Izimbizo contribute to building democracy

Last week we participated in our Seventh Provincial Imbizo. It was the turn of KwaZulu-Natal, which followed the successful interactions with the people of the Limpopo, Eastern Cape, Free State, Gauteng, North West and Western Cape provinces. Despite the wet weather conditions that prevailed, our people, as with other izimbizo, turned up in their thousands. They were eager to talk to us about their life experiences. It was an opportunity they were determined not to miss.

We travelled the length and breadth of that province meeting our people who spoke to us in an honest and frank manner. As has happened in other provinces, we were determined that our people should not only ask questions, but that they should also raise suggestions as to how best we can work together with them in a people's contract to build a better life for themselves. As with the earlier izimbizo, what was evident was that our people share common concerns and problems, whatever their party political affiliation.

As we arrived in the province the leadership of our movement, the ANC, had just finished the first part of a series of meetings with the leadership of the IFP. A focal point of this interaction is the challenge to create of a climate for peace in the province. This is part of our sustained effort to ensure that we enter the elections with the people knowing that they have the freedom to vote for the party of their choice.

The political violence that so afflicted this province in the late '80s and the beginning of the '90 s must never be allowed to resurface. In all the areas we visited, it was clear to us that our people want a situation where there is free political activity and continuing stability. They want the ANC and the IFP to work together to achieve these objectives.

Even as we were having these meetings, some in the media curiously focused their fullest attention on the decision of the SABC to allow us to talk to the people of the province through the "Imbizo-on-air" on Ukhozi FM. Some even went further and condemned what they called "a free political broadcast".

They conveniently forgot to mention that this is standard practice, which was followed in all the other izimbizo we have conducted so far, to allow interaction with as many people in each province as possible.

This particular section of the media also did not mention that the Premier of the province was going to participate in the same programme, as has been the case in the other provinces. The media must have known this because a press conference had taken place, during which all these details were provided. Precisely why some persisted in this vein, we do not understand.

Perhaps our first interaction with the masses, which took place at (Tugela Ferry) at Msinga, was bound to be the centre of attention. Some in the media wrongly reported that there was an attempt to prevent us from visiting the area and that we were told that we are not welcome in the area. It has emerged that the people who originally wrote this story do not themselves speak or even understand the local languages.

It is clear that the media needs to send people who are proficient in the local languages in each area, or at least have the benefit of proper professional translation, to cover such events as izimbizo. This observation is important given the fact that the people, at home and abroad, depend on the media to inform them about such visits to provinces.

The claim that "more than a hundred men brandishing 'traditional weapons' jostled (our) entourage on its way to a meeting in KwaZulu-Natal" is simply not true.

Our first stop, in Msinga, was a tomato gardening project run by women. This is an area that is one of the poorest regions in the province. The project employs about 3,000 people of whom 80 percent are women. It is directed at assisting black women with farming skills, giving them other support and helping them with marketing opportunities. This project is also heavily dependent on water and therefore the Sampofu Water Scheme has added value to the work of these communities. The project markets its produce through a local sorting and packing facility and has enjoyed the support of the US NGO Africare.

The imbizo in this area was very successful. Our people, without exception, prefaced their contribution by thanking the government for the good work it is doing in terms of the delivery of services. They spoke about bread and butter issues such as jobs, child support grants, pensions, infrastructure development including roads, water, clinics, schools and electricity. The enthusiasm and the positive attitude of the people of Msinga was replicated throughout the province. This sets an example for our nation as a whole.

One of the interesting things raised at the Msinga imbizo was the issue of the use of cellular phones. People there raised their concerns about the gross inadequacy of the infrastructure required for these phones, and called on us to raise the issue with the service providers. This matter has now been dealt with, the providers having promptly visited the area to attend to the complaint.

Our next stop was Osizweni, next to Newcastle. Here again the people warmly received us. One of the main issues raised at this imbizo was education.

The people raised concerns that schools were charging them onerous school fees. It is clear that a lot of vigilance is required because it seems some schools push the parents to the limit. Understandably, the schools want to get the parents' contribution so that they are able to have sufficient funds for operational purposes.

Government as a whole, as well as the structures of our movement, will have to ensure that we inform our people about the fact that the system of education does make provision for schools to offer exemption to parents who cannot afford to pay fees.

It is quite clear that the prevalence of section 21 schools in the townships has resulted in a situation where the schools are using the powers they have under the law to 'force' parents to pay fees and also to pay for their own children's stationery and school books. This arrangement needs to be looked into, as it relates to poor parents. The matter was also raised in the other areas we visited such as Ingwavuma, kwaMlaba in Mahlabathini, and Gamalakhe in Harding.

In Durban, we also had the usual interaction with the opinion makers of the province. These were men and women who come from all walks of life of the province. Again the people spoke openly and candidly. Among other things, they raised the issue of jobs that have been lost or are to be lost in the ship- building industry, and the level of decay of the central business districts of some of our towns and cities.

They called on the government to expand the successful Gauteng on-line schools project to other provinces. They called for greater patriotism among the civil servants. Others called for the Media Development and Diversity Agency (MDDA) to enable the small independent print media to gain access to independent printing facilities. There was a call for women to be appointed to the provincial cabinet.

Because this imbizo had not succeeded to generate ideas from the broad leadership of the people of the province that was present, we agreed that the imbizo should reconvene at a later date.

Ingwavuma occupies an important place in the history of struggle. Many brave activists used this region in order to advance the struggle for freedom against racist tyranny. We had received appeals from the people of this area to pay them a visit. In fact, Ingwavuma was not on our original list of places to be covered during this imbizo visit to the province. But it was of importance to go there both to salute past valour and hear the views of the people in an area that had suffered from almost total neglect for a long time.

To address the consequences of this history, our government has declared Ingwavuma as one of the rural development nodes within our Programme of Integrated and Sustainable Rural Development. It is also in this context that this visit was important.

Here we were able to listen to the people raising their concerns about the dispute involving the Mngomezulu clan. It was also reported that people from across the border in Swaziland come to the region to take out South African identity documents, which they then use to gain access to the social grants provided by our government.

The important issue of citizenship particularly in this part of the world is not a new thing. It has been an issue for a long time. The government has to deal with this matter - affecting the Mngomezulu clan - in a way that ensures that we are able to unite the people of the area.

The issue is important. Allegations made about people who are not South Africans benefiting from our services cannot go without investigation. Equally, we need to make sure that people do not just make allegations on the basis of hearsay. They have to be encouraged to come forward with concrete information and avoid the temptation of falling victim to xenophobia.

Moreover, the history of our region in Africa is such that there are people with the same surname (and even close relatives) who live on both sides of the border. The geopolitics of colonialism and apartheid account for this.

The last but one area that we visited was kwaMlaba in Mahlabathini. This is an area that is dear to the hearts of the Zulu nation. It is in this area where the major battles were fought against the colonial armies and where many Kings and outstanding traditional leaders are buried. Here a number of issues were raised that relate to matters that were being discussed by the delegations of the ANC and IFP. Nevertheless, the bulk of the issues raised were similar to those mentioned in other rural areas both in KZN and elsewhere in our country.

However, we must also make the point that the very fact that we were able to have open and frank exchanges with the people of this area says a lot about how far we have gone in engendering a culture of tolerance for different views and open engagement between people and government.

The behaviour of the people of kwaMlaba and the reception and political tolerance displayed by the people of Gamalakhe in Harding are reminders that we must never allow any area in KZN and the country to become a no-go-area. Political parties should be able freely to campaign in any part of our country, coming and going as freely as we were able to move around KZN and other provinces.

The people of Gamalakhe, as was the case with the people of KwaMlaba, raised the important issue of the distribution of food parcels. Some people had objected to the manner in which this is being done. Others made the allegations that they were distributed in a manner that favoured some political parties. Of great importance was the fact that the people insisted that they needed to be assisted to grow their own food rather than rely on food parcels supplied by the Department of Social Development.

The KZN imbizo, our last one before the elections, has confirmed the need for ongoing interaction between government and people. It emphasised the correctness of our view that we should not relate to the people by visiting them for a few hours merely to launch projects and thereafter go back to Pretoria or our provincial and local capitals.

We will continue these engagements with the people after the elections. It is the right approach. It produces measurable results both for the people and the government, expands the possibility for the people to determine their destiny and further entrenches our democratic system, building on the imbizo traditions of our pre-colonial societies.

We must also take this opportunity to thank His Majesty King Goodwill Zwelithini, who received us at his palace at Ulundi, welcomed us to KZN as we arrived in the province, and sensitised us to the concerns of the people in the province. Wena wendlovu! Bayethe!

Media in South Africa

Need for an open discussion on conduct of media

Comments by judges in two separate judicial inquiries, in two separate countries, underscore the need for an honest and open discussion about the role and conduct of the media in South Africa.

In his report on the proceedings of the Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of Spying against the National Director of Public Prosecutions, known as the Hefer Commission, Judge Hefer commented on the performance of the former City Press editor, Vusi Mona, as follows: "Mr Mona's cross-examination was severe.In the process he was forced to make one damning concession after the other until he admitted that his evidence had been untruthful in certain respects. The result was that, when the cross-examination ended, his credibility had been reduced to nil."

Judge Hefer then proceeded to say: "I need to record that the leader of evidence requested me to refer Mr Mona's evidence to the Provincial Director of Public Prosecutions with a view to a possible prosecution for perjury. I would rather not do so because his employer has relieved him from his duties and, although his dismissal arose from other causes, I am satisfied that he has discredited himself to such a degree in the newspaper community, that he will not find it easy to procure employment in that field again."

Though he did not deal with this matter directly, these comments by Judge Hefer suggest that he thought that journalism requires that its practitioners should observe certain standards of ethical conduct. Failure to observe these should result in those who err "not find(ing) it easy to procure employment in that field".

Further to the north, in the United Kingdom, another judge, Lord Hutton, addressed this issue more directly. In the presentation of his findings relating to the death of British weapons expert Dr David Kelly, he said: "The communication by the media of information (including information obtained by investigative reporters) on matters of public interest and importance is a vital part of life in a democratic society. However the right to communicate such information is subject to the qualification (which itself exists for the benefit of a democratic society) that false accusations of fact impugning the integrity of others, including politicians, should not be made by the media.

"Where a reporter is intending to broadcast or publish information impugning the integrity of others the management of his broadcasting company or newspaper should ensure that a system is in place whereby his editor or editors give careful consideration to the wording of the report and to whether it is right in all the circumstances to broadcast or publish it. The allegations that [BBC journalist] Mr [Andrew] Gilligan was intending to broadcast in respect of the government and the preparation of the dossier were very grave allegations in relation to a subject of great importance and I consider that the editorial system which the BBC permitted was defective in that Mr Gilligan was allowed to broadcast his report at 6.07am without editors having seen a script of what he was going to say and having considered whether it would be approved.

"The Governors were right to take the view that it was their duty to protect the independence of the BBC against attacks by the Government and Mr [Alistair] Campbell's complaints were being expressed in exceptionally strong terms which raised very considerably the temperature of the dispute between the Government and the BBC. Therefore the Governors should have recognised more fully than they did that their duty to protect the independence of the BBC was not incompatible with giving proper consideration to whether there was validity in the Government's complaints, no matter how strongly worded by Mr Campbell, that the allegations against its integrity reported in Mr Gilligan's broadcasts were unfounded and the Governors failed to give this issue proper consideration."

It is true that all these comments are nothing more than the opinions of a judge. They have no legal force. It is also true that the Hutton Inquiry as whole has led to a heated controversy in the UK, which also includes the questioning of the correctness or otherwise of Lord Hutton's findings with regard to the BBC.

These are matters that must be resolved by the British people. We will therefore not venture any judgement about the correctness or otherwise of the Hutton findings.

We are however interested in the general guidelines he stated concerning the conduct of the press, without any reference whatsoever to the circumstances that occasioned Judge Hutton's remarks. This also related to Judge Hefer's comments.

Last year, the ANC Youth League issued a document entitled "Much Ado about Zimbabwe". The document cited an article in The Guardian of 12 March 2002 written by Matt Wells in which he wrote: "Senior figures at the BBC World Service have expressed concern to the domestic news division that the coverage of the Zimbabwe elections had been driven by a 'colonial' agenda, potentially causing damage to the corporation's reputation for impartiality.

"There were worries about the tone of coverage on the Today programme, which according to some at the World Service, has made a conscious attempt to 'illegitimise' the Robert Mugabe administration with the use of pejorative terms such as 'regime' and adjectives such as tough, fierce and brutal.

"It is suggested that the interest in the Zimbabwe elections is being driven by the 'residual British interest and the presence of white farmers', according to one Bush House (BBC headquarters) source. Another said the agenda was characterised by 'latent and unwitting colonialism'."

It also cited an article which appeared in The Guardian a few days earlier, on 7 March 2002, in which Seumas Milne commented on the matter of the British media: "Perhaps taking its cue from the government, most mainstream British media coverage of the Zimbabwean crisis has now abandoned even a veneer of even-handedness, as reporters and presenters have become cheerleaders for the opposition MDC. In a BBC television interview on Sunday with the foreign office minister Baroness Amos, David Frost talked blithely of '100,000 people being killed by Mugabe supporters over the last years'.

"In fact, human rights groups estimate the total number killed on both sides during that period at around 160. Frost and the shadow foreign secretary Michael Ancram, went on to denounce Mugabe as a 'fascist dictator' and 'black racist', both urging more decisive British action. The same day an unrelentingly hostile BBC correspondent programme passed without a single balancing interview."

Of course, there were no judges Hefer and Hutton to state an opinion about the issues reported by Messrs Wells and Milne. The question that arises naturally is whether the kind of journalism reported by Wells and Milne is restricted only to the issue of Zimbabwe.

In this regard, we should perhaps draw comfort from what the former Director General of the BBC, Greg Dyke, wrote to Prime Minister Tony Blair last year. He said: "It is perfectly legitimate for you and your advisors to complain about particular stories - journalism is an imperfect profession - and if we make mistakes as we inevitably do, under my leadership we will always say we were wrong and apologise."

We do not know whether this sentiment applies to reporting about Zimbabwe and whether it shared by all British editors-in-chief. Recently, for instance, we have seen the most extraordinary media fabrications about President Robert Mugabe. This time the London 'Telegraph' newspapers took their turn at "abandoning even the veneer of even-handedness".

A 'Telegraph' report filed from Johannesburg on 25 January this year, said "The 79-year-old dictator was flown by military aircraft to Johannesburg after a violent vomiting fit. He was accompanied by his wife Grace, personal doctors and a string of aides."

Three days later, another 'Telegraph' report originating from Johannesburg said "President Robert Mugabe collapsed yesterday and was flown to South Africa for emergency medical treatment, sources in Zimbabwe said last night. Supporters of Mr Mugabe, 79, were setting up barricades in the capital, Harare, manned by well-armed riot police."

The truth however is that President Mugabe had flown into South Africa on a scheduled commercial flight, entering the country though Johannesburg International Airport. He left from the same airport, again on a scheduled commercial flight.

He used these flights because he came on a private visit. The purpose of this visit was to meet members of the Mugabe family, whose father had been resident in South Africa since the 1930s. He and his wife had both died.

Consistent with African tradition, their children thought it necessary to discuss various family matters with the most senior member of the family, who happens to be President Mugabe.

Only the 'Telegraph' journalists ever came to hear of barricades and riot police in the streets of Harare.

We do not know if they would defend their patently false reports by resorting to "qualified privilege defence". But, of course, no judges Hefer and Hutton will have occasion to comment on the 'Telegraph' reports.

It may be that the complex legal issue of "qualified privilege defence" will gain greater prominence as the debate in the UK continues. Jason Deans of the 'The Guardian' reported on 5 August 2002 that: "Libel defendants using a qualified privilege defence usually argue that they have a duty to publish, had good sources and made every effort to check the facts, even if a story turns out to be wrong."

A legal comment states that "the English courts recognise that there can be a complete defence of 'qualified privilege' to proceedings for defamation if the matter reported is clearly in the public interest and no malice is intended by the publication".

Not long ago, there was a fairly 'hot' debate about the issue of "upward referral" with regard to SABC editorial policy, with some arguing strongly that such referral would compromise press freedom.

In his 21 March 2003 letter to Prime Minister Blair, Greg Dyke said "Some weeks ago I set up and chaired an ad hoc committee which included the most senior editorial figures at the BBC in order to discuss our coverage of the Iraq issue.My committee is now meeting on a daily basis and we discuss the reporting of the Iraq issue every morning."

Nevertheless, for better or for worse, Lord Hutton felt that the policy of 'upward referral', contained in long-standing BBC policy, had failed to persuade the senior editors of the BBC to exercise due oversight over material that was broadcast, containing false accusations that the British government had deliberately told lies about WMD in the hands of the Iraqi armed forces.

As we have said, the British people will decide whether Lord Hutton's opinion was right or wrong.

Former BBC DG, Greg Dyke, recognised the right of the British government "to complain about particular stories".

For his part, Lord Hutton said: "Therefore the Governors should have recognised more fully than they did that their duty to protect the independence of the BBC was not incompatible with giving proper consideration to whether there was validity in the Government's complaints."

In our country, the pretence continues to be sustained that for our government "to complain about particular stories" constitutes either a threat to press freedom or unreasonable sensitivity to criticism. Regularly, editors refuse to take the position that "if we make mistakes as we inevitably do.we will always say we were wrong and apologise".

The outgoing Chairperson of the Board of Governors of the BBC, Gavyn Davies, said: "Many of the Hutton criticisms of BBC managerial procedures were accepted by the BBC during the Inquiry. We have now taken steps to remedy them."

The BBC also said: "The BBC does accept that certain key allegations reported by Andrew Gilligan on the Today programme on May 29 last year were wrong and we apologise for them."

Davies' successor as Acting Chairperson, Lord Ryder, said: "On behalf of the BBC I have no hesitation in apologising unreservedly for our errors and to the individuals whose reputations were affected by them. We have begun to implement major reforms, including outside journalism, compliance systems, editorial processes and training of new recruits."

It is possible that no journalist in our country would have had the courage to respond with such humility and candour. In all likelihood, a full-scale offensive would have been launched by the media claiming that our "Lord Hutton" was threatening the freedom of the press.

Confronted by this kind of offensive on the matter of the duty of journalists fully to cooperate with the courts or judicial commissions, with regard to information in their possession, Judge Hefer said:

"My view was that the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression (including the freedom of the press and other media and the freedom to gather and disseminate information) does not entail that every journalist is in all cases entitled to refuse to testify in a court of law or a commission of inquiry or to disclose relevant information gathered in the course of his or her profession. Unless other reasons exist which justify a refusal to testify, a journalist, like any other person, is obliged to testify and is only entitled to refuse to answer specific questions against which there is no valid objection.this view, I may say, is not popular with the media, nor was it acceptable to [Former Sunday Times journalist] Ms [Ranjeni] Munusamy' s counsel during his argument in the commission. But it was eventually not questioned when my decision went on review."

Time will tell whether and when it will be possible ever to have an open public discussion about the role and conduct of the media in our country. Inevitably, such matters as those raised by Judge Hefer, Lord Hutton and the BBC would be incapable of discussion as the media would obstruct such discussion by frightening everybody into silence by alleging a non-existent threat to the freedom of the press.

A few years ago, our movement presented the truth to the Human Rights Commission about material printed by the Mail & Guardian intended deliberately to impugn the integrity of our then Deputy President. The journal took us to court, instead of admitting its mistakes, as the BBC has done.

The point at issue was a Mail & Guardian article headed: "A short leap to dictatorship". It accused then Deputy President Thabo Mbeki of harbouring dictatorial, anti-democratic sentiments and tendencies.

Among other things, the ANC said that the article was based on a white racist stereotype of Africans and had not even been written by its supposed author.

According to the judge, the legal representative of the journal "confined his submission to defamatory statements that are false. Therefore defamatory statements of fact that are true and defamatory statements that constitute comment or opinion because they cannot be objectively true or false are not relevant to the present enquiry".

Judge J. Labuschagne of the Witwatersrand Division of the High Court dismissed the prayer of the Mail & Guardian that the court should oblige the ANC to say its statements were false, requiring the latter to retract the statements and apologise for them. He also awarded costs against the Mail & Guardian.

The court granted the Mail & Guardian leave to appeal against the judgement. However they did not in fact appeal.

Naturally, this story never saw the light of day as far as our media is concerned. None within our media, and not only the Mail & Guardian, had the courage and candour displayed by Lord Ryder, Acting Chairperson of the BBC. To hide this reality, this media will continue to hide behind false arguments about threats to freedom of the press.

Lord Hutton said: "The communication by the media of information (including information obtained by investigative reporters) on matters of public interest and importance is a vital part of life in a democratic society. However the right to communicate such information is subject to the qualification (which itself exists for the benefit of a democratic society) that false accusations of fact impugning the integrity of others, including politicians, should not be made by the media."

Soon we will celebrate the first decade of freedom. At the close of the second, will all of us have learnt to say the simple words - I was wrong. I apologise.

Return to Index