The ZIMBABWE Situation | Our
thoughts and prayers are with Zimbabwe - may peace, truth and justice prevail. |
Media
Monitoring Project Zimbabwe
Monday
October 25th – Sunday October 31st
2004
Weekly
Media Update 2004-43
CONTENTS
1.
GENERAL COMMENT
2.
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
3.
PERSECUTION OF DISSENTING VOICES
ALTHOUGH
the few remaining alternative sources of information have been vigilant in
exposing government excesses, they have failed to provide a context to the
latest round of government largesse.
In
the week under review the media have been reporting a new spate of donations of
computers to selected schools by President Mugabe and the recipients of the new
vehicle purchase scheme for chiefs, which allows them to “buy” pick-up trucks
for less than a tenth of their value.
This
new “facility” adds to the extraordinary powers recently vested in the country’s
chiefs, while some government ministers have gone even further, offering to
cover the cost of some chiefs’ contributions in what appears to be the most
arbitrary manner.
Except
for The Daily Mirror (29/10),
none of the private media have recently examined the vote-buying implications of
these donations, which the government media continue to present as normal
practice.
For
example, the Chronicle (25/10)
and ZTV (26/10, 8pm) passively reported that Local Government Minister Ignatius
Chombo had handed over 11 vehicles to chiefs from Matabeleland North under the
government’s Chiefs Vehicle Loan Scheme.
Reportedly,
Information Minister Jonathan Moyo paid for four of the vehicles on the chiefs’
behalf. However, the report did not reveal the identity of the chiefs who had
benefited from this spontaneous expression of generosity.
But
Moyo’s donation is not isolated.
Earlier,
ZTV (17/10, 8pm) reported that State Security Minister Nicholas Goche had also
donated $12 million to chiefs in Mashonaland Central for part-payment of their
vehicles. Chombo was quoted as having promised to do the same in his
constituency.
In
the same issue of the Chronicle,
Chombo was quoted telling a rally in Brunapeg, Matabeleland South, that
government had also given chiefs the power to impose fines of up to $100 million
in their courts as part of the authorities’ “sweeping reforms…to make the
institution of chieftainship respectable”.
Currently,
the maximum penalty chiefs can impose on offenders is
$40,000.
Apart
from a singular lack of public information in the media about the “sweeping
reforms”, the most disturbing aspect of this measure is the fact that the fines
will not be surrendered to Treasury but will be used at the “discretion of the traditional
leaders in terms of their customs”. Such a measure has profound
implications for Zimbabwe’s rule of law, let alone the communities under the
chiefs’ jurisdiction. None of the media have attempted to explore the details
about how these so-called reforms will work and how they will affect rural
communities.
Chombo
also reportedly handed over six new vehicles to chiefs in the area and promised
to give their messengers bicycles.
While
the government media reported these events, they also failed to examine how such
irregular benevolence would affect the chiefs’ loyalties in next year’s
elections.
In
a related matter, ZTV (21/10, 8pm and 28/10, 8pm) unquestioningly reported on
President Mugabe’s donation of computers to schools in Goromonzi and Nyazura.
None
of the media queried whether this constituted another vote-buying gimmick or
questioned the criteria under which the beneficiary schools were selected.
Instead,
the government media merely gave the impression that the donations were part of
government’s policy to develop rural schools.
But
they failed to question why President Mugabe has personalised a government
policy or why the events doubled up as ZANU PF campaign platforms if his mission
was genuinely meant to empower the schools with information technology. Once
again the media have allowed the distinction between the role of government and
the interests of the ruling party to be completely lost.
2.
International Relations
THE
deportation of the visiting delegates from the Congress of South African Trade
Unions (COSATU), who were in the country on a fact-finding mission, further
exposed the government media’s role as docile conduits of government propaganda
bent on stifling public access to fair and accurate
reporting.
Their
coverage of events only reflected a crudely bigoted attack on the integrity of
the COSATU delegation, which they accused of being fronts for Britain’s
imperialist machinations.
No
attempt was made to discuss the legitimacy of their deportation or to fairly
examine the validity of the authorities’ excuse for kicking them out of the
country.
Instead,
the official media submissively provided the authorities greater latitude to
extensively criminalize the COSATU visit by giving the impression that the
delegation had violated an International Labour Organisation (ILO) protocol
governing such visits. This procedure, they claimed, empowered the South African
and Zimbabwean governments to organise dialogue between their respective labour
organisations on issues pertaining to labour-related matters.
But
no clear details of the ILO declaration were given. For example, the government
media did not clarify whether the protocol barred the two from interacting
freely with any civic or political groupings of their choice.
In
fact, so partisan were the government media on the matter that they suffocated
the fact that government had defied a High Court order barring them from
deporting the delegation.
As
a result, those who rely on these media were left with the impression that the
deportation of the unionists was legal.
Only
the private media offered a sober perspective of the saga, which they condemned
as yet another example of government’s disregard for the rule of
law.
Studio
7 and SW Radio Africa (25/10), for instance, provided a background to the COSATU
team’s visit. SW Radio Africa noted that the trip was meant “to get an actual picture of the
situation on the ground… with the intention of contributing to the settlement of
the economic and labour crisis” in Zimbabwe.
The
government media evaded such debates, preferring to bombard their audiences with
officials’ misrepresentations and the denigration of the SA unionists as
exemplified by all six stories ZBC devoted to the issue.
For
example, ZTV, Power FM and Radio Zimbabwe (26/10, 8pm), The Herald and Chronicle (27/10) abdicated their
professional obligation to report on facts by creating the impression that the
SA unionists were not genuine.
They
simply used a statement by the Department of Information falsely claiming that
the 12-member team from the SA labour body were actually “dubious individuals claiming
association with COSATU” and that their fact-finding mission in
Zimbabwe was “an
integral part of Britain’s disguised manoeuvres to meddle in the internal
affairs of Zimbabwe”.
The
statement, reproduced by these media without analysis, also claimed that the
team’s visit was therefore “a treacherously calculated
assault on the country’s national laws” and a “direct and most frontal challenge
to the sovereignty …of Zimbabwe”.
Local,
regional and international civic and political organisations cited by Studio 7
(26/10), SW Radio Africa (26, 27 & 28/10) and The Zimbabwe Independent (29/10)
disagreed.
They
reported widespread condemnation of government’s ill-treatment of the
delegation.
For
example, one of South Africa’s ruling ANC’s tripartite partners, the South
African Communist Party, was reportedly “outraged and
angered” by the deportation and told SW Radio Africa (27/10) that
this showed that “the
[Zimbabwean] government will go to any length to de-legitimise any
criticism”.
COSATU
leader Patrick Craven also commented on Studio 7 (26/10): “It is not normal in a democratic
society… for trade unions… and civil society organizations to be barred or told
who they can or cannot meet.”
The
government censored these observations with The Herald (27/10), Power FM (27/10, 8pm and
28/10 8pm), ZTV (28/10, 8pm) and Radio Zimbabwe (29/10, 8pm) citing authorities
contending that COSATU “bulldozed their
way” into the country.
In
fact, these media’s determination to depict the COSATU visit as illegal was also
illustrated by the way they ignored reporting on the court order barring the
deportation of the delegation.
While
The Daily Mirror (28/10) reported
news of the order, it quoted Justice Minister Patrick Chinamasa denying that
government had defied it since it was served when the “COSATU delegation had already
been deported”.
Home
Affairs Minister Kembo Mohadi echoed this claim in The Financial Gazette (28/10) but
trivialised the matter: “One thing which should be clear
is that I did not deport them. I refused them entry”. Foreign
Affairs Minister Stan Mudenge also told Power FM (28/20) that government had
merely “invited
them (COSATU)
out”.
But
The Daily Mirror quoted the
delegation’s lawyer Alec Muchadehama rebutting government’s claims. He said he
had served the order on an immigration official named Moyo who was with five
other officials.
Said
Muchadehama: “All of
them refused to take the order, but we served Moyo through the accepted means of
throwing it to his feet”.
However,
The Herald (28/10) selectively
quoted the SA government and the now obscure opposition Pan Africanist Congress
(PAC) to project the impression that even South Africa supported the
deportation.
It
quoted the PAC hailing government “for not allowing COSATU to become
the barking dog of reactionary forces…aimed at the destabilisation of the
national sovereignty of the people of Zimbabwe”.
The
next day (29/10) the paper handily used South Africa’s statement accepting that
“Zimbabwe is an
independent, sovereign state that had an inalienable right” to
enforce its immigration laws “as it may deem
appropriate” to give government’s actions a seal of
approval.
But
Studio 7 (27/10), The Financial Gazette (28/10) and The Zimbabwe Independent painted a different picture.
Both Studio 7 and The Financial Gazette reported SA Defence Minister and
ANC chairman Mosiuoa Lekota as saying the incident was “embarrassing” and
that his government took “the view that the matter could
have been handled in a better way”.
The
government media ignored these comments.
In
fact, The Herald (29/10) then
contradicted its earlier portrayal of cordial relations between SA and Zimbabwe
by attacking President Mbeki for meeting opposition MDC leader Morgan
Tsvangirai.
This
followed a meeting between the two men as part of the opposition’s drive to
lobby regional leaders to exert pressure on Zimbabwe to fully implement the SADC
protocols on the conduct of elections.
The
paper insinuated that Mbeki was being used by the West in handling the
Zimbabwean crisis but masked the identities of almost all the “political analysts and diplomatic
sources” it heavily relied on to question Mbeki’s honesty in
brokering a settlement.
But
the saga then took an unusual turn when The
Saturday Herald (30/10) carried a story quoting the Department of
Information – which controls The
Herald’s editorial content -
attacking the newspaper for questioning Mbeki’s integrity. There was no
explanation for this sudden change in the government newspaper’s stance. And
readers would have been even more confused if they also read Lowani Ndlovu’s
column in The Sunday Mail the
next day who criticised “Professor Moyo’s
statement” reprimanding The
Herald as “ill-advised”.
Only
those who were “lucky” enough to catch sight of the ZANU PF weekly publication,
The Voice (31/10) would have
gained some insight into this mysterious mix of contradictions. The party paper
carried an enlightening story reporting that an “incensed”
President Mugabe had dismissed The Herald’s criticism of Mbeki as a
“concoction”
designed “to instigate
hostility between Zimbabwe and South Africa”, and that he would
summon Moyo’s Department of Information to explain the issue.
Meanwhile,
government’s obsession of portraying Britain as incessantly interfering with
Zimbabwe’s affairs was allowed free rein in ZTV’s report of a meeting between
the new British Ambassador, Dr Rod Pullen, and Lands Minister Joseph Made
(26/10, 6pm & 8pm)
Made
was heroically showcased denying “allegations” that
“the land reform
programme was chaotic… and discriminatory” and told Pullen that
“no amount of pressure
by… Western countries to reverse the agrarian reform will
succeed”.
However,
ZTV neither accorded Pullen an adequate opportunity to be heard nor conveyed
what he had said to Made to elicit such a response.
Instead,
it ran a long-winded, biased anthology of relations between the two countries,
portraying Britain as the aggressor and meddler in the country’s politics
emanating from its desire to topple “Mugabe and a democratically
elected government”.
3.
Persecution of Dissenting Voices
ONLY
the private media continued to question government’s commitment to democracy
after ZANU PF used its majority in Parliament to jail MDC MP Roy Bennet for
assaulting Justice Minister Patrick Chinamasa during a parliamentary debate in
May.
This
followed recommendations made to the House by a five-member Parliamentary
Privileges Committee led by ZANU PF MP and Social Welfare Minister, Paul
Mangwana, set up to investigate the matter.
The
committee, comprising three ZANU PF MPs and their two MDC counterparts, voted on
party lines resulting in Bennet being sentenced to 12 months’
jail.
The
government media celebrated the decision arguing that this was a deterrent
sentence. In the process, they ignored the fact – only carried by the private
media – that the incarceration was the culmination of government’s documented
systematic campaign to persecute opposition MPs, particularly Bennet.
ZTV
(27/10, 8pm), for instance, merely quoted Mangwana, defending the heavy
sentence.
The
Herald and Chronicle (28/10) also failed to note that
the attack on Bennet by the MP for Makoni North, Didymus Mutasa, had escaped the
attention of Mangwana’s committee. This allowed the government papers to
continue accusing Bennet of attacking Mutasa in their subsequent reports on the
matter.
The
private media’s coverage was more comprehensive. They quoted a variety of
comments from human rights lawyers, the International Bar Association, the MDC
and Bennet himself.
SW
Radio Africa (27/10) cited MDC’s Shadow Minister for Justice, David Coltart,
pointing out that the judgment was “unprecedented” and
a “gross abuse of
power”, because it ignored the element of “extreme
provocation” against Bennet by Chinamasa.
Lawyers
Arnold Tsunga and Jacob Mafume (SW Radio Africa 28/10), Lovemore Madhuku (Studio
7 28/10), Gugulethu Moyo, Beatrice Mtetwa and MDC MPs (SW Radio Africa 29/10),
all agreed.
Tsunga
dismissed the voting process as “an arbitrary process done purely
along political party lines and not [based] on principles”, while
the IBA believed the “long prison term”
slapped on Bennet was “designed” to
“eliminate him from
standing as MP in next year’s poll” (SW Radio Africa,
29/10).
Bennet
himself told the station how government had systematically persecuted him in the
past five years “through intimidation, violence
and destruction of my property”, culminating in his farm being
taken over by government despite court orders preventing
this.
In
fact, The Daily Mirror (28/10)
and SWRA (29/10) queried why Chinamasa and Mutasa had not also been reprimanded
for their role in the scuffle, a development that Mafume reportedly told Studio
7 (28/10) meant that, “Parliament is selectively
applying its laws”.
The
government media ignored these observations. Rather, ZTV (28/10, 6pm), Power FM
Power FM (28/10, 8pm) and Radio Zimbabwe (29/10, 6am), The Herald and Chronicle (29/10) misrepresented the
circumstances leading to Bennet’s arrest at Harare International Airport just
before he was jailed. They claimed he was trying to flee to South
Africa.
But
Bennet and his wife disputed this in stories carried by SW Radio Africa (28/10)
and the Independent. Bennet’s
wife told SW Radio Africa that her husband planned to consult lawyers in SA over
a case in which he is suing the government agricultural agency, ARDA, for
allegedly “selling his
coffee worth over US$200 000 to Germany” after confiscating his
farm.
The MEDIA UPDATE was
produced and circulated by the Media Monitoring Project Zimbabwe, 15 Duthie
Avenue, Alexandra Park, Harare, Tel/fax: 263 4 703702, E-mail: monitors@mmpz.org.zw
Feel free to write to
MMPZ. We may not able to respond to everything but we will look at each
message. For previous MMPZ reports, and more information about the Project,
please visit our website at http://www.mmpz.org.zw