In this week’s report we take a look at the current threat to freedom of expression in the alliance and also look at the issue of racism in the advertising industry.

Freedom of Expression under threat within the SACP, Cosatu and ANC alliance

Debates and space for critical engagement is essential for democracy. There can never be enough emphasis on this point. It is therefore unfortunate that African National Congress (ANC) has chose to stifle debates by resorting to use of derogatory terms to describe opposing voices in the Congress of South Africans trade Unions (Cosatu), South African communist Party (SACP) and ANC alliance. Cosatu’s Patrick Craven says there is a tendency within the ANC to label in derogatory terms those who have different views. Members of the ANC have used terms such as ultra left and counter-revolution to describe Cosatu members.

Craven says the labeling is aimed at nothing but stifling debate in the alliance. “Calling someone counter-revolution in South African basically means those people are enemies and you do not debate with your enemy you do away with them,” says Craven. Last month the Mail and Guardian newspaper reported that the ANC released a paper in which they launched an attack on Cosatu leaders who are seen as ultra left. The document is said to be targeting Willie Madisha, Cosatu’s general secretary Zwelinzima Vavi, SACP secretary general Blade Nzimande, National Union of Mineworkers general secretary Gwede Mantashe and Cosatu’s public sector policy coordinator Neva Makgetla.

It accuses them among other things of having ultra left tendencies and it threatens to stamp out left wing elements. According to the Mail and Guardian, the ANC’s paper speculates that Cosatu may want to de-link labour from the ANC, and that the Cosatu may end up forming an opposition political party.

Cosatu have however denied these allegation. Despite the fundamental differences between the two organizations Craven says there are no talks of forming another political party. “We are a very patient organization,” says Craven.

He says Cosatu is there to look out for its members’ interests. He added that at the moment Cosatu is working towards drawing members from the country’s 20 million people which is the country’s workforce to increasing its membership that currently stands at about two million people. According to Craven the federation tapping into the informal sector such as the taxi industry and street traders. The federation has also announced that its membership is on the rise.

Cosatu and the ANC have fundamental differences around economic policies. While the two fought apartheid as a united front, they continuously find themselves at odds in the post apartheid South Africa as ANC follows pro-market economic policies which are in sharp contrast with Cosatu that believes in strong developmental state intervention.

Cosatu says it gives credit to the ANC in its major victories against racism, provision of housing and widening accessibility of other social services. It however argues that these achievements have been cancelled by rising unemployment and increasing poverty. “The electricity crisis in Soweto is a classical example where more people received electricity but cannot afford to pay for it,” Say Craven.

Since the ANC adopted the Growth Employment and Redistribution (gear) policy Cosatu has been fighting the ruling party to reverse its policies. However, very little has been achieved from the debates. But, Cosatu remains hopeful that sooner or later the ruling party will come to its senses. According to Craven the federation is planning to continue with bi-lateral talks with the ANC and already there is a meeting schedule to deal with current crisis. “The problem,” says Craven “is that we are not operating as an alliance.” Given the poor servicing of black communities under apartheid South Africa, critical engagement and cooperation on issues of service delivery and freedom of expression are crucial. It will be improper for the ANC to coerce its allies in accepting the ruling party’s point of view.

The ANC cannot claim a monopoly on solutions to unemployment, poverty and other economic, social and political problems of the country. It is therefore the duty of all organizations, social, political and economic groups to make a contribution and they should be given a platform to air their views.

The ANC with its history of struggle against the apartheid regime is better placed to understand the need for tolerance as far as debating is concerned. There must be space for critical debates, and they also must accept and consider valid point coming from the opposing voices.

Denial of space for critical engagement has been a pitfall for almost all post-colonial government in Africa. Today Zanu Pf in Zimbabwe after 21 years in power has not build sound political and economic policies for the country because it completely shut out criticism.

The ANC must learn that the denial of space for critical debate will only lead to its failure to see alternatives and hence its pitfalls in governing and retaining democracy.

FXI Presentation to the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Communications

Poor communities in South Africa have limited access to media, to enable them acquire information that is relevant to their lives, and also to express themselves in order to contribute to national debates. While the main source of income for media companies in the country is advertising, the findings of the Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI) National Community Radio Forum (NCRF) research report that there is discrimination (on the bases of content and the racial group that listens to the station) and several other problems in the advertising industry is a cause of great concern.

It appears as though the problem of limited access to media among black communities will never be solved unless something is done urgently. Adverting is affected and it also affects target audience of a particular media house. And if distribution of adverts is done through consideration of the colour of skin and content then it will be very difficult to distribute the media to reach black South African in rural areas and township with the kind of media they deserve. FXI Presentation to the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Communications raises these problems and also makes recommendations.

Section One

The findings of the research were as follows

1. Community radio stations are still facing problems when they approach advertisers because of the delays that were caused by the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa in issuing four-year broadcast licenses. Advertisers are reluctant to enter into long-term contracts with stations as they argue that the future of stations that hold one-year licenses is not certain. For more on this subject see www.fxi.org.za/cmrn/cmpru/index.htm

2. There is perceived discrimination on the side of advertisers towards black stations. It was found that the average advertising income for a largely white station is R1, 2 million whereas the income for a black station is R100 000.

3. Rural stations were most affected by the practice of advertisers. They faired much more badly than their urban counterparts.

4. In some cases it was found that advertisers attempted to influence the content of the stations’ programmes. In one case advertisers complained about the content of a programme which they said was too ‘hard’, meaning too political in addressing issues. Advertisers gave the station management an option of either loosing the revenue or ‘toning’ down the content of the programme. The management bowed to this kind of pressure by partnering a black presenter with a white presenter. For the FXI this is a clear case or demonstration of suppression of freedom of expression.

5. Another finding was that there is ignorance on the side of advertisers. Many seem not to understand community radio and the potential that it has to attract listeners. What is interesting for the FXI is that while advertisers might claim ignorance for this new communication medium they (advertisers) have on the other hand discovered new mediums to place adverts. There is an increased use of outdoors advertising (billboards, taxis, trains, sports, etc). It can be argued that advertisers are not simply ignorant but they might be prejudiced against community radio.

6. There are also cases of unscrupulous agencies and brokers who take advantage of community radio management, most of whom do not understand the somewhat complicated processes of advertising. It was found that in some cases agencies did not pay stations all the revenue that is due to them. The NCRF made us aware that there was a news agency that used to act as a brokerage. What they did was to introduce a barter system where they would provide stations with news and ask stations to allow them to enter into negotiations with advertisers. Thus they exchanged news with advertising revenue. The injustice here is that no value was placed on the news that they were providing to the stations. It is possible that they received more revenue as compared to the value of the news that they were selling to the stations.

7. Lastly, many stations complained that the government does not support them. What stations are asking for is not donations or subsidies from the government. Rather, stations are arguing that what the government can do, through different departments and the GCIS, is to enter into partnerships with stations for programme sponsorship. An example can be a programme on Aids prevention. This will assist stations not only to meet some of the recurrent costs but also to be more relevant in addressing the needs of the community by being informative and educative.

Over and above making these points, the FXI/NCRF Policy Unit submission noted that stations are gradually be made to rely on advertising and therefore become more like commercial stations. The danger with this approach is that it leads to the commercialisation of community media, a medium that must be kept as much in the hands of the public as possible.

Section Two- The Commodification of the Media

The second argument advanced by the Policy Unit was around what we see as an increasing commodification of the media. In advancing this observation we focused on the developments around the corporatisation of the SABC. Drawing on the experience of the US public broadcast services, the Unit argued that over-reliance on advertising revenue for the continued functioning and growth of the public broadcaster, enforced mainly by the macro-economic policies of GEAR, will lead to the SABC loosing its character of as a public broadcaster where the three main functions which are, education, information, and entertainment, are balance.

The SABC is also undergoing a corporatisation process that is characterised by commercialisation. This turns the SABC into a business entity rather than a public institution. Such a development will ultimately compromise the public mandate of the broadcaster. More than that it will lead to the SABC being more alienated from the public, whose only value to the broadcaster will be as taxpayers, whose taxes are used to finance the corporation, and as payers of television licenses.

Lastly, we argued that there has not been any attempt to give more meaning to public broadcasting by involving listeners (the public) in the affairs of the SABC. This for us is a greater challenge that needs to be addressed. This for us is what is lacking in the debate around racism in advertising.

Section Three- What Can Be Done

The third section of our submission was on what needs to be done to address racism in the advertising industry.

1. Firstly, the industry needs to be monitored. While other stakeholders have argued that a more representative body comprising of advertisers, marketers, and the media, needs to be formed, we feel that such a body will be lacking a very important component of the media circle, the listeners and readers. Our concrete suggestion was that there is a need for a conscious effort to bring in listeners into the picture, not just as peripheral players but perhaps as the most central component of a ‘watchdog’ group. The main function of this group will be to monitor and hold accountable all players within the industry. Monitoring will include ensuring that there is transformation within the industry itself and more importantly to ensure that there is equity in terms of how adspend is placed in different media. This body must be independent of government.

2. The GCIS can assist community radio stations by coordinating programme sponsorship for various stations. See point 7 in section one.

3. The most important intervention mechanism will be to reverse the macro-economic policies that force the state to reduce public spending for the public broadcaster. The GEAR policy needs a rethink. This will require that debates around the media (and advertising) need to be taken out to the broader public. Failure to do so will mean that such debates remain elitist and ignore the very people that the media is aimed at.

For the Policy Unit, the most important challenge is to popularise these debates. The time has never been more opportune for us to ensure that ordinary people gain ownership of the media, especially the public broadcaster and community media.

 The FXI/NCRF Policy Unit presentation was made by Console Tleane. A full text of the presentation and the final research report will be made available soon.

For further information contact: Scotch Tagwireyi, Information and Communications Officer, Freedom of Expression Institute: Phone 27 11 4038403 Cell 27 72 3572699 Fax 27 11 4038309