South Africa Media Bills - is the economic structure still super?

In recent years, the ideological form in which men became conscious of the existence of the conflict between politics and economics, and how to fight it out, resulted in the birth of democracy. This means that individuals are free and at liberty to competitively express to achieve material and psychological satisfaction.

The South African media, largely owned by the whites, consists of three newspaper groups Independent Media, AVUSA, formerly known as Johnnic Communications, but now largely owned by a consortium largely dominated by blacks, and Naspers which is basically largely owned by Afrikaners. Each of these media groups have  major mainstream affiliate  newspaper editions which are commonly referred to as the AB press.

The latter is due the discourse around their quality in terms of structure and style of writing which is generally considered formal and serious as opposed to the informal nature of existing tabloids. The best examples of the AB press are the Sunday Times, published by AVUSA, Sunday Independent, published by Independent Media Group and Beeld published by Naspers among others. While AVUSA and Naspers are more local conglomerates, the Independent Media Group is international, linked to the Irish tycoon Tony O’Reilly with business interests from Ireland to many other parts of the world like Europe, Australia and Newzealand.

These newspapers see audiences (active readers) as a potential market, whose interest they need to serve. They deliver ‘active readers’, as a commodity, to advertisers. Businesses see newspapers as an ideal market for reaching potential customers with ideas and commodities, especially, due to the assumption that their target audiences have the financial capacity to buy products and services of high quality and value. The newspapers', audiences and the business community are therefore complexly interlinked in an inseperable  consciousness that solidifies them. The recent introduction of the media Bills in South Africa is thus a big blow regarding their operation.

Although the South African media might be ideologically  polarised, basically due to historical trajectories of racial solidarity, they are united on one thing - they exist to make profits, just like any other product in capitalism, and support a system that guarantees that they continue making profits. Any attempt to disrupt such a consensus is a likely recipe for chaos. These are the reasons why the business community has added its voice to the media bills and tribunal debates. The introduction of the bill is seen as a retrogression as far as democracy is concerned.

In opposing the bill, the South African media acts as a custodian of freedom and guarding against the excesses of political and economic relations that might act as obstacles to freedom. The media always strives to be a neutral player in the delicate relation between politics and economics. This means that the media is sometimes at the mercy of greater political and economic forces which tend to influence and threaten its very fundamental role as the custodian of liberty. The danger of introducing media bills in South Africa, a country that has been lauded in the SADC region for having a free press considering that its neighbours like Zimbabwe have very restrictive media laws, leaves a lot to be desired.

The central issues introduced by the bill is how to strike a balance between press freedom and regulation. Although the debates begun on a higher note, with some politicians and media crying foul, they have taken a new dimension. The business community added their voice to oppose the state's intention hidden behind politicians in parliament. The business community's  contention is that the media bills (if enacted into law) will reduce investor confidence and slow economic growth. One key voice is that of Gareth Ackerman - chairman of one of the biggest retail stores in southern Africa Pick n’Pay.

In an interview with Alec Hogg, a writer and a broadcaster, published on moneyweb.co.za, Ackermans argued that there is a strong awareness in the market that South Africa is in the new space, especially after hosting a successful 2010 world cup. According to him, the bill creates a negative sentiment and driving off investments. It ammounts to muzzling the press in the name of legislation considering that a vibrant press is necessary in the country to tame the growing culture of corruption. If the media is not allowed to talk and say what it needs to say, be it good or bad, then it could actually have a negative impact on business as a whole in South Africa.

Such powerful discourses beginning to emerge from the South African economic/business class underscore two issues. First, they ensure that any attempt to introduce media bills does not see the light of the day. This is by virtue of the facts history reminds us. That freedom in South Africa was won through the consensus that property rights will be respected and existing businesses interests will not be interfered with. This is also out of the symbiotic relationship between the media and business in a largely capitalistic democracy like South Africa.

Second,  politicians will find it difficult to push ideas that are conflicting with the interests of those who bankroll their campaigns – the business class. Political parties in South Africa, the African National Congress (ANC) included, have been increasingly relying on private donations and public funds for their election campaigns even though their sources of funding have been shrouded by mystery. It is only through scandals like the ‘Oilgate,’ where state funds were allegedly channelled to ANC, that we really begin to get into the depth of such mystery.

Nevertheless, the media will remain a site for struggle due to the fact that it forms part of a powerful public sphere acting as a platform for deliberating important issues of public concern for common good. However, it should guard (self regulation) itself against the excesses of commercialization where professionalism is sacrificed at the altar of commercial interests – Perhaps this should be addressed but not in terms of draconian laws and subjective media tribunals.

Kenyan referendum not juicy, let’s make a cocktail!

President Kibaki adressing a press conference after the Yes team won the referendum (photo sourced from Daily Nation 05 August 2010).


Kenya has indeed shown the world that it can hold free and fair elections. No doubt. The people of Kenya are celebrating what the rebirth and the new constitution will bring, the second republic. Having stayed abroad for over seven years, I personally have something to smile about. I can now have a dual citizenship. How great. I can even choose to go back home and become an MP or is it a PS no, maybe the Prezo. Or I should just seat in the Diaspora and continue remitting cash back home. ..am still thinking.

You see, the reality is that the new Kenyan constitution has got much to offer. Wait a minute, why is the international media not seeing these fruits. I have been disturbed by the manner in which they have represented the Kenyan referendum. I did a quick textual and ideological analysis of the semiotics involving their coverage in stories appearing online on the 5th of August 2010 and I had mixed reactions. I became sad and happy. Sad because it is saddening to hear a cocktail of words such as ‘violence, ethnic, and tight security’ being repeated several times by the international media across the board in their stories.

Reports from Aljazeera news online and TV on the elections utilized such words and emphasized the idea that ‘the government and their security forces’ assured voters that there will be no incidences of violence. As if Kenyans are that violent by nature and do not understand their civic duties in a democracy pertaining the idea of elections and change. They need “security” forces to understand their responsibilities. Analogies were used where the referendum is compared to the ugly incidences of the 2007 election violence, often superficially, in reinforcing the discourse of violence that, apparently, ‘characterize elections in Africa’. Such discourses could lead to tension.

The BBC news online also reported that “it appeared that the elections were conducted peacefully,” paradigmatically, I am sure there is a better choice of words. Simply reporting that ‘it appeared,” leaves a lot to be desired. The CNN reported that “there have been no reports of violence so far,” as if they expected some forms of violence at some point in the immediate future. The CNN went further to argue that “Security -- especially in potential hot spots -- has been beefed up following concerns that violence would once again break out during the voting period.”

Despite all these reports, I am still happy. Happy because Kenya is the real winner in the referendum. Clearly, with the new constitution, I believe Kenya will achieve its vision 2030. Majority of us in the Diaspora are already making major home coming plans. My friend Bobby in Vienna posted something on facebook. Yah, I think it was “let green be the color of love.” The post was spot on. I am sure Spidy in Toronto is smiling because the last time we met during the holidays in December, he complained of how he needed a Visa to come to his country of birth. He had become a Canadian Citizen. Well Spidy, there’s nothing to worry about now…you will regain your Kenyan citizenship in December and still retain your Canadian one. I am sure you will have the best wedding thereafter. God bless Kenya.

AB local newspapers share South Africa white famers fears of Zimbabwe style land invasions - doctoral research now reveals

" We tried to, treated it [land invasions], mostly, from the humanitarian perspective on the impact of farm workers, the impact of famers, you know, farmers being driven out of the country, farmers being killed etcetera. I mean, look, there were not a lot of white farmers being killed and a lot of people had drawn comparison in this country [South Africa] where there have been something like 3 500 farmers, white farmers killed since 1994 versus how many Zimbabwean white farmers, like ten or twelve or something , maybe as many as that. So from the perspective of violence and murder, it wasn't such a big story but it was politically, as we believed that it was part of a strategy to remain in power and also it reflected here [South Africa]obviously because people, a lot of people, our readers included said this is what is going to happen in South Africa. Down the line, are we going to see farm invasions here sanctified by the government? We heard the minister of lands just the other day basically warning, as some of his predecessors have also warned, that if white farmers here do not put more effort into distributing their land to black farmers, then we are going to have a Zimbabwe here and it would be worse" Peter Fabricious, foreign desk editor, Independent Media Group.

Julius Malema was quoted in the Daily Nation Thursday April 2010 in an article titled "ANC youth leader will not be silenced" advocating for Zimbabwe style land invasions. The nation online reported that "The firebrand youth leader of South Africa's ruling party made clear on Thursday he will not be silenced, demanding Zimbabwe-style land seizures from white farmers and vowing to keep singing a controversial song Kill the Boer."  Malema was speaking after his return from a visit to Zimbabwe, where he met President Robert Mugabe and hailed the seizure of white-owned farms to give to landless blacks as a success that South Africa should emulate."We are in a serious economic struggle that seeks to redistribute the wealth to the people. This is what we need the ANC to champion." Malema, who has no direct influence over party policy, also champions mine nationalization. He argues that "Land reform in Zimbabwe has been very successful" and called for South Africa's reforms to be "aggressive" and "militant" but he was not calling for violence.

The fears expressed about the Zimbabwe style land invasions are therefore real but far much complex. This is due to the fact that the land invasions in Zimbabwe are actually a symptom of decaying democracy, characterized by corruption, lack of accountability and proper leadership. This is manifested through unfair democratic practices during elections such as violence and intimidation coupled by a culture of vote rigging. In a sense, all this factors dovetailed to what has now been commonly referred to as economic collapse - the South African economic-ruling-class fear that the economic challenges in Zimbabwe will spill-over to South Africa.

I argue that economic collapse in Zimbabwe is, partly, driven by the political uncertainty characterized by the lack of strong democratic institutions of governance such as an independent electoral body, judiciary and legislature to guarantee free and fair elections. In contrast, these systems are well established in South Africa and it would be interesting to see how South Africa would deal with situations like land invasions were they to erupt. On the other hand, what currently constitute the institutions in Zimbabwe are colonial apparatuses inherited from Ian Smith’s government that protected white minority interests.

With no proper institutions of governance in Zimbabwe, then the potency for political instability, often witness before and after elections, creates low investor confidence. However, I would like to indicate that economic instability or economic downturn is not necessarily created by the ZANU-PF regime, as the selected South African press that I analyzed in my study seems to suggest, but certainly enhanced through the chaotic nature of electoral campaigns. The chaos led to poor policies on land reforms where land is utilized as a tool to win political support. This has cultivated sporadic land conflicts between white commercial farmers and black settlers often viewed as war veterans and the ZANU-PF youth Brigade.

 Poor land redistribution programs and policies are often blamed for sporadic land conflicts, especially during elections,  that they have precariously dominated land restitution discourses in that country, especially, among the political and economic class in South Africa. It is important that such discourses be scrutinized to formulate a way forward for equitable land restitution in Zimbabwe and to address the benign national question of redistributive justice for posterity.

It is clear that land is a source of wealth based on how it is utilized and therefore, there is a direct relationship between land utility and economic growth. It is quite unclear on how the South African economy can be, potentially, greatly damaged by pockets of land conflicts, especially, amongst white and black farmers due to the fact that the country's economy is basically technological and industry driven as opposed to Zimbabwe's - where investments heavily relied on raw material and semi-finished production. However, politics should show sober leadership by addressing land issues in a manner not likely to harm the economic gains and the democracy that South Africa has realized so far.

Regarding the situation in Zimbabwe, there are several issues that accounted for the economic free fall. Apart from the legacy of colonially inherited debts , failed Economic Structural Adjustment Programme (neo-liberal macro - economic policy shift), some of which south Africa is still experimenting on - like the willing-seller willing-buyer principle of land redistribution that 'failed' in Zimbabwe - unbudgeted government decision to intervene in the war in the Democratic Republic of Congo and the payment of war veterans, the nature of elections in Zimbabwe is, thus, partly responsible for the 'economic collapse'.

The representation of the economic situation in Zimbabwe by the South African press suggests that Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) and Mugabe are the key architect of economic problems in that country. Election politics are presumed to have led to severe food shortages and high inflation, where in some instances, food has been used as a political weapon for votes while operations such as Murambatsvina, have been unleashed destroying the economic livelihood of many urban settlers. These events coupled by the cholera epidemic are said to have negatively impacted on the economy.

The representation of the economic situation by the selected South African press, therefore, suggests that for Zimbabwe to recover economically, then ‘Mugabe must go’. The MDC, on the other hand, is represented as the new ‘Moses’ who will take Zimbabwe to the ‘Promised Land’ economically. The assumption is that a Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) victory will resurrect investor confidence given its backing by the donor community.

However, I argue that economic recovery and development is not achieved by creating debt dependent nations. In fact, the land question, which is at the center of electoral violence and economic turmoil, should be equitably addressed by all parties committed to ensure a political, economic and socially sound Zimbabwe. This equally applies to South Africa. Although the economic situation in Zimbabwe is more complex than the superficial manner in which the selected South African press represents it, it sheds light into how bad politics can destroy a nation and acts as a strong warning to South Africa - these are the fears expressed by the AB press that I studied in my doctoral research. The newspapers studied were: The Sunday Independent, The Sunday Times and The Mail & Guardian