The content on this page is not written by Polity.org.za, but is supplied by third parties. This content does not constitute news reporting by Polity.org.za.

President Zuma fooling only himself by saying there are no parallels between ANC's MAT and approach of successive apartheid governments to the media
Proposed ANC policies follow same drive of successive apartheid governments to restrict flow of information and knowledge and suppress free thought
ANC seems determined to finish what apartheid governments started





Writing in defence of the ANC's proposed Media Appeals Tribunal (MAT) in ANC Today this past Friday, President Jacob Zuma made the following remarkable claim:

"To even suggest that the ANC and its government could have any similarities to the apartheid regime is not only preposterous, it is also disingenuous and an unbearable insult. Arguments that the ANC wants to muzzle the print media is premised on a falsehood that the ruling party, the ANC has no ethics, morals and values and that it does not want the media to expose some of its cadres when they are in trouble with the law, including corruption."

A comparison between what the ANC is proposing today - both with regard to the Protection of Information Bill and a Media Appeals Tribunal - and the legislation and behaviour of the apartheid government is neither preposterous, nor disingenuous. Indeed, it is entirely accurate and apposite. An examination of the facts demonstrates conclusively that both ideas have their roots in totalitarian thinking, and are born of the same impulse the National Party had - to control and censor the press and control with flow of information to the public.

The National Party government's attempts to control the media are well-documented:

• The Van Zyl Commission: The Commission tabled two reports, one in 1962 and one in 1964 and recommended the creation of a statutory Press Council, "for the self control and discipline of the press". It suggested that the Press Council would have the power to issue fines and impose penalties. In addition, every journalist would be required to register with the Council and accept its code. The media responded with great hostility and the government eventually backed down.
• President John Vorster: Right from taking office in 1966 onwards Vorster threatened to introduce legislation to curb the media's freedom and punish errant journalists. He said the laws would provide "not so much for the punishment of reporters but to make the publishing companies pay for employing those sorts of people". In October 1971 he told a gathering of editors he was still negotiating such legislation. He threatened the press to "act in such a way with the freedom they have that it will not be necessary for the government to decide against the freedom of the press". He admonished the press to "get your house in order or I will do so for you". But even Vorster never actually introduced any legislation to this effect.
• The Steyn Commission: Set up by President P.W Botha it tabled its report on the mass media in 1983. Just like the many other restrictions on press freedom the commission and its two year long hearings were used to apply pressure to the media, to threaten and to harass. It recommended a bill be adopted, called the Journalists Bill, whereby journalists would have to register with and be accredited by the state. It too never saw the light of day.

None of these threats was ever formally adopted, even by the apartheid government. And now the ANC - also a nationalist organisation obsessed with control - has taken up the torch and seems determined to finish what the various apartheid governments started.

There is no question that the idea of a media tribunal has its roots in apartheid-style thinking. It mirrors the van Zyl Commissions' recommendation of a statutory press council and is born of the same contempt for a free and independent media that defined John Vorster's threats and the Steyn Commission's findings. One need only consider ANC spokesperson, Jackson Mthembu's statement that "If you have to go to prison, let it be. If you have to pay millions for defamation, let it be", to see the parallel.

Under apartheid, a series of laws were also aimed at allowing the state to control, suppress, censor and manipulate information. They included:

• The Suppression of Communism Act 44 of 1950 and the Defence Act 1957: Both worked together to outlaw anything propagated to further the cause of communism. What constituted ‘communism' could be determined by the Defence Minister and the definition was so broad almost anything could qualify. The government used this broad ambit to target its critics.
• The Official Secrets Act 16 of 1956 and the Riotous Assembly Act 17 of 1956: Both worked together to restrict the manner in which the media was able to report on gatherings, speeches or statements by people that had been classified as ‘prohibited'.
• The Post Office Act 44 of 1958: Gave power to Post Office to intercept all range of communication, from letters to faxes, but, significantly, also news stories.
• The Publications and Entertainment Act 26 of 1963: Was designed to prevent ‘undesirable material' from coming into the country, including anything that was "prejudicial to the state, the general welfare, peace or good order".

There were several other Acts used to control and manipulate the free flow of information under apartheid (The Criminal Procedures Act, for example, was used to force journalists to reveal their sources). Jointly and severally they worked together to allow the state to keep the public ignorant and to restrict knowledge. And they have many similarities with the intentions behind the Protection of Information Bill, which uses phrases like ‘the national interest' to allow the state to decide what the public should see and what it should not. Like apartheid legislation, its definition is so broad, it could include anything; like apartheid legislation it seeks to classify documents as ‘secret' without due cause and, like apartheid legislation, it seeks to control what information the media and civil society can access, in order to influence the content of what they write.

President Zuma is fooling no one but himself if he believes one cannot draw an accurate and precise parallel between the kinds of pressures that were put on the media under apartheid and the ideas and proposals put forward by the ANC today. Indeed, the similarities are profoundly disturbing.

These proposals represent the initial inclinations of an impulse that, if left unchecked, can only ever result in a closed society, where the media are increasingly harassed, censored and banned, where free thought is restricted and suppressed and where knowledge is controlled and manipulated by the state to further its own interests.