The repercussions of either proposal are a potential death knell to South Africa as a committed democracy. Either proposal clearly undermines the constitutional right of every South African to access information and a free press. Sixteen short years after the fall of apartheid, South Africa again finds her freedom staggering on a dangerous precipice.
In essence, the Protection of information bill permits all sectors of the state, i.e. government departments, parastatals and municipal councils, to dictate which of their internal information be open to public access. If passed, this law effectively leaves whistle-blowers and journalists reporting on this information facing up to twenty-five years in jail. The suggestion of a Media Appeals Tribunal similarly smacks of nothing more than a legitimised avenue for political interference in the free press.
The national press, academia, the literary world, religious leaders and general public have all voiced their fears over any gag placed on the media by the state. This proposal potentially catapults South Africa back to the dark days of social and media oppression, and censorship. We cannot let this happen again.
The South African government and the ANC clearly have a short, if not conveniently, selective memory. The global free press was once a close and effective ally in the long struggle against apartheid. This relationship now appears to be wilfully jettisoned in a move that some will inevitably interpret as the next step in a subtle and devious replacement of one faltering and oppressive regime by another.
The current government and the ANC is threatened by truth, as was the case for the former apartheid regime. This proposed denial of information mimics the same knee-jerk reaction needed to underpin apartheid . A public kept ignorant is staple to any oppressor.
The government erroneously believes that a free press prescribes and ultimately defines public opinion, and that this could be regarded as a threat to the state. A free press is there to inform, but more importantly, to initiate debate around the issues affecting society, regardless of whether the spur for discussion is based in absolute truth. In this context it should be reiterated that the state is by no means a proponent of truth and transparency. The press consequently has the right to use tools of opinion and speculation to engage public sentiment, in an ultimate attempt to elicit an image of the truth.
An imperfect press is essential in raising uncomfortable questions, and casting shadows over government and society in general. The process of pointing out all the possible aspects pertinent to an issue, and the consequent permutations, is needed to reveal truth, or untruth, as the situation may dictate. This is the duty of a free-thinking media. The state's forcing of one-sided reporting is a dangerous practice designed to benefit only a status quo up to their eyeballs in paranoia.
South Africans have learned the hard way that the democratic process is not perfect. In the public domain there is a continuous tug-of-war between fact, fiction and opinion. In this system of checks and balances, public consultation provides the environment for truth to be confirmed or challenged. The cyclic process of claims and counter-claims played out in the press is a foundation of any growing or mature democracy.
South Africa has fought and suffered for the sake of truth. It is inconceivable that this nation should surrender that personal sacrifice to a power-drunk government and it's political hitch-hikers hell-bent on brokering only their own survival. Short-term fear is reason for this ultimate sell-out, taking SA back down the slippery slopes of deceit and injustice.
This immature government must realise that it is not 'selected information' that threatens their tenure, but all information. This is the basis of a democratic society – transparency provides a dynamic tether of public opinion against which democracies operate.
Truth is a concept entirely relative to the views of the individual writer and reader. However, having an opinion, whether right or wrong, is the cornerstone of freedom. An individual's prerogative to vent their feelings and convictions publicly is a fundamental right and privilege that should be encouraged. Whether or not these opinions or feelings are the absolute truth is immaterial. The process of exchanging opinions engages communities to freely contemplate their surroundings and push for the improvement of society as a whole. It is the right of the public to assimilate and scrutinise information from free sources.
The free press, which includes the literary world, is vital to our intellectual freedom. In South Africa it is evident that some sectors of the press face constant persecution at the hands of the state and it's cronies. This phenomenon is disturbing, and has to end.
The tabloid press, in particular, is often criticised for their output and methods of operation. Allegations, misrepresentation, erroneous facts and manufactured news are staple to daily life in the tabloids. These publications are consequently despised by celebrities, governments or any other individuals suddenly in the public eye, usually there for the wrong reasons.
The public appetite for scandal, embarrassment and disgrace dutifully results in an essential role for the tabloids in the news cycle. Questionable reporting, or not, they provide a semblance of news to a sector of the community generally bypassed by the formal and traditional press. The creation of awareness and stimulation of discussion by the tabloids is critical to the democratic process. Each person has the right to access information concerning the public domain. This provides a springboard to investigate this information at a higher-level and a stimulus to form opinions.
Censorship of this broader journalistic process essentially infringes basic freedom of thought. The state cannot dictate what we can think.
A state determining the level and quality of information in the public domain is effectively a dictatorship.
 |
| Source: picsdigger.com |
This proposed muzzle on the media is a stark warning that the scourge of corruption, incompetence and the hidden agenda is not the exception, but destined to be the norm in the halls of power.
The government defends the proposal with claims that “state security” is at risk. They have however not considered that without a free press there can never be legitimate security for any state or individual. Impacting a free press provides security only to proponents of corruption, subterfuge and malevolent intent.
This draft Protection of Information Bill and proposed media tribunal is merely a desperate quest to camouflage the view of this present government and the ANC in the eyes of the historians.
