're out of control; AIPPA gave them control that they would always abuse whether it's a good law or a bad law. I think it's a lousy law and I just hope it goes because it gave laws which were unnecessary. There is defamation; unfortunately, there was criminal defamation even prior to AIPPA. Journalists have been deported continuously since independence. And many journalists in the domestic press, I'm really talking about the State press here and we have seen some in sections of the privately owned media from time to time, practice tremendous self censorship because they are scared. And so, in an environment, it doesn't matter actually whether there is AIPPA or not AIPPA; it is a lousy place to work as a journalist.

And I'm, of course, like many people who knew Jonathan Moyo before he joined the Government of Zimbabwe, when he became, when he was, one of the first and most articulate writers and analysts on the evils of ZANU PF. I think for me, and I've said this to him, so it's not a surprise to him to hear it from me now on your radio, is that knowing what I know about him, and his argument about the Constitution, I still can't catch it! How somebody who wrote at length and regularly and was arguably the most articulate and regularly published critic of ZANU PF could have joined them. But, actually, I don't think this advances anything that we are saying now because we are talking about the media in general and we've all been through this many times with Jonathan. And, one day, he's going to tell us fully, when it's a better climate than it is now, because it's a horrendous climate at the moment.

Violet: And then also Peta, still on the media, some people have been saying that the independent media has fallen victim to the polarisation of the country by protecting the Opposition and Civic Society from criticism and from any negative publicity. Would you agree with this?

Peta: I didn't know enough about the Opposition until just really before it split into two factions, nor did I know much about Civil Society. There were too many daily hard news stories going on. We went to the occasional press conference, we saw them, we saw them being arrested, we saw them being beaten, killed, etc, we saw that. But I don't think any of us really investigated. I think actually in defence, I think Trevor Ncube of The Independent; owns The Independent; was the first person to write, voice that critical
voice from the privately owned press. And then, the story started to come out actually from the foreign press. And, I think, actually following the split in the MDC; one saw some absolutely horrendous reporting. And, if one looks back on that, one can understand why it was horrendous, because there wasn't a tradition of accountability and you do have newspapers like The Independent, which did try very hard to not be partisan to one faction or the other. But then there were all these little internet publications that I used to, when I saw their stuff, I used to write them and tell them 'what the hell are you doing? Why are you writing this stuff?' And, we've seen it in other so called privately owned or independent or foreign funded media which has not been responsible. Its got better now; maybe it has got better because the Opposition is just words and not deeds now so maybe that's why its died. But, it really did show the shallowness of understanding of many in the privately owned media when the MDC split in two and one saw that people, journalists, could not think beyond their personal admiration for one or other person there.

However, during; since the MDC split; and because that's the nature of journalism, one starts to ask questions; 'when did it start going wrong'? And, what's horrendous, for a foreign journalist, is to find that it went wrong long ago, by 2001 they were squabbling with each other over this and that and I think then the domestic press did fail. I think the domestic media did fail and I actually think that was the job for the domestic press and not necessarily for the foreign media, we were interested in other things, other than the MDC.

Violet: Do you agree Professor Moyo?

Jonathan: Yes I agree. And, unfortunately, all this was happening against the background of a poisoned public sphere. One of the tragedies we have is that when the Nigerians gave a gift to Zimbabwe to buy the South African owned press, there was confusion about what that meant. And, what was supposed to be State ownership, and the State is you, me, everyone, all of us, but in our case it became just the Government, and in particular the ZANU PF Government, which then took ownership of the Mass Media Trust and through it Zimpapers, and, as we know, in the electronic media it took ownership of radio and TV. And, you cannot expect a proper check, or a means for check and balance where the private interests get caught up with the sort of issues that Peta was talking about. You cannot expect that to be corrected if the public media is in the hands of the Government of the day, and this is a position I held even when I was in Government.

I believe that Government has no business in owning newspapers; Government should in fact not even own radio. Any Government owned media is, by definition, propaganda pamphlet if it's a newspaper or a propaganda voice if it's an electronic media. This goes without saying, it is obvious, and yet this is the situation that obtains in Zimbabwe. And, when we made little efforts to get people to appreciate that Zimpapers is actually not a Government newspaper, it's supposed to be a State newspaper owned by a Trust whose beneficiaries are all Zimbabweans; MDC Zimbabweans, ZANU PF Zimbabweans, Ndonga Zimbabweans, Independent Zimbabweans. They are all supposed to be represented by The Zimbabwe Mass Media Trust.

I've been very, very surprised, I must tell you that, even when the issue came up in Parliament and we would say this, it had no takers. It came up again last year and there was some debate, again no takers. I even think that there are many grounds for Zimbabweans, through class action and other means to even approach the courts and say why is the Minister of Information appointing Board Members at Zimpapers, because he has no right to do that. Why is the Minister of Information going to direct things at ZBC? In terms of the Broadcast Services Act he has no right to do that. But yet, no one does anything about it and in the meantime everyone wants to give effect to the fiction that Zimpapers is a Government owned group, ZBC is Government station. And, as long as that continues then we will have problems.

Otherwise, yes, I agree with what Peta said. You know, there are many things which are wrong with Zimbabwe but those many things in many significant ways are a reflection of who we are, therefore a reflection of what is wrong with us. It might be a very easy thing for many or some to say 'ah, this is what is wrong with Jonathan Moyo', but if you look at this business, it really has become a growth industry, of intolerance. The institutionalised intolerance in our country to a point where we don't even want to agree that we were actually created differently. This is a fundamental problem that is arresting not just our development, but the search for a solution to the current crisis in Zimbabwe.

Peta: Jonathan do you think you can have any of those entrenched freedoms of expression and freedom of the media under ZANU PF? It's impossible.

Jonathan: No, I think you can't. You can't have it under ZANU PF. ZANU PF has become a poisoned institution and to move forward we can't move forward with ZANU PF, there is a lot of baggage, and that is why we must agree with everyone else who says we can't have these freedoms under the current constitutional dispensation. Zimbabwe needs not only a new leadership, it also needs a new movement, political formation and it needs a new constitution. I'm not sure which one should come first.

Violet: That's the question that I actually wanted to ask Peta, that is there any way of reviving the media right now or that can only be done after Mugabe?

Peta: You know, The Independent, in particular, does a sterling job, really it does and it won't cease because Trevor Ncube does or does not have a passport. The problem is if it doesn't reach a mass audience. But, I also need to say about the mass audience and think a lot of them don't actually believe what they see on dreadful ZBC and they buy the Herald for sports and for the advertisements. You can see it every day all over the country, and The Chronicle. I think The Independent does, in its field, a good job to a limited audience and its only once a week. The most important thing of course is the mass media, the electronic media; radio and television, in particular radio which has by far the largest reach of any other media and while it remains under the control of ZANU PF - no, nothing can be done.

Jonathan: And I should say there quickly that the public media is definitely a lost cause and I don't think it has a future in Zimbabwe. We have done enough to destroy it permanently and it's now a question of a media such as the Independent growing the audience and also becoming more accessible and to be more regular and to have a similar competition. I think the future for the media in Zimbabwe is a responsible private media which will be national. I think that is the direction.

Peta: No, sorry, you can also reform. The public broadcaster, if we go back to public broadcasting, there must be a public broadcaster in Zimbabwe that has a responsibility to all sections of the community but it is in a total and utter moral, intellectual and physical state of collapse. And, I think if there ever is democracy in Zimbabwe it would be one of those projects that one would have to seek outside funding for. Getting people trained properly and getting really good leaders in each section who will be answerable to the public.

Jonathan: Yes but, I was also going to say if you look at the technological trends they do not favour public broadcasting in the sense as we have known it because choice is going to be a bigger and much more widespread factor in broadcasting through cell phones, all these sorts of things. I do not see public broadcasters going into that space but I see the State coming up with regulations to require private broadcasters to carry certain public interest issues and in countries like South Africa and the UK where there is a tradition of the public broadcaster even though in South Africa perhaps a bit shaky in recent years, there is some hope of the public broadcaster transforming along with technological changes. But, in Zimbabwe, where public broadcasting has been basically a disaster, seen as a partisan platform, I don't think, I certainly am not optimistic about its future.

Violet: Due to unforeseen circumstances we have decided to extend the programme and bring you another edition. The concluding debate will include the citizenship issue which has seen newspaper publisher Trevor Ncube being stripped of his Zimbabwean citizenship. We also bring you a follow up on events within ZANU PF since their Goromonzi conference and discuss the opportunities that in-fighting within the ruling party has created for opposition groups.

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