|
Back to Index
Zimbabwe:
Where to speak of trees is treason
Gondo Gushungo, The Financial Gazette (Zimbabwe)
May 24, 2006
http://www.fingaz.co.zw/story.aspx?stid=1193
IN June 1990,
celebrated South African writer Nadine Gordimer spoke of the dangers
of writers fearing freedom when censorship is finally slackened.
This was at a PEN-organised International Writers Day in London,
United Kingdom.
The part of
her speech that caught my attention was when, quoting someone called
Brecht, Gordimer spoke of countries where "to speak of trees is
treason". I did not immediately understand or believe what she was
talking about. I would be lying if I said I did. To me, it was a
typical hyperbole --a speech that uses exaggeration in order to
achieve a particular effect. I tried without success to imagine
what kind of a country this could be where the rulers would stalk
every book or newspaper page, television or radio programme. It
could only be imaginary. Even the most despotic governments would
not stoop that low. Or so I thought.
How could I
even think about it? Yes, there were restrictions, limitations,
isolated bullying and intimidation of the media by the government
but 10 years after independence Zimbabwe still had a semblance of
a relatively free media. There were no such laws as the widely condemned
Access
to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA) or the
Broadcasting
Services Act (BSA). Nor had anyone who is part of that crazy
assortment of government appeasers and apologists dreamt of the
unnecessary Interceptions
of Communications Act.
But 16 years
down the line, I now have this frightening thought that what was
once unthinkable could just be a reality. Zimbabwe could soon come
face to face with the ugly side of what Gordimer was talking about
almost two decades ago.
With the way
things are going there is a justifiable deep sense of trepidation.
There is the real danger that Zimbabwe, where journalists considered
politically dangerous have been a target of unjustified rhetoric,
could go the way of Burma. In the south-east Asian nation, Than
Shwe, chairman of the military junta known as the State Peace and
Development Council, has only probably taken off his epaulettes
but has not given up his military habits and he continues to play
God. Media censorship has gone mad. The military ruler's decrees
that impose strict censorship on the media could only be imagined,
if they did not exist!
A couple of
years ago, the Dag Hammarskjold Foundation reported that in Burma,
information on issues such as industrial growth, rice production
and the literacy rate are treated as state secrets. Special authorisation
is needed to own fax machines, modems and even photocopiers while
possession of an unlicensed computer is punishable by imprisonment
of up to 15 years!
Only a fortnight
ago, the New York-based Committee for the Protection of Journalists
reported that Shwe's government owns all daily newspapers, radio
stations and the country's three television channels. The media
dare not hint at, let alone report on anti-government sentiments.
Burma's few privately owned publications must submit content to
the Press Scrutiny Board for approval before publishing. Thus censorship
delays mean that none publishes on a daily basis. And citizens have
been arrested for listening to the BBC or Radio Free Asia in public!
That is not
all. The military government has created what they call a Cyber
Warfare Division to monitor telecommunications, including domestic
and international telephone and facsimile traffic. And that sounds
eerily like what the Zimbabwean government is trying to achieve
with the proposed Interceptions of Communications Act. Could the
Zimbabwean government be mimicking the government of Burma? Perish
the thought!
True, the same
could be happening in Turkmenistan, North Korea, Equatorial Guinea
and Libya among others, which have made sure that conditions that
promote the free flow of information are non-existent. But why should
we always benchmark ourselves against the worst in the world? Do
the powers-that-be want to turn the media clock to the dark pre-domocracy
days of subservience to the government? God forbid!
Admittedly,
Zimbabwe is not in the league of the world's most censored countries,
which have the deepest information void. But the danger signs are
flashing with blinding effect if the latest manoeuvres to gag the
media are anything to go by. It gives cause for concern that in
the sea of abject poverty, deprivation and disillusionment, it is
the introduction of these devices of censorship that is attracting
government's priority attention. Nothing could be more telling as
to how serious government's misplaced mistrust of the media is.
It is so deep-seated so as to threaten freedom of expression and
mankind's most basic need to know upon which the survival of democracy
depends.
It is difficult
to understand why the government, which sermonises the world on
how Zimbabwe is a thriving constitutional democracy, is hell-bent
on tightening the screws on the media. Yet a free media is crucial
to the functioning of a free society. It needs not only reflect
the nation's diversity but also to be a mirror reflection of the
reality on the ground, warts and all!
True, government
might be happy with the hype and very little, if any, substance
coming from the state-controlled media about how popular it and
the ruling ZANU PF are supposed to be against a background of stagnation
and misery marking Zimbabwe today in stark contrast to other robust
economies in the region (Thus sunshine journalism has been perfected
into an art form). But it has to realise that its relentless efforts
to muzzle the media are an assault on democracy of which access
to information and the right to free expression are key elements.
That is one of the major reasons Zimbabweans sacrificed life and
limb in the liberation struggle -- the right to express their humanity
in all its forms. Why should a government that claims to have a
popular mandate seek to deny them their right to be heard?
I am not trying
to glorify journalists, especially those in the private media who
nonetheless have done a tremendous job under a very difficult situation.
In any case, just like Ada Wilson, I know only too well that they
are the messenger and not the message. But there is no denying that
a free media is a cornerstone of any democratic dispensation. That
is why journalists and other key stakeholders are taking the lead
in agitating for the protection of a free press, not through special
interest legislation but as a fundamental element of democracy.
This they are doing in the full knowledge that it is not too late
for Zimbabwe to repeal AIPPA. The widely condemned law is not written
in stone. It was written by politicians and can be re-written by
the same politicians. It is against this background that government
should understand that the hue and cry raised by its objectionable
pieces of legislation such as AIPPA is a testament to the grave
concerns and terrifying insecurity that lurks at the heart of not
only Zimbabwean journalism but also that of all democratic forces
in the country. Indeed, it is impossible to excuse government's
actions. There is no other reason for them other than the desire
to suppress dissent and stop the free flow of information simply
because the private media happens to publish true but embarrassing
reports. Thus it is deemed unfriendly and hostile. But I am inclined
to ask, as did Liam Yi-zheng of the Hong Kong Economic Journal:
Why should we be friendly? We are the press!
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
|
