Back to Index

Chamisa, The Independent and the Struggle
Dr Alex T. Magaisa
February 03, 2006

http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/magaisa15.13715.html

THE recent exchange between Vincent Kahiya, editor of the Zimbabwe Independent and Nelson Chamisa, a spokesperson for the fractious MDC brought to the foreground some of the challenges that arise in struggles for democracy.

It goes to show how in more ways than one, we Zimbabweans have a long way to go before we understand that which we are fighting to achieve. In other words, by and large, we remain at the level where we are grappling with the basics of democracy. It also awakens people to the fact that the democratic movement is not monolithic and it need not be. This fact, current actors who would otherwise wish to lay exclusive claim to the democratic struggle, must face and accept.

These are the internal contradictions that ought to be factored in and tolerated when pursuing the struggle.

For some observers Chamisa is only doing his job, which is to defend his president and the party. For others who have seen elsewhere in Africa so-called pro-democracy movements achieve power and turn into replicas of the ruthless regimes that they had toppled, Chamisa’s stance toward The Zimbabwe Independent may be some cause for concern. I seek not to judge either man (both of whom are respectable gentlemen with whom I have exchanged communication before) for I have no capacity nor standing to do so, but wish only to comment on the implications of this exchange on the broader struggle for democracy in Zimbabwe.

First, a question arises here regarding the role of the media in a democracy and in politics more generally. In one sense its role is sometimes overstated. It is overstated because there appears to be a broad belief that the media has a mission to promote democracy and that it actually does so. In reality, a free media means different things to different people. When people refer to a free media, they do so often unwittingly according to their own understanding of how a free media should behave in relation to certain issues. The reality is that the media is only free to the extent that it behaves according to the dictates of those that control it. There should be no illusions that the media would act counter to the interests of its controllers and so its attitude toward democracy or actors within the democratic movement is very much dependent on the agenda of those behind it.

Secondly, oft-times the media is a business. In some cases, the media is supported by donor-funding primarily because the markets in which they operate are too small and not profitable and the donors wish to support a certain agenda. In this case, the donors are in control and either directly or indirectly, will have an influence in the editorial policy of the media house. In cases where profitability is the key goal, the media will normally pursue a policy that best serves its commercial interests. It has to attract a greater audience and subscriber base and consequently a prime position for wooing commercial advertisements. As we know, government newspapers also pursue the government agenda. Not that it ought to be like that in the case of the government, because ultimately tax-payers generally fund the state media. But they are in control and wherever there is a government-controlled media, it is often twisted to meet the interests of the ruling party. In short, the media is free to the point that it serves its master, government or otherwise.

The MDC has been campaigning among other things, for a free media. It does not have a formal paper of its own and relied instead on the sympathetic ear of the independent media such as The Independent, The Standard, The Financial Gazette and the throttled Daily News. It seems however that it mistook the sympathetic ear for support and took it for granted that these media would always stand by its side whatever the case. It forgot or so Mr Chamisa’s view demonstrates, that they had no control over the media. Perhaps they ought to have created their own media outlet. The government can count on the Sunday Mail, Herald, Chronicle, ZBH, et al and ZANU PF the party can count on The People’s Voice because they have control over that media. The MDC lacks such control or the resources for such control. Perhaps it ought to have set up its own structures because when you fight the struggle, you do need some form of control of information and how it is disseminated to the public and sometimes to counter accusations printed or aired elsewhere.

The one worrying aspect in the current case is the tendency to claim a monopoly to the struggle and propagate a "them" and "us" approach, which is essentially exclusionary. The struggle for democracy is fought on many different fronts and no single party or group of people has a monopoly to that struggle. The attitude of "owning the struggle" and excluding others simply because they hold a different opinion is no different from the way the ZANU PF elite sometimes lays exclusive claim to the liberation project. Notwithstanding their contributions, other actors during the liberation struggle have been excluded simply because they may have propagated a different view or fought from other angles. Until MDC leadership recognises the multiplicity of forces for democracy and therefore desist from using the same exclusionary tactics, then the hope that people have in a new Zimbabwe remains dim and limited.

While majority rule is one of the cornerstones of democracy, the protection of minorities is also one its pillars. The mere fact that a few people differ does not necessarily make them enemies that must be crushed and silenced at all costs. Tolerance is what we desperately need in Zimbabwean politics and if we can’t tolerate different views how then can we tolerate different people? There is a right to challenge erroneous news coverage but that is as far as it goes. All too often unfortunately things descend to personal battles as may have happened in this cases, which is really unnecessary. When we complain that the government should not control the press, it is expected that those in opposition should not also seek to the same, by any other means. People will ask whether they can trust an opposition when it gets into power and have all the machinery to control what is recorded and disseminated.

Finally, there is something disconcerting about the tendency to accuse others on the index of tribalism whenever there is a debate on a matter of substance. Those familiar with my writing will no doubt already know of my revulsion toward the generous usage of the word tribalism whether in politics or society generally. Perhaps it is I that is naïve or refusing to accept a harsh truth. But for as long as those that lead or purport to lead us seek refuge under the cover or tribalism at every turn, then the progress of this nation remains limited.

For as long as we have to make our arguments premised on the tribal index, our capacity to see beyond those narrow confines remains diminished. Can’t there be a time and a leader who will make his points on a matter of substance without for one moment, pointing a finger at tribalism? I am aware there are issues to resolve and I have said so before, but surely, people can differ and argue without necessarily reverting to tribalism as the basis of those points. They look at us and listen to us and wonder whether and when we shall move beyond those stereotypes. Sometimes we are our own worst oppressors.

*Dr Magaisa is a lawyer and can be contacted at wamagaisa@yahoo.co.uk

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