AThe Media Commission Bill (HERE) has been gazetted and it presents a significant challenge to media freedom in Swaziland. In brief, the government Commission will have powers to:
(a) hear complaints about the print media (s 7(h) and s 16);
(b) establish a Code of Ethics for print journalists (s 7(k), s 15(2) and s 24(i) – although there it is called a Code of Conduct);
(c) admonish a journalist (s 17(3)(a));
(d) issue a costs order against a media institution (s 17(3)(f)); and
(e) Most infamously, register and deregister journalists, although this may not in fact be legal even within the terms of the proposed Act itself. This may not be legal because the Commission is not given this power in the Bill. Instead, within the ‘Complaints Procedure’ section (s 17), if the Commission is satisfied that a journalist or institution has breached the Code of Ethics, the Commission may (s 17(3)(g)) “impose any reasonable conditions for the suspension of registration, for a period not exceeding one month”. However, registration of journalists or media institutions is not mentioned anywhere else in the Act, thus s 17(3)(g) is most likely unusable for vagueness.
There has been quite a lot of resistance to the Media Commission Bill, especially amongst journalists (HERE) and progressives, and there will no doubt be a constitutional challenge to such a law, if it passes.
I do not want to focus on the constitutionality of the Bill in this article. Rather, I’d like to briefly examine the grounds that have given rise to the possibility of such a Commission.
The most surprising aspect to me of this whole business is the evident support that such a Commission holds amongst the public at large in Swaziland. This boggles the mind. How could a nation actually want the government (of all things) to be more involved in deciding who gets to discuss what?
The most obvious answer is the terrible standards of reporting generally subsisting here. (For excellent analysis of which see Richard Rooney's blog 'SwaziMedia' HERE.) When a woman has been bashed for being unfaithful, the story will often focus on her infidelities rather than her injuries. If a child has been molested, an article might be overtaken with needless sensationalism or worse, the identity of a child might be revealed. It seems to me that there is a lot of hostility towards the press in your average Swazi. And the standards of journalism are no doubt the cause of this. This is the type of concern regularly trotted out by Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) Director, Comfort Mabuza, when talking about the need for some sort of complaint mechanism, which currently does not exist. And it is exactly the reason given by the government for this Bill.
But the standards of journalism are not the only reason a government-regulated Commission has been proposed in Swaziland.
The fact is that the self-regulatory model, which is the norm in most countries, could never grow here in Swaziland for an altogether more practical reason: no one will continually fund it.
The maths is pretty simple: besides the little players, there are four Media Houses in Swaziland. Two of these are newspapers, one TV and one radio. Of these four, only one is privately owned. For a self-regulatory system to operate it needs funds. These funds would need to come from these four Media Houses.
But, and here is where the matter becomes constitutional, three of these four Media Houses are not genuinely interested in operating as Media Houses. These are government-owned and operated entities. Or at least, in the case of The Observer, ownership is so close to the royalty that it might as well be called a government paper. I do not want to sound so cynical as to suggest that government media are not interested in a self-regulatory complaints mechanism. But they are not really interested in diverting funds to such a system here. Why? Three forces interplay here. First, the government Media Houses don’t really have any money in the first place. The managers do not have final say over staff structure or budget, and they all seem to have somewhat bloated, cumbersome operations. At one talkshop, for example, all the participants from SBIS (radio) described themselves as civil servants. Journalists/presenters even regularly rotate into other departments and ministries. To pay money out into a self-regulatory complaints system would be politically difficult, and commercially nonsensical for most of these places. Second, the government Media Houses are not really afraid of a government commission to regulate journalism where, as stated, the operators and ‘owners’ (or at least those owning an extra interest, beyond that of being the taxpayer) are pretty cosy with the government anyway. And in fact, can be removed directly by Ministers or royalty if they do something inappropriate or illegal. This might be called the comparative advantage of the government Media Houses. Why pay money to an organization that is going to tell you what you have done wrong, in contrast to a government system, when the government is going to tell you what you have done wrong anyway? Third, the government Houses more often than not act as government spokesdepartments anyway. Besides directly reporting the silly statements that MPs and Ministers sometimes make here, they tend not to court controversy. Exceptions exist – for example, Khulumdumban’dumbane (on radio), but these are usually understood to be comedic shows here, and therefore well within the realm of parody. Most stories from SBIS, or Swazi TV, or The Observer just repeat some government initiative announced by some Minister. Even if its controversial, it’s not the type of thing that a Swazi citizen would feel comfortable complaining about, no matter how independent the complaints mechanism is.
This leaves the drive for a self-regulatory system up to the one independent operator in town, The Times of Swaziland. ‘Surely they would be interested in a self-regulatory system?’ I hear you scream. Well, certainly they aren’t really interested in the government meddling with their journalists. But here the lack of competition comes into play. Paul Loffler, the white owner of The Times of Swaziland, does not deeply care about journalism or freedom of the press in Swaziland. He is by all accounts more of a businessman than a dyed-in-the-wool newspaperman. So if you were a business, with a cosy little monopoly, would you be interested in diverting some of your profits into some complaints organization that was going to allow your business to be criticized, or would you just let that task be picked up by the taxpayer? It’s a pretty simple equation for a businessman sitting on the mother of all cash cows.
So, the self-regulatory system, and all it entails for freedom of expression, depends on money. And what does this money depend on? Diversification of media ownership, including government allowing the management of its public broadcasters to act genuinely independently. And in the current political set-up there will be no such thing any time soon.
