15 August 2008
editorial
The Media Practitioners Bill casts the spotlight on that ever elusive place between the compulsion of government to have its way as it governs, and the insistence of citizens on their right to have the final say in all matters pertaining to their right to information.
Government will be represented in the person of the Minister of Science, Technology and Communications, whilst the profession of journalism will represent the citizens.
The dialogue between the two is conditioned by the history of the development of the fragile democracy that has been rather generously described as 'liberal'.
Such a description presumes:
*the widest possible access to the system of justice,
*daily participation in the processes of political decision making including regular election of national and local government,
*equitable distribution of the economic resources of the country,
*recognition and respect for all peoples or ethnic groups and tolerance for minority views,
*freedom of the state administration from corruption and the institutionalisation of mechanism that guarantee openness and accountability of all public institutions,
*equality for women and respect for the rights of children,
*easy access of citizens to services such as water, electricity, education and health, and most fundamentally, an unfettered access to information.
In earlier years - and it continues to be the presumption - information was considered a function of state security, even after the Africans achieved 'independence' from colonialism. The state owned and controlled the greatest part of the press for the purpose of countering disinformation by the press of the 'mother' countries, but also for 'announcing the development programmes of the government of the day'.
In plain language, that means doing propaganda for the post-independence ruling parties.That became such a preoccupation that the citizenry was relegated to passive receptacles of state propaganda rather than actors in developing information that was relevant to their development, especially that of the rural poor.
That is still very much the practice in most African countries including Botswana. The advent of the private press only 25 years ago in Botswana was received in official circles as something of a cultural aberration rather than a welcome development in the progression of democratic governance.
Only kings, who had now adopted the persona of 'politicians', should be the spokespersons of the tribes (disguised as political parties in feudal society).
The privileged sections of the aristocracy of the state press were probably even more hostile to the private press than the politicians, believing that a thriving independent press would undermine their monopoly of wisdom in that profession.
This layer of bureaucrats at the head of the state press continues to exercise a powerful influence on the Minister, and by extension, cabinet, seeking not to be overtaken on their last lap before securing retirement benefits at the state press.
It is this layer of bureaucracy that has played a leading role in killing initiatives of the private sector journalists to cultivate meaningful dialogue with the elected leaders of the country.
It is they who created a mechanism of insulating the political leaders of the country from the private press, scheming behind the back of the Botswana Journalists Association, to ambush journalists by means of a trap they had set in the form of a 'press council'.
Their professor Ansah was referring to them when he said in his secret submission that 'the press council was widely accepted'. Coming from an educated society in Ghana, he was compelled to point out that the private press would also have to be consulted before the press council was imposed upon it. BOJA never saw consultation.
Then arrived the Media Communications Bill, yet another strategy for attempting to outflank the journalists, seeking the co-operation of the managements of the private press in the conspiracy against the practitioners.
'Advocacy' groups were spawned at the rate of baby rabbits, all of them keen to 'negotiate' some form of 'self-regulation' that would please the government. They were successful, finally creating a Broadcasting Board and a Press Council, neither of them accountable in any way to the journalists.
Both moved by an inordinate appetite for interference in the work of the practitioners under the guise of guaranteeing society a place to influence 'proper professional conduct' in what they now loosely labelled 'the media'.
Needless to say, 'the media' allowed space for impostors and opportunists to infiltrate the journalists' movement, compromising its standing in the face of the larger society, in a well orchestrated plan 'to bring the press to the government', in the words of one such conspirator.
Minister Venson-Moitoi makes reference to a media advisory council, first put to the Office of the President in pursuit of a 'Freedom of the Press' resolution of the early 1990s, calling for the opening of avenues of communication with the President of Botswana.
Former President, Ketumile Masire addressed that forum once at State House referring to the gathering as 'an informal chat' with members of the press inspired by his desire to speak to leaders of different sections of the society. And so, even as that concession was made, it was overwhelmed by the traditional official fear for institutionalisation of dialogue with press leaders.
Ian Khama, as Vice President, attended that forum once, leaving it to officers at the Office of the President, and others in the 'media advocacy' category, to cook up the broadcasting board and press council.
The above bodies suffered a common ailment:
*they failed to demand a basic level of professional competence for their membership, most of whom hardly boasted a recognised record of civic activity that suggested a vocational interest in the service that the press could bring to the country's democracy,
*they failed to shield the institutions from parochial political influence, majorly that of the ruling party,
*they confused state functionaries with 'independent' voices of the community and the profession of journalism, taking both to be the same.
And so, when the minister claims to have consulted, she is correct. She consulted everybody - politicians, state bureaucrats and professional impostors - the greater part of whom had little or nothing to do with the journalists' movement, which houses, by any definition, the 'practitioners' who were the ones to practice self-regulation.
(Shockingly, some records of meetings even reflect representation of BOCCIM as partakers in the formulation of a 'code of conduct', establishment of a press council and a broadcasting board. In the name of practitioners!)
The result is the journalists having been successfully circumvented, the minister's communication failed to reach the people whom it was intended for.
The minister is, therefore, challenged to refurbish her consultative machinery by: -
l providing for the removal of government bureaucrats from the 'media advisory council'.The officials are her advisors at the ministry, not at the council ,which must be seen to be 'free' and 'independent' from political influence.
The point will be made, that this is the very reason for the call for genuine transformation of the state press to a public press. As long as the state press keeps its current personality - legal pretences at transformation aside - the 'practitioners' there, whatever their training, fail the test of 'journalist' and pass the requirements of state public relations officers.
They will defer firstly to government 'General Orders', which are soon to be further entrenched in the proposed Public Service Act. They will be better housed at the newly unionised Botswana Civil Service Association, rather than at the Union of Journalists and Allied Workers Union.
*Disallowing comment from politicians. That means representatives of the journalists or practitioners must exclude any one who currently holds a political office at parliament, councils or political parties.
This will require that all participants in the journalists' organs must declare their political status. 'I hold no office at any political party. I am not a councillor or a parliamentarian,' the candidate must pronounce. Secondly, the candidates must furnish proof of being a practitioner.
The international standard at the International Organisation of Journalists or International Federation of Journalists for proof of being a practitioner is submission of two published articles or broadcast programmes per month for at least a year.
That covers freelance practitioners, who are very often the most experienced of the journalists, and it covers contracted workers who may also produce their contracts for proof of their profession
*Step up genuine transformation of the state information services to a public press, thereby encouraging unionisation at the government 'Information Services'. This might imply acceding to direct and automatic payment of one percent of every media practitioner's earnings to the Journalists and Allied Workers' Union account every month. The minister will also streamline the ministerial consultative machinery by creating a platform for negotiating 'collective agreements' with the journalists' union.
The journalists face the challenge of weeding out impostors who pose as practitioners when in actual fact they are only friends of the press, more often, political activists or spies of the state. Many of them are likely to infiltrate 'advocacy' groups where proof of work - published articles or broadcast programmes - is not a prerequisite.
The more proactive approach would be to accommodate community participation at the Botswana Press Club, once a semi-autonomous committee of BOJA. It should, like the mother body, shift to the Journalists and Allied Workers' Union. That is the kgotla of the journalists.
The kings, lawyers, politicians, gender activists, aspiring journalists and every other section of the society should have access to the Press Club for the promotion, not of play and modelling, but cultivation of dialogue between information workers and the larger society.
It is the trade union of journalists, which will offer the minister a definition of what the journalist is. As alluded to above, the IOJ and IFJ will accept the definition that says: one who, for his or her primary means of livelihood, relies on gathering and reporting news.
That takes care of the nagging question that appeared to torment the minister and parliamentarians at last week's parliamentary debates on the proposed Media Practitioners Bill: Should drivers and cleaners who work at the government information services work as 'media practitioners'?
According to the minimalist and corrupt definition of the 'advocacy' movement, the drivers will be 'media practitioners'. They work at media houses. The trade union will demand:
a) mastery of the basic skills of communication of information as practiced in newspapers, radio or television,
b) membership of the trade union of journalists where there shall be further training and critique by professional peers, and examination of the quality of work submitted as evidence of professional commitment,
c) and adherence to the Principles of Professional Practice otherwise referred to as the Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct.
Most significantly, Kgatleng MP, Isaac Mabiletsa, in his submission, requested a conference of media practitioners and the parliamentarians, so that the lawmakers should better address legislation dealing with the press.
BOJA made a submission to former minister, Boyce Sebetela, proposing a national media plebiscite on policy that would also discuss self-regulation, establishment of a public and community based media, establishment of mechanisms of government dialogue with the press and a freedom of information law.
The response, communicated through Permanent Secretary, Miriam Nganunu, was reported: 'Tell them that the minister is not interested in a national conference'.
Be the first to Write a Comment!
Copyright © 2008 Mmegi/The Reporter. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
