Is SA ready for a partisan media?

Nhlanhla Mtaka

Almost a decade ago, Steven Friedman, the then director of the Centre for Policy Studies observed that those who traffic in ideas and information are not always the blessing to our society as they  purport to be.  According to Friedman, a society willing to listen to those with no vested interest in telling it what it wants to hear is likely to be stronger and better able to deal with threats. But scholars and analysts become a curse when they succumb to the arrogance of believing that they and their circler command a monopoly on insight and have no need to explain themselves.

Developments leading to the 53rd African National Congress conference have exposed us, as a country to new possibilities in so far as the role of the media in our political discourse is concern.  In his classic textbook, An introduction to Political Communication, Prof Brian McNair from University of Strathclyde, argues that in contemporary politics, links are increasingly made between democracy, globalisation, neo-liberalism and mass media.  

It is generally acknowledged that the mass media represents a critical element of the democratic process. The assumption is that for democracies to function, citizens require access to information as a means to make informed political choices. Similarly, politicians require the media to take stock of the public mood, present their views and interact with society. 

According to McNair, there are five functions of the communication media in an ideal-type democratic society: First, they must inform citizens of what is happening around them (what we may call "surveillance" or "monitoring" functions of the media. Second, they must educate as to the meaning and significance of facts. The importance of this function explains the seriousness with which journalists protect their objectivity, since their value as educators presumes a professional detachment from the issues being analysed. Third, the media must provide a platform for public political discourse, facilitating the formation of public opinion, and feeding that opinion back to the public from whence it came.  

This must include the provision of space for expression of dissent, without which the  notion of democratic consensus would be meaningless. The media's fourth function is to give publicity to governmental and political institutions- the watchdog role of journalism, exemplified by the role of the media in exposing political scandals like the South African arms deal. Finally, the media in democratic societies serve as a channel for the advocacy of political viewpoints. Parties require an outlet for the articulation of their policies and programmes to a mass audience, and thus the media must be open to them. 

In short, under liberal democracy like ours, not only do media report politics; they are a crucial part of environment in which politics is pursued. They contribute to policy discussion and resolution, not only in so far as they set public agendas or provide platforms for politicians to make their views known to the public, but also in judging and critiquing the variety of political viewpoints in circulation. Based on the above understanding of the role of the media in our democracy, it can be argued that since 1994 our constitution has promoted and protect media freedoms, which were abused by the then apartheid state. However, as former minister of arts and culture, Dr Pallo Jordan noted that, while we pride ourselves in our collective achievement of media freedoms, we can not afford to lose sight of how it has been used and abused in the past.  

The road to Mangaung has revealed a lot of tensions between ANC led government and the media and it has been evident that the media for right or wrong reasons is convinced that it is about to be abused by the Zuma - led ANC which is pushing for the so called Secrecy Bill.  For them, a powerful ANC is dangerous for media freedoms. In reacting to the fear of the unknown the media has, its seems decided to be a serious political actor using Europe and United State approach of taking sides which results in having a preferred candidate or party.  

Putting ANC's own mistakes aside, South African media  by using, in some cases journalist as pundits, features, oped columns and editorials has so far succeeded in creating a negative dominant framework for ANC. Today, a once respected liberation movement is only known for leadership crisis, sleaze, corruption and moral hypocrisy. 

While there is nothing wrong with the media electing to take sides as it is the case in other countries, ones concern is whether a partisan media will able to first act fairly if its preferred candidate or party loses. Second, will it give space to other views, as we are worried about the failure of the ANC to separate between government and state, will a partisan media be able to separate being media and advocacy group? Whatever direction our media elect to take post Mangaung and towards 2014 and beyond, they will be wise to know as Jordan's put, that no single person, no body of opinion, no political doctrine, no religious dogma no media, my addition) can claim a monopoly on truth. But perhaps a more serious question is  whether having a partisan media will be a blessing or a curse for our democracy?

Mtaka is the executive director of Ingabadi Group, a political, reseach and strategic planning company. You can follow him on twitter @nhlanhlamtaka or on www.ingabadigroup.com 

PEACE IS A PROCESS

King Goodwill Zwelithini's initiative to find a solution to KZN violence should be welcomed

Nhlanhla Mtaka

In the past three weeks, I have done several interviews with both electronic and print media about killings in KwaZulu-Natal that have been carelessly described as "political murder" or "political violence".  As I have argued in the media and on other platforms, there is always a danger in glorifying what, in my view, are clear acts of criminality.

One of the legal definitions of political murder is the unlawful use of force or violence against people or property in order to coerce or intimidate a government or the civilian population in furtherance of political or social objectives.  On the other hand, political violence is a common means used by people and governments around the world to achieve political goals.  Many groups and individuals believe that their political systems will never respond to their political demands. As a result, they believe that violence is not only justified but also necessary in order to achieve their political objectives.

If we agree with the above definitions, how does a murder orchestrated by a greedy tenderpreneur, who hires killers to remove a stumbling block to riches, become political? Granted, one understands that what is happening in our province triggers fears that KZN might be plunged back into the sad situation of the mid-eighties and late nineties. However, it is dangerous to misdiagnose the current situation.

So what is the real situation here? Is it true that since 1994 there has been peace in KwaZulu-Natal? Do people really believe that the absence of war means peace? That only parties in conflict can negotiate peace? Is it fair for commentators to blame "political murder and violence" on the police or the justice system, and is it possible to deploy police at party branch meetings so as to prevent intraparty killings, knowing that some killings happen during or just after such meetings? Can the deployment of soldiers in hostels solve the real problem, or are we suggesting that a hostel killing is worse than a township or rural killing, hence it requires military intervention? These are the questions we need to answer honestly without succumbing to political gimmicks.

What came closer to clarifying the developments in KwaZulu-Natal and finding a possible solution is the recently launched initiative by King Goodwill Zwelithini under the banner of the KwaZulu-Natal Public Peace Process. The launch followed the king's announcement last week that he had set in motion measures seeking to cajole all major stakeholders to work towards a lasting resolution of the current violent conflict.

It seems the king's initiative acknowledges that, first, peace is not an event but a process, that it has nothing to do with public relations and sponsored initiatives. In recent history, we have seen parties and governments all over the world reducing peace building to the signing of treaties and accords. Sadly, our recent history has proven that peace among institutions does not necessarily translate into citizen peace.

Second, the king's initiative correctly acknowledges that there is always a human dimension to conflict and peace building. That conflict is not just a clash of institutions and that it's not true that only parties in conflict should find a solution. In the case of KwaZulu-Natal, we hear three parties – the African National Congress, Inkatha Freedom Party and the National Freedom Party – talk about their exclusive meetings aimed at finding the solution. We even hear parties stipulating conditions for such exclusive meetings.

Lastly, the KwaZulu-Natal Public Peace initiative perhaps more importantly acknowledges that killings don't only affect political parties in conflict but also damage social cohesion, as well as the KwaZulu-Natal brand, thus affecting investment.  Attending the king's session last week confirms that one of the most important aspects of social, political and economic reconstruction is the ability and the willingness of communities to hold discussions in pursuit of finding meaningful and lasting solutions to existing problems. The key concept here is dialogue.

As was argued by the founder and president of the International Institute for Sustained Dialogue, Dr Harold H. Saunders, at the heart of the public peace process is "sustained dialogue" – a systematic, prolonged discussion among small groups of citizens committed to changing relationships, ending conflict and building peace. It is more structured than a good conversation, less structured than formal mediation or negotiation.

The question, therefore, is whether stakeholders in KwaZulu-Natal have the capacity to talk meaningfully in pursuit of lasting solutions to the existing challenge. The king's call should be welcomed as a window of opportunity.

TALKS WITH BUSINESS: FIRST STEP OR LAST GASP

How serious are the partners in last week’s agreement with government?

Sphamandla Zondi

The two rounds of dialogue involving leaders of business, labour and the government about their response to the economic challenges facing South Africa is a significant show of collective leadership - but is it enough? While this agreement is important as a first step towards the serious economic reforms that are needed, whether they realise that it makes them collectively responsible for what the country becomes in the coming years, is debatable.

The downgrading of South Africa's credit worthiness by rating agencies, Standard and Poor's and Moody's, recently affirmed that the country is facing an economic crisis. If economic growth declines and unemployment grows, the country will collect less taxes and thus have a reduced pool of funds to finance growth measures, social security and the provision of basic services. We are all likely to feel the consequences of this.

We are already experiencing the decline in national mood and a growing sense of despair. One weekend newspaper described last week as the country's "week from hell". Economists embedded with big capital link this to policy uncertainty, meaning that nationalisation is not yet off the ANC agenda. Political analysts point to factionalism in the ANC and creeping political uncertainty, but there is no unanimity on whether Zuma is to blame. Thabo Mbeki thinks all ANC leadership, including his, shares the blame. Social commentators point to ever-growing poverty, unemployment and inequality with millions unable to afford even basic groceries.

Whichever way one looks at it, South Africa cannot survive this crisis without making some drastic and even unpopular decisions. Our problems have to do with the failure of the new South Africa to undertake radical transformation of the economy and the social compact through which business, government and civil society agree on how to change the country's course for the better. This is why I am sceptical about the outcomes of the dialogue on the state of the economy that Jacob Zuma convened last week.

Contrary to a common view, I believe Zuma has shown some political leadership in the aftermath of Marikana, appointing a judicial commission of inquiry, meeting Lonmin miners directly and convening this high-level dialogue with big business (both white and black), organised labour and ministers in the economic cluster to discuss the country's economic problems. That this has not been adequate is obvious, but no government can resolve our issues alone; so, the governmental leadership we need is that which will build a strong social compact in favour of inclusive growth and poverty eradication. Zuma is waking up to this. He convened the first dialogue on October 12, where the partners agreed to improve private and public investor confidence in the economy through collective and individual action, to encourage the use of collective bargaining to deal with worker pay grievances and to allow law enforcement to deal with criminality. They affirmed the values of the Constitution, which protect the rights of workers and citizens alike. Importantly, they committed to work towards inclusive growth and poverty eradication.

When they met again last Wednesday, the parties put together a common response document in which the most important point made was that they had "one voice, one message and strong confidence in our capacity as a society to address the immediate challenges we face". The measures outlined - which include the normalisation of industrial relations in the mining sector, the call for workers to return to work and the agreement that the rise in executive pay needs to be clipped - are unachievable unless all partners believe in the capacity of South Africa to weather these storms, unite and grow again.

The task of rescuing the country is no longer just the government's. If things do not change, it can no longer be Zuma's failure, but that of all the government's social partners.

But it is very clear that this pact must still take root in each of the constituencies. Over the weekend, business and union leaders were still apportioning blame, mostly to the government, meaning they do not yet understand the implications of agreeing on a collective response. On the plus side, it is positive that all social partners realise that they need each other. The agreement reached is not radical and will not do much to undo inequality and poverty, but it is a positive start.

• Siphamandla Zondi is the executive director of the Institute for Global Dialogue, but writes in his personal capacity.

AMAQEMBU APHIKISAYO ASENKINGENI NAWO

Nhlanhla Mtaka

Impela kuliqiniso ukuthi lapha eNingizimu Afrika izinto zenzeka ngenye indlela. Bheka nje isibonelo nxa ubuka okuphathelene nombangazwe uyathola ukuthi empeleni kuvamile ukuthi nxa siphawula ngezinto ezenzakalayo sibheke kakhulu enhlanganweni ebusayo okuyi-ANC. Mhlawumbe lokho sikwenza ngezizathu ezahlukene phakathi kwazo okubalwa iqiniso lokuthi i-ANC inesibalo esiphezulu sabavoti nezikhundla - hhayi kuphela ephalamende nasezishayamthetho kepha nasemikhandlwini eminingi kuleli nokwenza izinto eziningi ezinhle nezimbi zenzeke ngaphansi kobuhoi bayo. 

Iqiniso futhi yikuthi siyabhala futhi siphawule nge-ANC ngoba imithetho eminingi ekhona ezweni esivumelanayo, njengaleyo yokuvikelwa kwamalungelo ezingane nabesifazane, kanye naleyo esingaboni ngaso linye kuyo efana nethintana nesigwebo sentambo iphekwa kulo ibhodwe le-ANC. Kepha sengikushilo lokho kungumbono wami ukuthi ekugxileni kokwenziwa yi-ANC okuhle nokubi njengabahlaziyi, ongoti kanye namaphepha, siyalibala ukwenza okufanayo ezinhlanganweni eziphikisayo nokuyizimbangi zikaKhongoolse. Lapha ngingakhuluma ngezinhlangano ezifana no-DA, COPE, IFP, PAC, AZAPO, NFP, MF, FF+ kanye no-APC. 

Mhlawumbe kumele siqale ngokwamukela ukuthi njengeqembu elibusayo amaqembu aphikisayo nawo amqoka ekusimamiseni intando yabantu. Nawo, njengeqembu elibusayo, ayisithako esimqoka ekwenzeni uhulumeni kanye nemithetho ebusa izwe. Nawo, njengelibusayo, acosha imali yabakhokhi bentela ukwenza imisebenzi yawo, namalungu awo ahola kulo ibhodwe leli namalungu e-ANC acosha kulo, imali yethu bakhokhi bentela.

Ngamafuphi ngithi nawo aphikisayo njenge-ANC asiwabheke ngeso lokhozi. Ngizokwenza nje isibonelo nje sezinto engicabanga ukuthi kumele siziqaphele kuwo; okokuqala yinqubo yentando yabantu yangaphakathi. Kuke kumangaze uma amanye amaqembu aphikisayo ekhuluma ngento ayibiza ngokuthi ukuswelakala kwentando yabantu eNingizimu Afrika nakulo iqembu elibusayo kepha angazinuki wona amakhwapha. Kanjalo nathi njengabahlaziyayo, ongoti nababika izindaba asiqapheli ukuthi isifumbu sibona uqhaqhazela. 

Ngoba phela siyabuka futhi sizwe, amanye ala maqembu ake akhulume ngezinkinga ezikhungethe i-ANC kepha nawo qobo anezinkinga ezifanayo noma ezedlulele. Isibonelo nje, amanye ala maqembu (yize sihlonipha ukuthi kungenzeka ukuthi asuke ekhethwe ngo-elethu) ayakwazi ukuthi umengameli wezwe akahlale amahlandla amabili esihlalweni kepha wona qobo anabaholi asebehlale amahlandla adlula amabili. Umbuzo uthi siwalalele yini uma ethi akwenzeke kwabanye kepha wona engakwazi ukukwenza ekhaya?

Amanye ala maqembu akhuluma ngobandlululo kanye nokungalingani kwabesifazane nabesilisa kepha wona qobo asiboni enabantu besifazane abaningi ebuholini, nalapha umbuzo uthi kumele siwalalele yini uma ekhala ngobandlululo nokungalingani? 

Olunye uhlangothi okumele silubheke emaqenjini aphikisayo izixazululo azilethayo ezinkingeni esinazo. Isibonelo nje uma ephikisa umthetho othize yikuphi aqhamuka nakho okuwumthetho wona? Lokhu kumqoka phela ngoba nawo uma esebenza kanzima angase abe nguhulumeni. Umbuzo uthi uma ehlulwa ukusinika okuyimithetho eyahlukile kunaleyo abayiphikisayo ayosinikani uma esephethe? Siselapho, asohlukanisa ukuphawula nokwakha umthetho owehlukile, isibonelo siyezwa amaqembu aphikisayo ephikisana nohlelo lwe-e.toll eGauteng kepha mangaki aseqhamuke nokuhlukile? 

Engizama ukukubeka lapha yikuthi kuhle ukuthi njengongoti nabezindaba sikwazi ukulekelela abantu ekubukeni ngelibanzi zonke izinhlangothi. Kuyilungelo labantu ukuba bazi ngokwenzeka ngaphansi kweqembu elibusayo, kanjalo futhi kuyilungelo labo ukuba bazi ngokwenzeka ngasohlangothini lwamaqembu aphikisayo.

Iqiniso elimsulwa yikuthi okwamanje sisaphaka nje okohlangothi olulodwa nokuyinto engabasizi abavoti okumele bathathe isinqumo ngokumele babavotela noma bakuvotela. Engikuphakamisayo wukuthi asibafundise noma sibembulele abantu nangamaqembu aphikisayo, ukuthi enzani nokuthi acabangani. Ngokwenza njalo siyobe senza okuyikho ekugxiliseni intando yabantu ezweni lakithi. 

YINI EHLANGANISA IPOLITIKI, OSOPOLITIKI NABANTU ABAHLUPHEKAYO?

Nhlanhla Mtaka

Ngihlale ngisho kulabo abafisa ukungilalela ukuthi umdlalo wepolitiki ngumdlalo wabantu abanesibindi. Lolu hlobo lwabantu luyakwazi ukuthembisa into elazi kahle kamhlophe ukuthi ngeke liyifeze noma ngabe banikwa iminyaka eyikhulu esikhundleni.

Isibonelo nje, kosopolitiki umuntu uke athembise abantu imisebenzi azi kamhlophe ukuthi lowo akuwona umsebenzi wakhe kepha ngowabanye abantu. Futhi lolu hlobo lwabantu luyakwazi ngaphandle kokucwayiza namahloni ukuphika into liyazi. Isibonelo epolitikini umuntu uyakwazi ukuma afakaze ukuthi iqembu akulo alinazinkinga kepha umhlaba wonke ubona ukuthi konakele.

Osopolitiki laba abanqeni ukuthi engazithandi izingane kepha nxa kunento ayifunayo uyoba umngani wodado ena wabona ungoti ekunakekelweni kwazo. Uboke unake ngesikhathi sokhetho osopolitiki sebequkula izingane zilenga amafinyila zinjalo ngoba nje befisa ukuba abantu bababone njengabantu abazithandayo izingane. Isimangaliso omunye aze avolontiye ukuyolala emigwaqeni noma emjondolo ngoba efisa ukuba izwe limazi njengomuntu ozwelana nabantu abathize. Okubenza bacoshe izindondo zokuba abazenzisi kuba yilapho ubona omunye kosopolitiki akhale emngcwabeni womuntu angamazi ngoba nje esenzela umabonakude. Ngethemba lokhu akukumangazi ngoba phela ngishilo ukuthi ipolitiki le ngumdlalo wabantu abanesibindi. Kepha namuhla angizogxila kulokho.

Namuhla ngifisa ukubuka into abantu abaningi abangayiqapheli (umbono wami) uma bekhuluma noma bebuka ipolitiki. Lapha ngikhuluma “ngobudlelwano” phakathi kwepolitiki, osopolitiki kanye nabantu abahluphekayo. Lokhu ngikwenza ngoba nginenkolelo yokuthi eqinisweni abantu abahluphekayo ngeke nje baphele emhlabeni, hhayi ngoba lokho kungegwemeke kepha ngoba uma bengase baphele ipolitiki noma osopolitiki ngeke kubahambele kahle. Yebo ungizwe kahle, ngithi abantu laba abahluphekayo ngeke baphele ngenxa yepolitiki nosopolitiki – ipolitiki ikhona nje yingoba kukhona abantu abaswele. Singasho nje ukuthi abantu abahluphekayo bayisithako esimqoka epolitikini. Phela yibo laba abahluphekayo abenza amaqembu athize asungulwe, amanye nje amaqembu imigomo yawo ithi wona acheme nabahluphekayo esisazoke ngelinye ilanga sibuke ukuthi konje ikhona yini into enjalo. Kwezinye izindawo uzwe sekuthiwa kuneqembu elilwela abahluphekayo. Qaphela-ke, lapha akuvamile ukuthi ohluphekayo amele abahluphekayo kepha kuba ngumuntu ongenankinga omela abanenkinga. Ngamafuphi ngithi isimo somuntu ohluphekayo siyakwazi ukuveza amathuba omsebenzi kusopolitiki noma eqenjini elithize ngoba iqembu liyakwazi ukuthumela umuntu ephalamende ozofike ahole nalo lihlomule kepha ohluphekayo yena ebe eqhubeka ehlupheka. 

Ngendlela abantu abahluphekayo abathandwa ngayo lapha epolitikini baze babe namagama abo esilungu okuthi nxa kubizwe wona wazi ukuthi kukhulunywa ngobani-ke namuhla. Adume kakhulu nje yilawa afana no our people (abantu bakithi), leli gama alishiwo kwabadla izambane likapondo ngoba labo kabalawulwa muntu, phela umuntu uma usuthe ngowakho kwapolitiki usuke usuzinika amandla okumthathela izinqumo into okungelula ukuyenza kubantu abacebile yikho nje bona kungathiwa bango-our people.

Elinye igama lekhethelo okubizwa ngalo abahluphekayo ileli lika “poorest of the poor” (abahlwempu kakhulu. Uma ulalela nje uyezwa lapha ukuthi sekudlalwa ngamagama ngoba phela sekuhlukaniswa izigaba abahluphekayo, sekukhona abahluphekayo nabahlupheka ngokweqile kepha kushiwo okukodwa. Uma ungahlupheki ungabi namona ngoba nawe likhona elakho igama obizwa ngalo umahluko yikuthi elakho lihloniphekile lithi uyi-citizen, okuyinto ehloniphekile kunalawa amanye amagama esengiwabalulule.

Isiphetho nje esingafika kuso yikuthi abantu abahluphekayo kabayi ndawo nokuthi uma ngase baphele abantu abahluphekayo lapha kwelakithi nasemhlabeni akhona amaqembu kanye nabantu abayolahlekelwa yiphalishi. Lokhu kufana nje neqiniso lokuthi njengoba umhlaba wonke jikelele ucwaninga futhi ukhuleka ukuthi ikhambi lengculazi litholakale, kukhona uma kungase ucilo uzishaye endukwini litholakale ikhambi badumale ngobani? Ngoba uma ikhambi litholakala kusho ukuphela kwemisebenzi kubo.

Ngalezizizathu ezingenhla ngithi asikwamukele, yize kubuhlungu kunjalo, ukuthi laba bantu abahluphekayo obabonayo ngakini noma ezweni lethu kunokuthi banciphe basazokhuphuka kodwa ngeke osopolitiki bakuvume lokho ngoba njengoba ngishilo lona ngumdlalo wabantu abanesibindi.