Who will define Africa?

Everyday the African and global media publish articles about Africa, based on events that have taken place on our continent. In time, these stories begin to define who and what we are. In due course, as we come to believe the resultant image of ourselves, we also begin to act the part.

For some years now, our continent has been engaged in a sustained effort to change the lives of our people for the better. The 30 July democratic elections in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and the great rally at the Union Buildings in Pretoria on 9 August to promote the emancipation of women, stand out as but two examples both of the good news emanating from Africa, and what our continent is doing to redefine itself.

It is in this context that many on our continent and elsewhere in the world have, once again, as reflected in the reports we cite below, raised the issue of consistent and seemingly compulsive negative reporting about Africa.

On 23 May 2005, one of our newspapers, "The Mercury", carried the following story:

"Nairobi - Rwanda's president has accused Western media of portraying Africa as a continent racked by poverty, war and disease, and he has challenged Africans to change that image. 'One of the reasons Africa is unable to attract enough foreign direct investment, which we need for our development, is the constant negative reporting,' President Paul Kagame said in an address to the International Press Institute World Congress on Sunday.

"Kagame said it was a common belief on the continent that the international press gave Africa only negative coverage and ignored positive developments on the continent...

"He said in his own country, the international media had portrayed the 1994 genocide as the result of primitive tribal killings, rather than an organised campaign perpetrated by the former government. 'Constant reference by the media to tribal killings, civil war, anarchy and chaos obscured and minimised the genocide that was taking place and the complicity and indifference of some powers,' he said. 'As a result, the UN member states were not called upon to recognise the genocide that was under way and did not feel compelled to take the appropriate action.'"

More than a year later, on 9 August 2006, "The (Nairobi) East African Standard" carried an article by Eliud Miring'uh under the headline "Western Reporting On Africa Under Criticism". It read in part:

"African and Western journalists differed sharply at a media managers meeting in Nairobi yesterday over the way the Western media reports on Africa. Whereas African journalists criticised the Western media for presenting Africa in bad light, their Western counterparts vigorously defended their position saying they cannot ignore the continent's problems, which they described as 'harsh realities'.

"Some of the over 90 delegates from 25 African countries said that whereas the Western media was quick to file negative reports from Africa, it was slow in reporting on positive developments. The sentiments were expressed shortly after presentations made by Lionel Barber, the Financial Times editor, and Ms Amanda Farnsworth, the daytime news editor of BBC Television news.

"'The Western media is not even (handed) because there is some hypocrisy in the reporting of African issues,' charged Mr Godwin Agbroko, the editorial board chairman of This Day of Nigeria. He said the Western media are not interested in the historical aspects that shaped realities in Africa such as colonialism and are only keen to view the continent from their own perspective...

"Earlier, Barber said events in Africa have changed in the recent past and the continent was attracting sizeable attention from the rest of the world. 'Africa is no longer the forgotten continent because positive events have taken place and is commanding interest from the rest of the world,' he said. Barber defended the notion that Western media were hostile to Africa, saying they cannot ignore issues such as corruption, conflict, and dictatorship as practiced by political leaders... A delegate from Zambia wondered why major news agencies such as BBC, CNN, AFP, and Reuters were quick to report on negative issues and slow to report positive developments in the continent."

On 7 August 2006, came the news from Accra that:

"Ghana would host the African International Media summit from September 18 to September 20 to discuss ways of re-branding Africa for a brighter future and enhanced development...

"Dr Messan Mawugbe, Chief Executive Officer of Centre for Media Analysis said there had to be a conscious and determined effort to tackle the major factors contributing to the negative impressions of the Continent and to present it in a more positive light. Dr Mawugbe was speaking at a press conference to give an insight into the summit that has the theme: 'Re-branding Africa as Laudable Dialogue for a North-South Cooperation and Human Advancement in this 21st Century'...

"Stakeholders in the media industry, government officials and observers from relevant international media organisations would attend the Summit to be sponsored by the African Communications Agency, the African Union and African Development Bank, among other sponsors. Dr Mawugbe said in spite of establishing a new Africa through initiatives like New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD), many issues negatively affected the image of Africa, which were mostly portrayed by the international media.

"He said though the Continent could not be divorced from issues like wars, fledgling democracies, health epidemics and environmental hazards, the media had a role to portray these in a proper light through adequate dissemination and management of information. An analysis of stories from news agencies on Africa published in the Graphic and Ghanaian Times showed that out of the 543 stories published from May to July 2006; 13 percent came from Ghana News Agency, 64 percent from the BBC with the remaining 23 percent from other agencies, he said.

"Dr Erieka Bennett, Vice Chairperson of African Communications Agency, said the media were the singular major organ that would guarantee that Africa's current rebirth and development efforts manifested into a positive image for the Continent."

In an article published on 17 June 2005, Chris Thomson said: "In the mid 1980s when I was at university, my university used a song, 'Hearing Only Bad News From Radio Africa', to introduce a weekly show that featured the music of Africa. The song was a slow reggae one that lamented, among other catastrophes, the apartheid regime in the south and the famine in the north. It reflected the fact that, back then, the news from Africa was indeed overwhelmingly bad. Now, five years into a new century, when things have changed in several of the continent's 53 independent nations, the Western media seems still to be depicting Africa in a predominantly negative way...

"A group called the TransAfrica Forum (December, 2000) ...survey(ed) two of the most esteemed newspapers in the U.S.A. - the New York Times and Washington Post - over a sample 3 weeks worth of days drawn from the period March to August 2000. Their study showed there were some serious problems with the way the two newspapers reported on Africa. The vast majority of news stories fell within only three categories - AIDS, development and conflict. The study found no reports on regional economic or political cooperation in Africa, nor one article on the private sector. In its conclusion, the study said, 'one would have expected the New York Times and the Washington Post to make an effort to inform American citizens and policymakers in a much more balanced, detailed, and fair manner.' The authors added, 'failure to address this issue will contribute to an increase in Afro-pessimism in America.'...

"A more recent survey of African coverage (Boston University, 2005) found little mention of the fewer civil wars, economic growth or increased access to education on the continent. The survey studied coverage of Africa between 1994 and 2004 in the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, US News and World Report. Disasters in Somalia, Rwanda and West Africa dominated, while transitions to democracy in Nigeria, Ghana, South Africa, Namibia, Mozambique and elsewhere were ignored.

"How did this problem become so entrenched? Aside from the obvious answer -generations of colonial exploitation - a group called Earthlink (2005) reports most media organisations don't even bother to base a reporter in Africa. When they do, it is often a single person intended to cover the entire continent. Postings are not perceived as important as European or some Asian locations...According to Earthlink, editors on the other hand claim the lack of coverage is a response to audience lack of interest in Africa, and that western readers don't care about what happens in Africa. Other observers, say Earthlink, believe the lack of reporters and editors of colour means newsrooms full of white, middle class, middle-aged men don't find Africa interesting and therefore devote few resources to covering the continent. Still others suggest the news media tend to follow the agenda of their home governments. If western politicians don't make Africa a priority in foreign policy, then the media will see no reason to cover it...

"So what to do about the problem? If there's one thing on which most African commentators agree, it's that Africans must take responsibility themselves for how their continent is portrayed. Chido Nwangwu (1997), who founded and publishes the first African owned U.S.-based professional newspaper to be published on the internet, says flamboyantly: 'for far too long, a majority of Africans have been indifferent to misrepresentations about who they are. They have remained 'objects' of the ill-informed caricatures of a once glorious heritage disfigured by colonial and post-colonial predators.'"

Chris Thomson goes on to report that Former African Heads Of State met in a Presidential Roundtable at Boston University in May 2005. Having discussed the negative Western reporting on Africa, they resolved, among others, that:

"African countries, and institutions ... need to develop a set of strategies to counter the negative media portrayal of Africa, including developing:

1. alternative mediums through which to tell Africa's story;
2. a multimedia campaign to counter Africa's negative image in the western press, and
3. a strategy for engaging major media outlets in order to encourage more fair and balanced coverage of the continent."

Speaking at the "Agenda-Setting Conference: Mass Media and Public Opinion" in Bonn, on 22 September 2004, Tony Trew of our Government Communication and Information System (GCIS), said: "The commitment of industrialised nations to NEPAD is based on an understanding that developing and industrialised countries have a common interest in the global peace and security which is dependent on Africa and the South lifting themselves from underdevelopment and poverty. It is surely also in the interests of the global media and communications community that information and communications equity should be achieved. The North cannot have a well-informed public that is provided limited and distorted information about the rest of the world with whose destiny their own is bound."

However, the 8 August 2006 edition of the "Financial Times" published an article by Gideon Rachman entitled "Death, double standards and the battle for moral high ground", discussing the quality of media reporting about the conflicts in the Middle East and elsewhere. Referring to the matter of double standards, Rachman wrote: "Partly, it is to do with a European and American fear that they will suffer from the blowback of war in the Middle East. The (DRC) Congolese and their neighbours can kill each other for years without anyone in London and New York feeling threatened."

Abraham McLaughlin of "The Christian Science Monitor" put this matter somewhat differently on 26 May 2005 in an article entitled, "Africans ask: 'Why isn't anyone telling the good news?' " He wrote: "One thing blocking a fuller perception of Africa's progress may be implicit racism, argues Charles Stith, former US ambassador to Tanzania, now at Boston University. There's a historic framework, he says, 'that by definition sees Africa ... and Africans as inferior and negative,' and makes most stories about the continent negative. By contrast, he says, 'China has problems, but we see and hear other things about China. Russia has problems, yet we see and read other things about Russia.' That same standard, he says, should apply to Africa."

Perhaps the time has come that, as Chris Thomson said, we, as Africans, take responsibility for how our continent is portrayed. We should therefore respond to Chido Nwangwu's cry from the heart that, "for far too long, a majority of Africans have been indifferent to misrepresentations about who they are. They have remained 'objects' of the ill-informed caricatures of a once glorious heritage disfigured by colonial and post-colonial predators."

Economic Policy

No contradictions between RDP and GEAR

The 50th National Conference of the African National Congress held in Mafikeng in December 1997 adopted a definitive resolution on economic policy. This resolution included a clause that read: "Conference reaffirms that our macroeconomic framework policies must be directed to advancing the RDP [Reconstruction and Development Programme]. We are not pursuing macro balances for their own sake, but to create the conditions for sustainable growth, development and reconstruction. The strategy for Growth, Employment and Redistribution (GEAR) is aimed at giving effect to the realisation of the RDP through the maintenance of macro balances and elaborates a set of mutually reinforcing policy instruments."

This important clause settled an exceedingly important debate in the ranks of the ANC. The Growth, Employment and Redistribution strategy (GEAR) could not displace the RDP, but its correct implementation could effect the realisation of the RDP. In recent weeks, it has once again become fashionable to attempt to suggest that the adoption of GEAR was an endeavour to bury and replace the RDP. If cartoonists are unaware of the facts, they might be forgiven. The same cannot hold true for the leadership of the ANC or its Alliance partners.

The year 1996 was a difficult year for the fledgling democratic government. The currency was repeatedly mauled; rising debt service costs threatened to crowd out expenditure on public services; the economy appeared stuck in a rut by a balance of payments constraints; and, in the political sphere, the National Party abandoned the Government of National Unity. These circumstances demanded decisive action. Thus an initiative to focus on the macroeconomic balances was born to deal with what the RDP document referred to when it said, "the existing ratios of the deficit, borrowing and taxation are part of our macro-economic problem".

This was a matter left consciously vague in the drafting of the RDP document since, unlike most other aspects, it was always going to de difficult to reach agreement on these less-popular elements of the RDP. While the technical work was in process, and contrary to the denials by some, the matter was discussed in the ANC National Executive Committee.

The Growth, Employment and Redistribution strategy was tabled in parliament on 14 June 1996. Prior to this, a Tripartite Alliance 6-a-side meeting was convened on Sunday 9 June to discuss the matter in some detail. The records reflect that the South African Communist Party (SACP) delegation was led by Blade Nzimande and the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) delegation was led by its then Deputy General Secretary, Zwelinzima Vavi. That meeting agreed on vital aspects of GEAR and agreed to disagree on the fiscal stance.

Prior to the tabling of the proposals, parliament was addressed by the then Deputy President of the Republic and of the ANC, Thabo Mbeki, who said, "The RDP is (therefore) not a conglomeration of particular projects, but an integrated and sustainable vision for the creation of the post-apartheid society for which so many of our people sacrificed everything, including their lives." Among the speakers in the parliamentary debate was Philip Dexter, who announced his participation as being from the SACP. He said, "In terms of the macroeconomic policy framework that has been outlined, I think that the key positive aspects are that it builds on the RDP." Before concluding, he cautioned, "There is one potential pitfall in the document which I think we really need to emphasise and which the Government is going to have to be cautious about, and that is the strong emphasis on deficit reduction."

This statement contained no surprises; it was indeed a reiteration of what the Alliance meeting agreed to disagree on.

Later, on 14 June, COSATU issued a statement through its Deputy General Secretary, Zwelinzima Vavi. The Saturday Star of 15 June 1996 reports that, "COSATU assistant secretary-general Zwelinzima Vavi said the labour movement was pleased to see the incorporation of several points in the plan, including the focus on education, the use of public works programmes, the commitment to infrastructure development, and the linking of tax incentives to job creation schemes. These aspects, among others, had all been advocated by labour and had featured strongly in its own contribution to the economic policy debate, Social Equity. But Vavi also said COSATU had serious reservations over other elements of the plan, in particular the 'conservative fiscal policies' the document intended to implement."

These comments, on behalf of the SACP and COSATU, hardly appear to suggest either a "complete lack of consultation" or an attempt to "mobilise and hoodwink COSATU and the SACP into supporting this project". Rather, there was an agreement to disagree about some aspects of GEAR.

The commission that debated economic policy at the Mafikeng Conference was the largest of any at the conference. The resolution was adopted with acclaim both in the commission and on the floor of conference. Essentially, this settled the debate on the inter-relationship between GEAR and the RDP. And, since the 51st conference held in Stellenbosch in 2002 sought no amendment to the Mafikeng position, it confirmed the earlier resolution. That therefore is the policy of the ANC.

The RDP also put sustainability at the centre of our efforts to build a people centred society: "It is no use merely making a long list of promises. Making promises is easy - especially during election campaigns - but carrying them out as a government is very much more difficult. A programme is required that is achievable, sustainable, and meets the objectives of freedom and an improved standard of living and quality of life for all." That GEAR called for a period of fiscal consolidation is not in dispute, but the objective was always to ensure the sustainable delivery of the RDP. From 1996 to 2000, spending on public services fell by 4.5 per cent in real terms. Since 2000, public spending has increased by over 60 percent in real terms. The fiscal consolidation of the late 1990s has provided the resources to accelerate the implementation of the RDP at a pace even the authors could not have forecast.

Curiously, it was the much-disputed "conservative fiscal policies" that Vavi referred to on 14 June 1996 that allowed us to advance the RDP and improve on both the spending and the quality of public services.

The RDP document called on us to maintain rationality at the centre of our decisions on economic policy. It cautioned thus: "It is clear that government policy and mechanisms of raising finance are crucial to the success of the RDP. If they were to cause excessive inflation or serious balance of payments problems they would worsen the position of the poor, curtail growth and cause the RDP to fail." The RDP document warned that short-term solutions would hurt the poor.

Recent political commentary also attempts to lay the 'get rich quick' culture at the door of GEAR. It is claimed that the "move away" from the RDP to GEAR brought about a culture that has benefited the elite. This assertion too must be dispelled. It is intellectually dishonest to argue that any element of GEAR, either on paper or in implementation, has contributed towards the culture of materialism, a culture which both President Mbeki and former President Mandela have consistently criticised. GEAR did not deal with the black economic empowerment at all. Since the introduction of GEAR, this government has introduced a capital gains tax, broadened the tax net to cover the global earnings of corporates and individuals, increased taxes on vehicle allowances, reduced taxes on medical aid and provided considerable income tax relief to low and middle income earners and for small businesses. At the same time, the number of people receiving income support directly from government has increased from about three million in 1994 to over ten million today. These policies have ensured that South Africa's budget and tax policies have played a strongly redistributive role.

Instead of contributing towards a culture of materialism, the management of our public finances has contributed towards a culture of social solidarity and of shared responsibility. We can, and indeed must, all look back on the past decade for honest and critical evaluation. Then we will all concur that both the letter and spirit of the relationship between the RDP and GEAR has served South Africa incredibly well. The key measure is in the quantity and quality of public services we have been able to render.

There are no contradictions between GEAR and the RDP. Both programmes, mutually reinforcing as they are, have served us well. Thus, those who claim that the values of the RDP were buried on 14 June 1996 and only resurrected when President Mbeki delivered the Nelson Mandela Lecture on 29 July 2006 do themselves, their readers and listeners the disservice of being profoundly disingenuous.

** Trevor Manuel is an ANC National Executive Committee member and Minister of Finance.

1946 Mineworkers Strike

Celebrating a milestone in the struggle against exploitation

Note from the Editor: This week marks the 60th anniversary of the African mine workers' strike of 1946, a seismic event in the country's history that had a profound effect both on the struggles of South Africa's workers and on the broader struggle for national liberation. In paying tribute to the heroic contribution of workers to the national democratic struggle, we publish below an edited excerpt from 'Notes and Documents', No. 21/76, September 1976, written by the late ANC and SACP stalwart MP Naicker.

On 12 August 1946, the African mine workers of the Witwatersrand came out on strike in support of a demand for higher wages. They continued the strike for a week in the face of the most savage police terror, in which officially 1,248 workers were wounded and a very large number were killed. Lawless police and army violence smashed the strike. The resources of the racist state were mobilised, almost on a war footing, against the unarmed workmen.

But the miners` strike had profound repercussions which are felt until this day. The intense persecution of workers` organisations which began during the strike, when trade union and political offices and homes of officials were raided throughout the country, has not ceased.

The most profound result of the strike, however, was to be the impact it had on the political thinking within the national liberation movement; almost immediately it shifted significantly from a policy of concession to more dynamic and militant forms of struggle.

In 1941, when the decision to launch the Mine Workers` Union was first mooted, the wage rate for African workers was R70 per year, while white workers received R848. In 1946, the year of the great strike the wages were:

Africans R87 and whites R1,106. In both cases the wage gap between the white worker and the black worker was 12:1.

With the formal establishment of the union, organisational work began in earnest in the face of increased harassment, arrests, dismissals, and deportation of workers by the police and the mine management. Nevertheless, the union grew in strength and influence. The Chamber of Mines, however, refused even to acknowledge the existence of the African Mine Workers` Union, much less to negotiate with its representatives.

With the rising cost of living, starvation of families in the reserves and increasing pressure by the mine management and white workers, the demands of the workers became more incessant.

On 19 May 1946, the biggest conference yet held of representatives of the workers instructed the executive of the union to make yet one more approach to the Chamber of Mines to place before them the workers` demands for a ten shillings (one Rand) a day wage and other improvements. Failing agreement, decided the Conference, the workers would take strike action.

From May till July the union redoubled its efforts to get the Chamber to see reason. To all their repeated communications they received one reply - a printed postcard stating that the matter was receiving attention.

Decision to strike

On Sunday, 4 August 1946, over one thousand delegates assembled at an open air conference held in the Newtown Market Square. The conference carried the following resolution unanimously: "Because of the intransigent attitude of the Transvaal Chamber of Mines towards the legitimate demands of the workers for a minimum wage of 10 shillings per day and better conditions of work, this meeting of African miners resolves to embark upon a general strike of all Africans employed on the gold mines, as from August 12, 1946."

After the decision to strike was adopted, the union's president, JB Marks, stressed the gravity of the strike decision and said that the workers must be prepared for repression by possible violence. "You are challenging the very basis of the cheap labour system" he told them, "and must be ready to sacrifice in the struggle for the right to live as human beings."

A letter conveying the decision of the meeting to the Chamber, and adding a desperate last-minute appeal for negotiations, was ignored. The press and mass media, except the Guardian, did not print any news of the decision until the morning of Monday, 12 August, when the Rand Daily Mail came out with a front page story that the strike was a "complete failure".

The Star that evening, however, had a different tale to tell: tens of thousands of workers were out on strike from the East to the West Rand; the Smuts regime had formed a special committee of Cabinet Ministers to "deal with" the situation; and thousands of police were being mobilised and drafted to the area.

They dealt with it by means of bloody violence. The police batoned, bayoneted and fired on the striking workers to force them down the mine shafts. The full extent of police repression is not known but reports from miners and some newspapers reveal intense persecution and terror during the following week.

A peaceful procession of workers began to march to Johannesburg on what became known as Bloody Tuesday, 13 August, from the East Rand. They wanted to get their passes and go back home. Police opened fire on the procession and a number of workers were killed. At one mine workers, forced to go down the mine, started a sit-down strike underground. The police drove the workers up - according to The Star - "stope by stope, level by level" to the surface. They then started beating them up, chasing them into the veld with baton charges. Then the workers were "re-assembled" in the compound yard and, said the Star, "volunteered to go back to work".

By Friday, 16 August, all the striking workers - 75,000 according to the government 'Director of Native Labour' but probably nearer 100,000 - were bludgeoned back to work.

Throughout the week hundreds of workers were arrested, tried, imprisoned or deported. Leaders of the African trade unions and the entire executive committee of the African Mine Workers` Union, the whole of the Central Committee of the Communist Party and scores of provincial and local leaders of the African National Congress were arrested and charged in a series of abortive "treason and sedition" trials.

Innumerable police raids were carried out across the country on the offices of trade unions, the Congresses and the Communist Party. The homes of leaders of the ANC, the Communist Party, the Indian and Coloured Congresses and the trade unions were also raided simultaneously. The white South African state was rampant in defence of its cheap labour policy and big dividends for the mining magnates and big business. This marked the opening of a phase of intense repression by the racist regime of the day, led by Field Marshal Smuts, against the forces for change in South Africa.

The African Mine Workers` Union, mainly because of the very difficult circumstances under which it operated, was never a closely-organised well-knit body. During the strike the central strike committee was effectively cut off from the workers at each mine by massive police action and the workers had to struggle in isolation. They were continually told that all the other workers had gone back to work, and apart from union leaflets hazardously brought into the compounds by gallant volunteers there was no system of interchanging information.

Nevertheless, thousands of miners defied terror, arrest and enemy propaganda and stood out for five days, from 12 to 16 August. During the strike 32 of the 45 mines on the Rand were affected. The regime called the strike a failure.

The brave miners of 1946 gave birth to the ANC Youth League's Programme of Action adopted in 1949; they were the forerunners of the freedom strikers of 1 May 1950, against the Suppression of Communism Act, and the tens of thousands who joined the 26 June nation-wide protest strike that followed the killing of sixteen people during the May Day strike. They gave the impetus for the 1952 Campaign of Defiance of Unjust Laws when thousands of African, Indian and Coloured people went to jail; they inspired the mood that led to the upsurge in 1960 and to the emergence of Umkhonto we Sizwe, the military wing of the African National Congress.

More Information:

• 'The African Miners' Strike of 1946', by MP Naicker, September 1976

Return to Index