Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Media, Information and Publicity, George Charamba, has stated that there will be no issuance of broadcasting licences to private players.

This despite the fact that it are more than two years since the signatories to the Global Political Agreement claimed, among other things, to be “[d]esirous of ensuring the opening up of the air waves and ensuring the operation of as many media houses as possible.”

The Zimbabwe Association of Community Radio Stations (ZACRAS) issued this response to Charamba’s statement:

ZACRAS response to George Charamba’s report to the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee

The Zimbabwe Association of Community Radio Stations (ZACRAS) is dismayed by statements made by the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Media, Information and Publicity, George Charamba, that there will be no issuance of broadcasting licences to private players.

According to Charamba, the government has no intention of issuing licences to private players in the near future until it has developed the capacity to monitor and regulate the activities of the new players. The Zimbabwe Independent of 12-18 November 2010, reported Charamba as having made these remarks when he appeared before the Media, Information and Communication Technology Parliamentary Portfolio Committee.

Recently, the Minister of Media, Information and Publicity, Webster Shamu, was reported as having acknowledged the need for the liberalisation of the airwaves so as to usher in independent radio and television stations. ZACRAS is now disturbed by these conflicting statements from Charamba. Charamba is a civil servant who is supposed to implement government policy, whereas Shamu enunciates these policies. The question which therefore comes to mind is who is running the Ministry of Media, Information and Publicity; a government Minister or a mere Secretary?

Charamba went on to add that the current levels of investment in broadcasting infrastructure in the country creates no room for new entries as espoused by the Global Political Agreement (GPA). Presently, two of ZACRAS’ members, Radio Dialogue in Bulawayo, and CORAH in Harare, are equipped with broadcasting equipment which will enable them to start broadcasting once they are granted licences. Last year, Minister Shamu visited Radio Dialogue and was impressed by the station’s state of preparedness for broadcasting.

In 2005, the Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe (BAZ) invited applicants for broadcasting licenses. The question which one therefore asks is why BAZ would take such an initiative if the broadcasting infrastructure was really not permissible for entrance by new players?

The policy makers’ denial of licencing new broadcasting players is a blatant disregard of citizens’ right to access information from diverse sources. Attitudes such as these are not only retrogressive but are a major stumbling block towards the creation of a diverse and pluralist media environment. The delay in the proper reconstitution of BAZ, and the perennial piecemeal amendments to the repressive media laws, on its own, stands as testimony of a lack of political will on the part of policy makers to liberalise the airwaves.

The broadcasting frequency spectrum is a public resource. As such, it should be accessed by those who have means to utilize it and not be restricted by the dictates of those who seek political mileage.

ZACRAS acknowledges the need to regulate and monitor the use of the broadcasting frequency so as to guard against its abuse. However, it is ZACRAS’ view that frequency management and use should not be detrimental to the needs and aspirations of citizens.

It is ZACRAS’s conviction that the government has no part in regulating and monitoring the operations of broadcasters. ZACRAS believes that there is need for the setting up of an independent broadcasting regulatory authority. The independent broadcasting regulatory authority should be mandated with monitoring and regulating the broadcasting industry through issuance of licences and maintaining checks and balances on licence holders.

Needless to say, the selection into the independent broadcasting board should be done upon consultation with all relevant stakeholders and be as transparent as possible. Transparency will ensure the creation of a legitimate board whose operations are devoid of partisan political, economic or individual interests.

It is ZACRAS’s belief that instead of monitoring and regulating broadcasters, the government should concern itself with creating a conducive national policy framework for broadcasters, upon consultation with all concerned stake holders.

The establishment of community radios is an essential part of development, as it enables communities to devise development initiatives and strategies to tackle pertinent issues such as agriculture, mining, health, education, water and sanitation. To this end, ZACRAS remains committed to promoting the creation of an environment which promotes the establishment and licensing of community radios in Zimbabwe.

“Creating DMZs – Everyone’s Responsibility”

The Book Café, Fife Ave Mall (upstairs)
Thursday 25 November, 2010 – 5.30-7pm

Speakers: Jona Gokova (Crisis Coalition), Netty Musanhu (Musasa Project), 3rd Speaker (TBC) and Chaired by Sally Dura

This year marks the 20th 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence Campaign, and with this important landmark, The Book Café Gender Forum takes cognizance of the struggles all around the world to fight all forms of violence.  The 2010 campaign theme is Structures of Violence: Defining the Intersections of Militarism and Violence Against Women.

How is this relevant to present day Zimbabwe?  It is important to note that Zimbabwe is not exempt from militarism, she is emerging from periods of gross human rights violations especially those that occurred in 2008 during the election campaign period as well as during the elections.

“To embrace militarism is to presume that everyone has enemies and that violence is an effective way to solve problems. To leave militaristic ways of thinking unchallenged is to leave certain forms of masculinities privileged, to leave global hierarchies of power firmly in place, to grant impunity to wartime perpetrators of violence against women.”

Recently there were spurts of violence during constitution outreach meetings and soon in 2011 Zimbabwe is expected to go through the electoral process again.  This comes too soon for a nation that is trying to heal from recent wounds.  How can men and women help create safe and tolerant communities let alone be safe whilst at it in a politically volatile situation?

The Book Café Gender Forum invites you to its one-year anniversary as well as engage in the discussion under the topic “Creating DMZs (demilitarised zones) – Everyone’s Responsibility.” Started in November, 2009 by Pamberi Trust an arts development organization based at The Book Café in Harare the forum is aimed at contributing to initiatives of advancing gender equality and promoting women’s rights in Zimbabwe.

The Gender Forum has successfully managed to attract attendance from a varied cross section of the Harare’s population.  This is a monthly discussion, targeting human rights activists, members of civic society, women artists and members of the general public.

The discussion is FREE and all are welcome.

Promise Mkwananzi suggests that massive protests by Zimbabweans will be the only way to get rid of the Mugabe regime. In his article below he appeals to the MDC to restore and strengthen their support with “grass roots oriented” organisations like ZINASU, the NCA and the ZCTU. Of course it’s questionable how much of a real constituency any of these NGOs actually has. But recently at the Progress in Zimbabwe conference held in Bulawayo, social and political commentator John Makumbe said that dictators do not hand over power through democratic means. Listen to John here, and read more of Promise below:

ZANU PF has repeated its mantra that they will not allow MDC-T to rule the country. The seriousness of their utterances can only be ignored at one`s own peril. This is exacerbated by an even more worrying development of declaring Robert Mugabe President for life. These are no illusionary rumbles, ZANU PF means it. This makes it clear that whatever reforms, if any, will be reached, the election will simply be another terrific war. Despite that, MDC will win that election because ZANU PF has no more support base whatsoever. Thus, in my view, you could for example repeal POSA, AIPPA etc but still retain the same undesirable conditions which they created, or even worse. This is because ZANU PF is not going to adhere to the normative legal/political/constitutional/ frameworks. They are just going to bar MDC rallies without any pretence of any sort of legal basis. They will either simply say you cannot meet or just send police and militia to come and beat the hell out of you, without having to explain anything. If they do this once or twice, you will be sure that MDC rallies will be a no-go area. ZANU PF will simply ignore international condemnation from the West while SADC/AU will just watch and declare the elections as unfair but still recognize Mugabe as President. They might even suggest fresh negotiations aimed at another GNU with ZANU PF in charge. Nevertheless, in a secret ballot, the MDC will and can still win the elections. In this dramatic scenario, I am trying to illustrate how much it will not be enough to simply rely on the normative democratic institutions alone. From the look of things, winning an election will not enough for one to govern. However elections provide a very good basis to launch a mass uprising against Mugabe and drive him out of office for good. This is especially so if Mugabe would, despite his violent campaign still lose the election dismally.

This by the way is a very likely scenario.  The first round of elections in 2008 provides a perspective. Soon after the election counting was done and rumors began to filter that the MDC had won the election. Impeccable sources have it on record that many in ZANU PF were preparing to flee. However, because the MDC still believed so much in the goodness of ZANU PF they helped calm the people by urging them to be patient until the results were officially announced. One might argue that this was a strategy to ensure that there is no chaos, which could provide ZANU PF with an excuse to declare state of emergency and suspend the results altogether. On hindsight, the calmness did not work in favor of the MDC. In fact, it allowed ZANU PF time to recuperate, re-strategize and launch a massive come back. ZANU PF went ahead to operate a de-facto state of emergency, leading to a violent June sham. We all know what happened. In 2002, again the MDC restrained its supporters, urged calm and hoped that Chidyausiku would nullify Mugabe`s victory. Of course Chidyausiku did not and will not that.

That is the premise of my argument: that under an authoritarian regime; you cannot rely on normative institutions alone. There is need for that extra push to be provided by the masses. The big question of course is whether the people are ready for such a costly enterprise, and my answer is yes, why not. The leadership must mobilize conscientize and prepare the people for this. There is no alternative to this. This would include mass protests such as stay aways, boycotts, demonstrations etc-compounded with the election defeat; such a situation will put Mugabe regime in a weaker position and will provide the international community with enough bases to pressure Mugabe to step down. It is also my contention that the rank and file of our coercive state machinery is sick and tired and want change. However, before the civilians can shake the corridors of ZANU PF rule, they remain limited in what they can do.  That is why it has become so imperative for the MDC to restore its relations with its grass roots oriented alliances such as ZINASU, NCA,  ZCTU and others who will be very crucial in this seemingly impossible task. There is need for further deliberative engagement!

A recent statement from Reporters Without Borders:

Bill would restrict public access to official information

Reporters Without Borders calls for the withdrawal of bill which is about to be submitted to parliament and which would allow the authorities to block public access to official documents including judicial decisions, new legislation and public records.

Announced on 22 October and called the “General Law Amendment Bill,” the proposed law’s sole aim seems to be to place additional obstacles in the way of access to information and thereby hamper the work of the media even more.

“Drafted by members of the coalition government’s Zanu-PF wing, led by President Robert Mugabe, this bill would just aggravate the already precarious situation for Zimbabwe’s media,” Reporters Without Borders secretary-general Jean-François Julliard said. “It is a political manoeuvre designed to prevent any critical examination of the government’s actions.”

Julliard added: “The bill is extremely dangerous as it would allow the authorities to adopt unjust measures without anyone knowing and without anyone being able to protest. It shows that the government is rejecting transparency in favour of secrecy and abuse of authority.”

Under the proposed law, the publication of any government document would require prior permission from the authorities. A human rights group or a journalist, for example, would need the justice minister’s permission to publish a judicial decision affecting the public’s rights. This would restrict the ability of ordinary citizens to monitor what the authorities do and, as such, it is contrary to the principles of good governance.

The bill’s announcement has coincided with a number of developments in recent weeks that have raised concerns about a renewed crackdown on the media. The government announced at the start of this month that no licences would be issued to new radio or TV stations. Two journalists, Nkosana Dhalmini and Andrison Manyere, were arrested while covering a public debate at the end of last month and were held for two days.

And an arrest warrant was issued last week for The Zimbabwean editor Wilf Mbanga in connection with an article critical of President Mugabe that was published after the 2008 elections. Mbanga has lived in London for the past six years.

Zimbabwe already has two laws that throttle free expression. One is the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA), adopted in 2002. The other is the Interception of Communications Act, adopted in August 2007. The coalition government made significant efforts to limit their negative effects earlier this year, for example, by issuing licences to several privately-owned dailies. This bill constitutes a major step backwards.

I recently had the privilege of being at the ‘Progress’ in Zimbabwe conference organised by the Mass Public Opinion Institute, Bulawayo Agenda and the University of Johannesburg.

Various national, regional and international speakers participated, including: Amanda Hammar, Bill Freund, Blair Rutherford, Blessing Karumbidza, Brian Raftopoulos, Charity Manyeruke, Claude Kabemba, Easther Chigumira, Erin McCandless, Godfrey Kanyenze, Ian Phimister, Ibbo Mandaza, John Hoffman, John Makumbe, John Saul, Jocelyn Alexander, Josephine Nhongo-Simbanegavi, Joy Chadya, Kirk Helliker, Kumbirai Kundenga, Lionel Cliffe, Luise White, Mike Davies, Richard Saunders, Rob Davies, Roger Southall and Showers Mawowa.

Some of the stand out comments for me included:

• John Makumbe on The Parties & Their Politics: In Southern Africa, no liberation movement has ever handed power over to another political party. It is therefore obvious that liberation movements are necessarily dictatorial. So it is naïve to expect to remove them from power through democratic means. Any dictator who is susceptible to removal from power through democratic means is not a dictator. More

• Brian Raftopoulos on Labour’s Past, Present and Future: Raftopoulos discussed the ways trade unionists have tried to use an industrial relations discourse in order to avoid political intervention. Trade unions in Zimbabwe, as elsewhere, are very much children of the Enlightenment – they are very much those who have pushed for universal rights, and have often fought national repression through a recourse to a call for universal rights. This was interpreted by some as labour becoming ensconced in a kind of cosmopolitan Western discourse. Raftopolous found this wrong on two scores. Firstly, it misses the long historical precedent of this kind of discursive framework within labour – it’s not a new thing. Secondly, it assumes that because there is some agreement between international positions and the position of the labour movement in Zimbabwe, that the latter is complicit with imperialism. This is to assume that that whole project can be defined by how it is understood from outside, without looking at the local dynamics which are generating and producing those particular discourses. More

• Ibbo Mandaza on ‘Intellectuals’ and Progress in Zimbabwe: Radical scholars were systematically exorcised from positions of influence over the state. Mugabe’s Zanu PF is right wing, despite its anti imperialist rhetoric. The international community is less concerned about democracy and human rights than they are about stability. Thus, if it is accepted that there is a level of stability now as compared with 2008, this is accepted as “progress.” More

• Easther Chigumira on Landed Economies – Farming & Farmers Then & Now: Responding to Blessing Karumbidza’s presentation, Easther Chigumira questioned his convictions that farming “then” (as in the 1980s) is really so different from farming “now.” She noted there is still multiple farm ownership, still patronage, still bifurcation, but it is by class, not race. Key institutional structures, such as markets, are weaker than they were in the 1980s. Thus, she said, she was not as optimistic about new farmers, particularly given the long term degradation of the environment which has happened in the process. There is gold panning, sand mining, organised by suitcase farmers. Is that really progress? More

• Kirk Helliker on Civil Society – Strategies for Emancipation: Helliker argued that much of the conflict in contemporary Zimbabwean society is a discourse around state politics. The struggle is a struggle for state power. This, he said, marginalises more democratic radical popular movements – like the land movement – captured by state and delegitimisesd by liberals. He agreed that just because trade unions develop a position towards the state, and international capital develops the same position, this doesn’t necessarily that there is some sort of alliance, or that the trade unions are in the in pocket of international capital. However, he cautioned, there is a similar risk of reductionist thinking if you argue that the land movement was just an election ploy. This reduces the agency of rural people and war veterans to being simply pawns of Zanu PF. More

• Luise White on Zimbabwe Compared – ‘Progress’ in the Rest of Africa: White warned that governments of national unity simply reinvent the one party state with more international clout than the one party state has had since the 1960’s. She said this is retrogressive. There is now a single party apparatus that has access to international funding and donor participation. More

For a full listing of write ups and audio files from the different sessions, view the ‘Progress’ in Zimbabwe conference index page