|
|
Joel Netshitenzhe
Keynote address: AGM of the Freedom of Expression Institute
25 June 1998
I. Millions of coaches
This is not the best day to speak to any audience, after SA's dreams
in France 98 were shattered; but
in this experience are some lessons
for freedom of expression. Forty
million coaches, each with an opinion
about how SA could have won the
Soccer World Cup: fire the coach;
fire the SAFA executive ... Players
demanding to be fielded, and resolving
to do it their way ... Those in
positions of authority calling for
discipline and tenacity to the rules
- rules made to be broken; and with
"palookas" to boot. Most
people say now we can sit back and
enjoy the World Cup. But South Africans
spoke and shall continue to speak:
anger the coach; unsettle the players;
irritate those in positions of authority;
and win matches in our own minds.
That is freedom of expression. Indeed,
from this cacophony of millions
of views, we should improve ourselves
as we prepare for the future!
Thanks
for the invitation to share views
at your AGM: and congratulations
in a period in which structures
of civil society, so critical in
battles of the past, are struggling
to stay afloat. It's not often that
a representative of government is
called upon to speak at a function
on freedom of expression. But this
reflects the fact that, though GCIS
and FXI are in different and seemingly
contradictory terrain, we are all
activists for freedom of expression.
During the years of resistance,
we were all inspired by the commitment
that what emerges from our sacrifices
should be an antithesis of the apartheid
system with its mind control and
attempts to impoverish the intellect.
I
took the liberty to remind you of
the pain of the World Cup to underline
the fact that millions of views
are critical building blocks for
progress. Freedom for people to
air their views is a condition for
any society to maintain balance
in its endeavours. Yet it should
be emphasised, again from this experience,
that if society has to succeed,
there should be an overriding objective;
there should be rules and frameworks
within which freedoms are exercised.
If not exercised judiciously, we
can find ourselves floating rudderless.
Especially for a society in transition,
freedom of expression can be a double-edged
sword.
II.
Freedom of expression in the current
period
We
are in quite an intense period with
lessons galore about freedom of
speech and the challenges that attach
to it. We knew then that apartheid
sought to stifle free exchange of
views. Now we all know that it also
tried literally to poison the mind.
We are now informed that, through
the CBW programme, they tried to
debilitate Nelson Mandela so he
could not lead us to democracy.
We know that those who were brave
enough to investigate and expose
these programmes were bankrupted
by a judiciary which was staunch
in its defence of the system.
But
around these TRC hearings the question
of freedom of expression and the
right of the public to know has
arisen in stark fashion. How do
we ensure these rights, but do it
in such a way that it does not lead
to the proliferation of dangerous
weapons - that this country does
not violate very sensible international
conventions to which it is party.
In the midst of this discussion,
there has been suspicion of positions
taken by government. Some understanding
has been reached with the TRC; government
is monitoring the hearings, and
reserves the right to intervene
regarding the question of whether
some of the hearings should be held
in camera. In such instances, the
TRC can then independently determine
what should be made public. This
government does not have anything
to hide. It is committed that ours
should be governance in the sunshine.
The
approach of government to the issue
of freedom of expression is underpinned
by the Constitution and Bill of
Rights; by numerous pieces of legislation
and practices of state and governmental
institutions such as parliament,
the Judicial Services Commission,
the IBA, the Public Protector, the
Auditor-General and many others.
It should be acknowledged though
that there will always be a temptation
on the part of those in positions
of authority to treat their activity
as confidential, that it is only
too unfortunate if things become.
We should constantly guard against
this. It should be acknowledged
also that some criticism of government
will go overboard, and that some
will be hiding in public authority.
But in the overall, our society
enjoys a unique condition, especially
for a developing country in the
midst of revolutionary transformation.
Besides
the things mentioned above, a few
weeks ago, Cabinet approved the
Open Democracy Bill which was due
to be certified this week for submission
to parliament before the end of
the month. The Bill identifies the
overriding objective as "generally,
to promote transparency and accountability
of all organs of state by providing
the public with timely, accessible
and accurate information and by
empowering the public to effectively
scrutinise, and participate in,
governmental decision-making that
affects them". It guarantees
access to information in government
hands and on the functioning of
government; it guarantees access
to personal information in both
government and private hands and
the right to correct such information;
and it protects whistle-blowers
who expose corruption, serious maladministration
and dishonesty. Such is the commitment
of our new society to the right
to information and freedom of expression.
Students
of social science will marvel at
the kind of political transition
that South Africa is undergoing.
Why is it that at such an early
period of transformation - awash
with dangers of violent and other
unconstitutional resistance - the
government believes that sunshine
is better than secrecy! Some may
say this was imposed on the liberation
movement in negotiations. But one
real answer is the idealism of the
resistance fighters and the principles
that underpinned the anti-apartheid
struggle. Yet another is the type
of solutions that we found as we
started to build the new order in
the womb of the old. FXI members
will remember not only the struggles
against apartheid censorship in
the earlier years; but also how
we burnt the mid-night oil at the
beginning of this decade to craft
the IBA Act as well as regulations
for the selection of the SABC Board.
III.
Freedom of expression in a political
transition
These
experiences contributed a great
deal to what we have today. But
we should also acknowledge that
there is an inherent self-interest
in what those in government do.
There is a sense in which openness
in our conditions is one of the
most effective weapons for the promotion
of the democratic project and for
its defence.
In
the first instance, government,
and the GCIS in particular, proceed
from the premise that when people
have the factual information they
need; when they are able to form
balanced opinions about the direction
in which the country should go;
when they know what government is
doing and what their rights are
- then they are better able to take
active part in changing their lives
for the better. They are better
able to access resources, to lay
claim to their rights in the economic
arena as workers, as middle strata
seeking to remove the glass ceiling
of apartheid, as aspirant capitalists
struggling to be at the centre of
the country's economic endeavours.
Thus the right to information and
freedom of expression are a necessary
condition for our difficult transformation
process. Change cannot be driven
merely from on high, from the towers
of Union Buildings or the hallowed
chambers of parliament. Indeed,
to promote transformation, and to
ensure that the public is fired
to defend democracy, it is necessary
that the people understand the processes
at hand.
There
is a measure of self-interest for
those in government to preach "governance
in the sunshine" also because
they know that they cannot use the
apartheid instruments of state to
effect change. It is in all our
interest to shed light on the nooks
and crannies of the remnants of
the apartheid state - the system
of patronage, the networks of corruption
and nepotism, the web of Third Force
elements burrowing in state structures
and beyond. Exposure of all this
- which is part of the splendid
work the TRC is doing - helps to
bring to the surface the boil in
our body politic that needs to be
lanced.
As
Government Communications, our priorities
are inspired by these principles.
For these reasons, we have put a
high premium on development information:
including the use of radio, mobile
videos, creative arts and culture
as means of bringing information
to millions who have no access to
vital information. This also requires
close working relations with structures
of civil society. It requires the
speeding up of the project to set
up telecentres and Multi-Purpose
Information Centres.
We
believe also that media diversity
is critical to free speech. In this
regard, we fully agree with the
submission of FXI to Comtask that
the foundation of the values of
freedom of expression is "the
search for truth via the free exchange
of ideas, the pursuit of individual
autonomy and self-fulfilment, and
the exigencies of political activity".
Certainly, this cannot be realised
in a situation in which 82% of all
ABC-registered publications are
in the hands of four monopolies,
who in turn also control the distribution
channels.
Few
will dispute the fact that South
African electronic media has entered
its most vibrant period in history,
precisely because the three-tier
structure of ownership allows diverse
views and styles and content to
be heard. And I hope fewer still
will argue against the proposals
of Comtask that print media ownership
needs to be regulated through the
Competition Bill that Cabinet approved
yesterday; that distribution should
be exercised on a common carrier
basis to eliminate bias; and that
an independent Media Development
Agency should be set up to channel
funds from government, the industry
and international donors to those
in need. The call for diversity
in the news-rooms of existing establishments
cannot be overemphasised, and the
efforts of the National Editors'
Forum to address this through its
Corrective Action Committee deserves
unqualified support. All this should
help ensure that the search for
the truth via the free exchange
of ideas, that FXI referred to,
is not dictated to by wealth or
economic or political power.
IV.
Free speech and limitations
It
is therefore critical that the declarations
in the Constitution and legislation
about free speech should be backed
up by programmes primarily aimed
at affording those who are disadvantaged
the wherewithal to air their views.
One cannot manufacture voices or
force people to speak; but it is
our responsibility as FXI and GCIS
to help create the conditions for
those who wish, to have their voices
heard. The search for the truth
via the free exchange of views also
means the right to impart information
and ideas, as instrument such as
human rights commission of the European
Community acknowledges.
At
the same time, it is universally
accepted that freedom of expression
is not an absolute right. It is
neither an end in itself, but an
important foundations of the broader
freedoms and human rights. In fact,
there is a sense in which it can
be a double-edged sword, especially
in our conditions of a delicate
transition. It requires regulation
and management based on both formalities
of the constitution and legislation,
as well as sensibilities of a democratic
instinct. This finds expression:
- firstly,
in the conditions contained
in the Constitution about propaganda
for war, incitement of imminent
violence and advocacy of racial,
ethnic, gender and religious
hatred;
- secondly,
the Open Democracy Bill contains
its own limitations regarding
issues of privacy, security
and so on; and it also goes
further to propose variable
fees and measures that will
prevent attempts to gain commercial
advantage - indeed so that the
rights in the Bill do not become
a pastime for the rich and the
powerful;
- thirdly,
we do have experience in the
past few years of rights used
for purposes of undermining
society's regime of rights -
privileged people seeking to
undermine transformation in
the name of human rights;
- further,
free speech should go with responsibility,
especially with regard to the
media: the recent story about
a body-guard of the Deputy President
with stolen cars which do not
exist; and the Sunday Telegraph
on a fabricated deal with Libya
are cases in point; and the
question is what the media themselves
should do as a collective to
contain especially disinformation
campaigns;
- lastly,
after years of censorship and
self-censorship, we need to
guard against self-interested
censorship, i.e. the refusal
to publish facts which are true,
or opinion articles, interview
and even letters simply because
they are critical of policy
in a media establishment.
V. Some challenges
Arising
from the mission that FXI has set
itself, are questions of paradigm
that need to posed: Is the institute
doing enough to promote freedom
of expression by assisting doing
enough to promote freedom of expression
by assisting to bring this freedom
to the poor and disadvantaged, or
has it merely set itself the task
of being watchdog of a supposedly
repression - and secrecy-prone government?
Is the Institute involved in the
debates around the issue of diversity
on the side of the disadvantaged
or is it merely concerned of diversity
on the side of the disadvantaged
or is it merely concerned with maintaining
the status quo? Does the institute
have a role in helping to broaden
the intellectual horizons of communicators
both in government and the media,
so they can help society grasp the
complexities of our transition?
What role can it play in the great
national debate around the question
of a national consensus so as to
contribute to taking the country
to new heights?
We
raise these questions because we
believe that FXI and GCIS can in
many areas work as partners in pursuit
of development information, in the
search for media diversity, and
in assisting rural and other disadvantaged
communities to leapfrog stages into
the information age - do all this
without compromising each other's
independence. We are also keenly
aware and grateful that GCIS is
in a sense a product of the work
of the FXI, in terms both of the
individual leaders who took part
in the Comtask process and the collective
contribution of the institute as
a whole.
In conclusion, if you were to ask
me what fundamental challenges face
activists for freedom of expression
today, I would say: As we now sit
back and freely enjoy the Soccer
World Cup, let the 40-million coaches
flourish; let their voices be heard.
But they will need some sense of
direction and consensus about the
destination, so in future we can
succeed in the actual field of play!
Joel
Netshitenzhe
CEO, GCIS
Issued by Government
Communication and
Information System
(GCIS)
top |
|
