Address at the SANEF Conference on the
Media, the AU, NEPAD and Democracy ,12 April 2003
Chairperson of SANEF, Mathatha Tsedu, Convenor of the
Media
Freedom Committee, Henry Jeffreys,
Distinguished Delegates,
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am pleased to welcome you to South Africa and to
this seminal conference, which aims to develop guidelines
for the engagement of media from across the African
continent with the African Union and its programme,
the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD).
The African Union has committed itself to cooperate
and work in partnership with the different African formations
of civil society, including the media, so that together
we can tackle the urgent challenge of the political,
economic and social transformation of our continent.
I am told that some of the issues that the conference
will focus on include the important issue of media freedom
in Africa.
I trust that you will also find time to discuss another
critical matter - what we might entitle "Reporting
Africa to the Africans".
During the years of our struggle against apartheid,
I spent nearly 28 years in exile, with 20 of these on
the African continent. As a result of this, I got to
know something, however limited, about a fair number
of African countries.
When we returned to our country in 1990, we realised
how little many of our people knew about the rest of
our continent. Over many years we had absorbed an image
of the African continent projected by a media that was
relentlessly contemptuous of many things African.
Among other things, this had encouraged a feeling of
superiority towards other Africans even among the oppressed
in our country. They knew nothing about Timbuktu in
Mali, as an ancient centre of learning which still has
books published as early as the 13th century, that cover
such subjects as mathematics, physics, astronomy, medicine,
law and other subjects.
Neither did they know of such great modern African
universities as those of Ibadan, Ife, Ahmadu Bello,
Makerere, Dar es Salaam, and others. When young people
coming out of our schools after the Soweto uprising
of 1976 entered Nigerian schools, they were surprised
and amazed to find that Nigerian children much younger
than themselves were ahead of them in various subjects
such as mathematics and the physical sciences.
Very few in our country knew anything about the large,
varied, highly vocal and fearless mass media of Nigeria,
believing the tales they were told that Africans knew
nothing about press freedom.
They knew nothing about such great African singers
as the Congolese, Zao, and the Nigerian, Fela Anikulapo-Futi.
They had no idea of the Ouagadougou African Film Festival
and its contribution to the determined effort by Africa's
creative workers such as Ousmane Sembene of Senegal
to tell the African story from the point of view of
Africans.
Indeed the oppressed in our country did not even know
anything about the state of African soccer and fondly
imagined themselves as the inevitable champions of Africa.
Soon after we were readmitted into international sport,
our national soccer team suffered humiliating defeats
at the hands of the national teams of Zambia and Zimbabwe.
The circumstances demanded that we try as fast as possible
to understand the state of African soccer.
I am suggesting that the South African media has a
responsibility to report Africa to the South Africans,
carrying out this responsibility as Africans. I dare
say this applies to all of us gathered here and therefore
relates to all our countries. I am, of course, proceeding
from the assumption that you were African before you
became journalists and that despite your profession,
you are still Africans.
Central to the conceptualisation of the African Union
and its development programme, NEPAD, is the collective
determination to promote African unity and the political
and socio-economic integration of our continent. This
is informed by the conviction that the peoples of Africa
are interdependent and share a common destiny.
It makes no sense that they should be separated from
one another by ignorance of one another. Indeed that
dangerous state of unknowing, which leads to prejudice
and superstition against and about one another, would
make it impossible for us to achieve the goal of African
unity.
As Africans I presume that you are at one with this
old African objective and would therefore see it as
one of your central tasks to report Africa to the Africans,
reporting Africa as Africans.
Again, this presumes that those who would report Africa
to the Africans themselves know Africa. I therefore
believe that you should answer the question honestly,
whether you yourselves know Africa. I do not believe
that there is anyone among us who would claim that press
freedom permits that we should have the liberty to present
a false and uninformed picture of our continent.
Indeed, I have heard complaints among African journalists
about distorted reporting of their countries by our
own public broadcaster. None of these has suggested
that such reporting should not be critical of their
countries. What they have asked for is that it should
be truthful. Thus to be truthful requires that we know
the subject we are dealing with.
We would all agree that you should be able to do the
work of reporting Africa to the Africans freely, without
restrictions that deny the media its freedom. Obviously,
if you report a false Africa to the Africans, this will
subtract from the objective of helping us to understand
our continent and ourselves, leading to the erroneous
appreciation of our continent, which, for instance,
led us here to believe that we were the natural soccer
superpower of Africa.
Your conference is therefore justified to address the
issue of what should be done to guarantee press freedom
on our continent. In this regard, I would like to draw
your attention especially to the Constitutive Act of
the African Union. I am certain that you are familiar
with Articles 3 and 4 of this Act, covering the Objectives
and the Principles of the African Union, which include
democracy, human rights, popular participation and good
governance.
You should then read this together with Article 23
of the Act, which deals with the issue of the Imposition
of Sanctions to oblige all member states to comply with
the provisions of Articles 3 and 4, among others.
Paragraph 2 of Article 23 says: "Furthermore,
any Member State that fails to comply with the decisions
and policies of the Union may be subjected to other
sanctions, such as the denial of transport and communications
links with other Member States, and other measures of
a political and economic nature to be determined by
the Assembly."
Last year, we suggested that these obligatory provisions
contained in the Constitutive Act, which was legislated
into effect by our parliaments, and is therefore law
in each of our countries, and the fundamental law of
the African Union, should not be watered down by displacing
them with the voluntary provisions of the African Peer
Review Mechanism (APRM). The media responded to this
by going on the offensive, alleging that we were trying
to compromise the effectiveness of the Peer Review system.
I was convinced then, as I still am, that this ill-informed
criticism was based on two troublesome matters that
are relevant to your important conference. The first
of these is ignorance. Our critics were obviously ignorant
of the provisions of the Constitutive Act, while they
pretended that they were making informed comments about
what Africa needs to do to overcome its problems.
Like all other systems of its kind, the African Peer
Review system is voluntary. In good measure it is based
on the OECD peer reviews system, which is said to represent
best international practice. Its central objective is
to engage peers to help the Member States of the African
Union to achieve defined political and economic benchmarks.
Frankly, it was absurd to argue that the matter of freedom
of the press, and other democratic freedoms, should
be dealt with through the voluntary processes of the
APRM rather than the obligatory, legal regime provided
for in the Constitutive Act.
If I were interested to weaken the drive to respect
these freedoms, I would argue that they should be protected
through the Peer Review system, which also provides
for voluntary accession by Member States. Strangely,
this is what evidently irate and alarmed members certainly
of the South African media proceeded to do, all the
while claiming to be the best defenders of press freedom!
As things stand today, the majority of African countries
represented by the distinguished delegates present here
have not as yet acceded to the APRM, which is perfectly
within their rights. When it is established later this
year, this Mechanism will not be able to work in any
country, which has not decided to subject itself to
such peer review. However, I have no reason to believe
that any African country will take a conscious decision
to exclude itself from such peer review.
The second reason that our supposed defenders of press
freedom insisted so much that we should elevate the
NEPAD Peer Review Mechanism above the Constitutive Act
of the African Union, was because they are convinced
that as Africans we cannot be trusted to promote democracy
in Africa without the guardianship of the Western countries.
Because of the new partnership with the G8 countries
that we are trying to build through NEPAD, the view
is that it is important that these countries should
have the possibility to starve our peoples to oblige
their governments to democratise our continent. Sections
of the African media have felt no sense of shame in
demanding that the G8 countries should not support NEPAD
if our countries do not implement the wishes of these
countries.
Contemptuous of the principle and practice we hold
dear, of the right of our nations to self-determination,
they say that Africa's future should be decided by those
who are richer than ourselves. In exchange for full
stomachs they will feed, we must be ready to sacrifice
our liberty and independence.
The reason these great defenders of African press freedom
prefer the NEPAD APRM to the African Union is that they
are not convinced that the Western countries have as
much leverage over the African Union as they may have
over NEPAD.
All this makes for very distressing reading, reflecting
as it does on what is happening at the precise moment
when our continent is taking bold steps to determine
its future. I am even told that there are some Africans
who describe themselves as members of African civil
society, who have decided to fly to Evian in France
to demonstrate against NEPAD.
This will happen when we will be meeting the G8 Heads
of State and Government in June, to secure their commitment
to help finance specific projects covering such areas
as peace and stability, infrastructure development,
agriculture, water and sanitation, affordable drugs
and medicines, and other matters such as market access.
Strange to say, Africans will fly to France to demand
that nothing should be done to help our continent to
move forward on these matters, on the basis of programmes
conceived and elaborated by us as Africans. I think
the most sensible thing for these Africans to do, if
they were inspired to oppose African liberation and
development, would have been to demonstrate at the headquarters
of the African Union in Addis Ababa, rather than at
a place in France closely associated with the high cost
that France imposed on the Algerian people as they fought
for their independence.
Specifically to address the matter of press freedom
within the context of the African Union and NEPAD, I
would suggest that you focus on a number of concrete
steps.
You should pay attention to the process of the establishment
of the Pan African Parliament and work to ensure that
this parliament acts as a vigilant guardian of the freedom
you seek to defend. You will therefore have to familiarise
yourselves with the Protocol currently being legislated
into force by our national parliaments.
You should pay similar attention to the processes towards
the establishment of ECOSOCC, the Economic, Social and
Cultural Council of the African Union, which will be
"composed of different social and professional
groups of the Member States of the Union." You
will have to ensure that you are represented in this
Council, which can put the matter of press freedom permanently
on its agenda.
If this has not been done, you should establish direct
contact with the African Commission on Human and People's
Rights, to ensure that this Commission keeps the matters
of concern to you permanently on its agenda. You might
be interested to know that the Commission will also
feed into the African Peer Review Mechanism.
When the institutions of this Mechanism are established
or decided, later this year, you should also relate
to them, bearing in mind that their scope of work will
cover only those countries that would have acceded to
the APRM.
Your access to the Assembly of the African Union will
enable you to persuade this organ of the Union to impose
sanctions on any Member State, should such a State act
in violation of the freedoms contained in the Constitutive
Act and other instruments, which freedoms include the
freedom of the press.
You might also wish to urge the earliest possible establishment
of the Court of Justice of the African Union provided
for under rticle 18 of the Constitutive Act, and work
to influence the content of the protocol that will spell
out its mandate. Article 26 of the Act says, "the
Court shall be seized with matters of interpretation
arising from the application or implementation of this
Act." Accordingly, matters relating to the denial
of the freedoms contained in the Act, would fall within
the jurisdiction of the Court, whose judgements would
be binding on all Member States.
We must also bear in mind that the Constitutive Act
specifically binds Africa to the provisions of the UN
Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
These are among the instruments that will help all
us to address our shared concern about the protection
of our democratic freedoms. To ensure that we move speedily
towards their establishment, will require that we make
constructive suggestions towards the achievement of
this goal.
It may very well be easier for you to position yourselves
as a protest movement and make all manner of demands
about what African governments should do with regard
to the important matter of press freedom. I would suggest
that you should rather take advantage of the opportunities
that have emerged, to help our continent to institute
the mechanisms and procedures that will help us to ensure
that we entrench democracy throughout Africa.
I do not believe that thinking Africans, such as yourselves,
would consciously engage in the rather fruitless exercise
of pushing at an open door.
Those who have followed the evolution of the media
in this country would be aware that in the late 19th
and early 20th centuries, there emerged newspapers that
were owned and run by black people, which conveyed what,
at the time, they categorised as the Native Opinion.
This Native Opinion asserted the right of the African
people to equality, justice, freedom, development and
independent thought.
This was an alternative view to the one represented
by established newspapers, mostly owned by big business,
which advocated the views of the white colonial settlers
in our country.
A century ago, in 1903, Sol Plaatje, who was to become
the first Secretary-General of the ANC, initiated the
formation of a Native Press Association, so as to ensure
some degree of cohesion among the different native newspapers,
which included, llanga lase Natal, Koranta ea Bacoana
(Batswana), Leihlo Ia Babaso and Ipepa Io Hlanga.
As we know, none of these newspapers could survive
because few, if any, businesspeople were prepared to
back any media that sought to give an alternative opinion
to that of the white ruling bloc. Although these newspapers
did not survive for a long time, the Native Opinion
did not die.
In time, this Native Opinion was propagated by different
sources -new newspapers, the ANC when it was formed
in 1912, the independent churches, trade unions and
many other South Africans who struggled for a free and
democratic society.
Without doubt, this is the story of all our countries,
where there has always been a contest of ideas between
the natives and the settlers, a permanent struggle for
the hegemony of the Native as opposed to the Colonial
Opinion.
The question that faces all of us at this conference
is whether this struggle between the two contending
viewpoints, as represented in the past by the Natives
and the Colonialists, ended when we won our independence
and freedom.
I believe that our response to this question will determine
the manner in which we engage the process of the regeneration
of our continent.
In 1991, Njabulo Ndebele, the current Vice-Chancellor
of the University of Cape Town, wrote about South African
writers, not just journalists, in his book Rediscovery
of the Ordinary saying:
"Ultimately, South African culture, in the hands
of whites, the dominant force, is incapable of nurturing
the civilisation based on the perfection of the individual
in order to permit maximum social creativity. Consequently,
we have a society of posturing and sloganeering; one
that frowns upon subtlety of thought and feeling, and
never permits the sobering power of contemplation of
close analysis, and the mature acceptance of failure,
weakness and limitations. It is totally heroic.
"Even the progressive side has been domesticated
by the hegemony of spectacle."
The media is critical to the formation and dissemination
of ideas. That is why the issue raised by Ndebele is
important for us at this conference. This is because
if we are not able to produce people who engage in critical
thinking and in 'subtlety of thought and feeling', individuals
capable of close analysis and are mature enough to know
that life necessarily always presents us with successes,
failures, weaknesses and limitations, heroes, heroines
and villains, we will fail to respond adequately to
the many varied challenges of our time.
This calls for a journalist who I believe, would take
forward the Native Opinion of equality, justice, freedom,
democracy, development and independent thought and challenge
the hegemony of the spectacle, or what we may call the
hegemony of the sensational.
In its September 1988 issue, the prestigious periodical,
Le Monde Diplomatique, published an article by Serge
Halimi, carrying the sub-title "Myopic and cheapskate
journalism". Commenting on the US media, it said,
among other things:
"Already under fire for its obsessive treatment
of President Clinton's alleged sexual improprieties,
American journalism has recently been shaken by a number
of scandals which cast doubt on the professionalism
of some of the country's major news media: CNN, NBC,
Time, the Boston Globe, etc. Invented stories, plagiarism
and testimonies obtained under pressure come high on
the list. However, what is more fundamentally at issue
is the whole money-making ethos of news journalism nowadays.
A journalism which succeeds because it is easier and
more profitable, which entertains rather than informs,
and which chooses to ignore the international dimension
of news.
"Ten years after Francis Fukuyama speculated about
"the end of history", American journalists
are becoming increasingly alarmed at the possibility
of an "end of news". It appears that consumers
of the world's news are being turned off by an overdose
of excessively superficial coverage of a world which
offers them only powerlessness and frustration. They
are giving up news. It is not the case that the world's
press is collapsing on every hand, but in more than
two thirds of the world's countries it is definitely
in decline.
"Subscriptions are not being renewed and young
people's interest in the news has fallen to disastrously
low levels. The reasons for this disaffection are multiple,
but we could begin with the sickly and abstracted state
of a journalism which is going fast downhill "as
mainstream press and TV News outlets purvey more 'lifestyle'
stories, trivia, scandal, celebrity gossip, sensational
crime, sex in high places and tabloidism at the expense
of serious news in a cynical effort to maximize readership
and viewership ; as editors collude ever more willingly
with marketers, promotion experts and advertisers, thus
ceding a portion of their sacred editorial trust ; as
editors shrink from tough coverage of major advertisers
lest they jeopardize ad revenue."
I believe that as we advance the Native Opinion, we
should honestly ask ourselves whether these observations
apply to us or not, and what we should do to avoid the
disaster portrayed by Serge Halimi. I would also like
to plead that we avoid resort to claims of "media
bashing" to protect the media from legitimate criticism,
refusing to address the critical matter of the social
or public accountability of the media.
On September 17, 2001, Professor Walden Bello spoke
at the Asia Press Forum in Seoul, entitling his address
"The Conglomerate threat to Critical Journalism."
Among other things, he said:
"(Asia) is today experiencing a number of conflicts
between the press and the authorities. I think it is
important to be discriminating here and not regard all
situations as the same.But whatever their differences,
it is important to closely monitor the situation in
all these countries and others, so that the freedom
of the press is not compromised in some countries and
is expanded in others.
"What I would like to focus on in this talk is
the threat to the integrity of journalism in the region,
posed by the increasing concentration of the production
and delivery of information and opinion and entertainment
production in the hands of a limited number of global
conglomerates. This threat, I would contend, is as dangerous
- if not more so - than that posed by government.
"Robert McChesney, a leading specialist on the
media, wrote recently "in few industries has the
level of concentration been as stunning as the media."
In a very short period, the global media has come to
be dominated by seven multinational corporations: Disney,
AOL-Time Warner, Sony, News Corporation, Viacom, Vivendi,
and Bertelsmann. All these conglomerates are western-controlled,
four of them being American, if we count Rupert Murdoch,
who is now a card-carrying US citizen and is headquartered
in the US, as an American."
Having detailed the penetration of these conglomerates
into Asia, he writes:
"Concentration of power and influence by the western
media conglomerates has been accompanied by four notable
trends in reporting and opinion making:
homogenization of views underneath surface pluralism;
commodification of news and views;
diffusion of an anti-analytical methodology of reporting
and analysis that fails to draw out the relationships
among phenomena or developments; and
pervasiveness of a paradigm that filters out inconvenient
data and filters in only those that fit its underlying
assumptions."
Later, Professor Bello said:
"Homogenization, commodification, and abstracted
empiricism are part of a larger problem, and that is
a non-self-reflective press that is imprisoned in a
framework that does not so much interpret reality but
organizes it in ways favorable to its underlying interests.
I am not talking about a conspiracy to falsify reality.
I am talking about the conceptual and ethical assumptions
that form the pillars of what is now commonly called,
following Thomas Kuhn, a "paradigm." I am
talking about an ideological process that "filters
in" some aspects of reality and "filters out"
others, thus unconsciously distorting the perception,
reporting, and analysis of the social world."
He summarises his views as follows:
"Let me conclude by saying that even as authoritarian
controls over the press continue to be a threat to a
free press in Asia, and even as we fight to lift outright
censorship or self-censorship in places such as China,
Malaysia, and Singapore, we must not lose sight of the
fact that the greater threat to the integrity of the
press and media is the centralization and concentration
of the global media in the hands of a small number of
western corporate oligopolies.
"This trends toward monopolization carries with
it the very real dangers of the imposition of the hegemony
of an ideology whose hallmarks are an ideological uniformity
beneath a surface pluralism, commodification of information
production and delivery, an underlying paradigm suffused
with values filtering out uncongenial truths - uncongenial
that is, to the eternal truths of the superiority of
free markets and western-style liberal democracies -
and a methodology of abstracted empiricism.
"What this means is that the practice of responsible
journalism, in Asia and elsewhere, has become one of
deconstruction and reconstruction. The reporter or the
opinion writer must, on the one hand, deconstruct the
ideological and methodological filters that subtly reshape
the realities that are presented to the people by the
dominant media. Then, we must place events, both local
and international, in their very real relationship to
the structures and dynamics of a process of globalization
that is not neutral but serve the interests of certain
groups.
"Reading, writing, or presenting the realities
of our societies and those of the world is an effort
that must engage to the full our critical faculties
- one that unites writer and reader, viewer and broadcaster
in a common enterprise of education, discovery, and
liberating action. To make a difference in this age
of globalization dominated by mechanisms of ideological
control far stronger than the state-controlled media
of totalitarian states of the past and present, journalism
must cease being a dispenser of factoids and once again
become an instrument of liberation by being reflective,
critical, and a partisan of the truth. This is what
it means to fight for freedom of the press and freedom
of thought in our time."
The delegates gathered at this conference represent
an important segment of the African intelligentsia.
You practise your craft during an exciting and challenging
period in the evolution of our countries and continent.
Within this context, it is not possible to avoid responding
to the critical challenges posed by Professor Bello.
The question you face is whether you will take it upon
yourselves to follow in the footsteps of Sol Plaatje
and, in advancing Native Opinion, "once again become
an instrument of liberation by being reflective, critical,
and a partisan of the truth", no longer victim
to the hegemony of the sensational!
Perhaps the simple question is - will you become embedded
among the African masses, and define ourselves as activists
of the African Renaissance, or will the rebirth of Africa
pass you by!
I wish your important conference success.
|