(FXI/IFEX) – The following is a 19 October 2001 FXI press statement: South African Media Freedom Day The Freedom of Expression Institute would like to remember those who suffered at the hands of the South African apartheid regime in their struggle to tell the truth, and to keep an open and transparent society. However, FXI […]
(FXI/IFEX) – The following is a 19 October 2001 FXI press statement:
South African Media Freedom Day
The Freedom of Expression Institute would like to remember those who suffered at the hands of the South African apartheid regime in their struggle to tell the truth, and to keep an open and transparent society. However, FXI would also like to encourage journalists and media activists not to lie down and betray the struggle for a free press.
While journalists and media activists may no longer face detentions, banning and exile, they now face harsh criticism and are often given labels that in themselves are tantamount to intellectual intimidation.
At its AGM early this year, the Freedom of Expression Institute raised some of these issues. The main question was freedom of expression, South African politics and critical intellectual engagement in 2001: is the space expanding or narrowing? Is the climate for freedom of expression becoming more or less hostile for critical debate, in the light of controversies around the pace and extent of service delivery?
According to Professor Sipho Seepe, Principal of Vista University Sebokeng Campus and a Mail and Guardian Political Columnist, and Professor Mashupye Kgaphola, we should fear the absence of criticism in South Africa, especially in the direction of the ANC government on socio-economic policies, as this could be a “necessary ingredient for ushering in an era of dictatorship.” In response, the ANC’s Nat Serache accused the two professors of being “counter-revolutionaries,” who choose to sing the praises to autocratic regimes to save their faces, and even during the process of transformation find it difficult to change their tune.
In a speech delivered in February this year, Minister in the Presidency Essop Pahad stated that “…the criticism from intellectuals is particularly welcome, and a spur to clear thought and action…, [but ] there are a handful of self-appointed ‘experts’ who seem to enjoy the monopoly of negative, damaging comment on the government. Where are all the other experts?”
In his opening address at an Indaba held by the South African Editors Forum (Sanef) and the government in June this year, Chairperson Mathatha Tsedu Sanef said, “We feel there’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the role and current state of the South African media, and its ability, for various reasons, to fully and accurately reflect the transformation process. This is a pity because the truth is, South African editors do not disagree with President Thabo Mbeki’s definition of press freedom, a concept, as he put it, that ‘amounts to no more or no less than the elementary right of all people to have unfettered access to the means of truly expressing their opinions and conversely having access to media that fully reflect their life experience and their aspirations.'” Sentiments echoed by Tsedu in his address have been echoed by many journalists, politicians and activists.
These are but a small sample of exchanges that have taken place over the last eighteen months. What are the implications of such exchanges for freedom of expression?
Drawing from these debates, there is a school of thought that is becoming influential among media intellectuals, journalists, media activists and government officials that calls for a consensus on issues that are key to media freedom, such as national interest and national security. This call is drawn from the kind of sentiments echoed by Pahad and Tsedu. These sentiments are also coming from the argument that government and media in a democratic South Africa must work together, that media must give “constructive criticism”. This in itself creates a serious threat to freedom of expression because it privileges nation state over a free press, without really questioning the kind of nation state that is to be achieved.
A comparison between pre-1994 South Africa and post-1994 South Africa is often used to justify this, where the apartheid past denied state-media co-operation, hence the democratic South Africa taking the opportunity to forge that co-operation. It is true that the apartheid government was notorious for repressing freedom of expression. On October 19th 1977, the National Party government banned the Union of Black Journalists and popular black newspapers. This act followed a series of press freedom violations, whereby journalists were detained, banned or driven into exile. In remembering men and women who were committed to telling the truth risking their freedom and their lives, October 19 became an important date in the calendar of South African media.
In 1994, the media achieved part of its goal. The birth of a democratic South Africa in 1994 brought with it some space for journalists to express themselves freely. However, the democratic elections of 1994 did not by any means remove the threat to freedom of the press. The threat to media freedom by the state remains even in the most democratic states. So does the threat to media freedom by business and other institutions or groups. And in order for media to maintain the freedom that was so hard fought for, there should be constant checks. As the FXI, we feel that journalists should keep protecting the ethics and privileges of their profession.
It is the view of the FXI that the media, for its part, should not seek to find a common ground with the government on definitions of terms that have an impact on media ethics and freedom. There can never be a common definition of press freedom between the state and journalists. In South Africa, for example, the debate on national interest and national security remains unresolved and we do not expect the government and the media to reach a consensus on such things. In fact, such a consensus will probably come about only through a serious compromise of the truth and freedom of the press.
