Back to Index

Don't hold your breath - broadcast media in Zimbabwe
David Lush, MISA
April 28, 2004

Doubtless the Zimbabwean government will herald the prospective licensing of a second national broadcaster as further evidence of its commitment to media freedom.

But don't hold your breath! Any new licensee's transmitters will broadcast on a frequency closely tuned to that of the ministry of information and ruling ZANU-PF party. Zimbabwe's broadcasting laws, not to mention the USD1 million license fee being asked of prospective broadcasters, will see to that.

A decade or so ago, President Robert Mugabe vowed that his government would never relinquish its monopoly of broadcasting in Zimbabwe. His pledge was made at a time when governments throughout Africa and beyond were opening up their countries' airwaves, paving the way for at least a modicum of privately owned and, in some instances, community based broadcasters.

It was in the wake of this worldwide trend, and a court ruling that the government's broadcasting monopoly was unconstitutional, that the Zimbabwean Parliament passed the Broadcasting Services Act (BSA) in April 2001. This law, the government claimed, would allow for private broadcasting in Zimbabwe. An about turn from President Mugabe's vow to retain a stranglehold on broadcasting? Not in the least. The BSA, and the Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe (BAZ) is created to regulate broadcasting, simply dressed the President's anachronistic pledge in new cloth.

In the three years since the BSA was passed into law, not a single indigenous private or community broadcaster has been licensed. Those who have tried to apply for a license have been shot down, either directly by Information Minister Professor Jonathan Moyo, or the BAZ, which he appoints and controls.

Meanwhile, the 2001 Broadcasting Commercialisation Act (BCA) created a government-controlled company, Transmedia, to run the country's transmitter network. The BSA prohibits any broadcaster from owning its own transmitters, which means anyone wishing to broadcast in Zimbabwe currently must do so in partnership with Transmedia.

The BCA also turned the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation (ZBC) into another company solely owned by the government. The aim, Prof. Moyo said at the time, was for the ZBC to become a profitable company that would not depend on government subsidies. Six months later, Prof. Moyo said the government would not allow the ZBC "to be run in accordance with the interests of advertisers", in spite of the commercialisation of the corporation, and cuts in government subsidy.

"The government is not going to allow vested interests to hi-jack and corrupt ZBC ever again," said Prof. Moyo wrote in The Herald newspaper of April 29 2002. Unless, of course, the vested interests are those of the ZBC's only shareholder, the government, and, thereby, the ruling party.

The case of Zimbabwe might be extreme, but is by no means unique. Although broadcasting legislation throughout much of Southern Africa has been reformed during the past decade, SADC governments continue to exercise either direct or indirect control over the airwaves.

While licenses have been granted to private and community broadcasters, governments in every SADC country except South Africa either remain, or continue to appoint the authorities that issue those licenses and regulate their implementation.

The same goes for the running of the region's national broadcasters, most of which have been converted into parastatal corporations, rather than into genuinely independent public service broadcasters. Many of these national broadcasters are starved of state subsidy and have to compete for advertising and sponsorship, while at the same time towing the government line.

Principles of public service broadcasting are spelt out in the African Commission's 2002 Declaration on Free Expression, along with the "obligation" of state authorities to promote media diversity as a pre-requisite for guaranteeing their citizens' right to free expression.

The fact that the African Commission, an institution of the inter-governmental African Union, has adopted such a progressive declaration is significant. But more significant will be the rate at which SADC governments sign up to the declaration. If current practice is anything to go by, don't hold your breath.

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