Senior managers at the University of Swaziland (UNISWA) have been attempting to manipulate the Swazi news media during the present disruption at the university.
At first their tactics seemed to succeed but now they are losing the fight for public opinion.
What UNISWA did was to issue public statements on the dispute and rather than subject themselves to questioning by journalists they issued these statements as paid advertisements. What this meant was they could say anything they wanted without having to explain themselves to the public.
An added dimension to this was that the university has been using these press statements as the main way of communicating with its own students and staff.
For readers outside of Swaziland who do not know the background to this dispute, let me sum up its history briefly.
In August 2007, UNISWA changed the way it organised its academic year and introduced a system called semesterization which meant that students who previously only took examinations in May each year would now have to take exams in December and May.
Students believing that they had not been consulted properly on the changes (and also believing that they would be at a disadvantage under the new system) protested.
UNISWA senior management would not consult with students and a series of class boycotts took place. Then on the night of 9 December 2007, the night before exams were due to start, some students caused extensive damages at the university’s Kwaluseni campus. The examinations were cancelled because the university senior management felt that the safety of students and staff could not be guaranteed.
Examinations were rescheduled to start on 21 January 2008 and students said they would not write them. UNISWA continues to refuse to consult with students and has banned students from meeting (which almost certainly violates their rights under the new Swazi Constitution).
Since early January armed police, often dressed in full riot gear, patrol the Kwaluseni campus. Razor wire surrounds the examinations venues.
In January 2008, the UNISWA academic staff association ALAP fearing for their members’ safety if the exams went ahead discussed a possible boycott of the examination invigilation. Lecturers discovered, through one of UNISWA’s press releases / advertisements, that if they didn’t invigilate ALAP would be taken to court and staff members would face dismissal.
That brings us up to date, so let’s get back to the main plot.
The UNISWA management’s attempts to avoid discussing the situation have worked to an extent because they were the only side putting out information. But it didn’t take long for the students to catch up and overtake the university in the public relations stakes.
Student leaders have been appearing on radio and television and writing in the newspapers outlining their point of view.
Compared to UNISWA, they come across as the voice of reason. All along they have said they are not against the semesterization system, but they object to the way it has been introduced. They also say that they want talks with UNISWA management, but it is the university that won’t meet with them.
A typical example of the students’ views appeared in the Times Sunday, 13 January 2008 in which student leader Nqoba Mabusa sets out six major concerns the students have.
By being heavy handed in the way it issues information on the dispute the UNISWA management has alienated first its own students and then its own staff. That looks like two own goals that could have been avoided.
UNISWA has also managed to alienate public opinion generally in the kingdom as trade unions and civil society organizations added their support to the students.
The problem at UNISWA now extends beyond the university’s campus into the Ministry of Education and also the Swaziland government’s Cabinet. The Minister of Education was quoted in both Swaziland’s dailies on Thursday (17 January 2008) calling on the students to write the exams.
Even though it was probably making a good deal of money from the UNISWA adverts, the Times of Swaziland called for the dispute to end and for the January exams to be cancelled while the Minister of Education intervenes in the dispute.
In an editorial comment the Times (14 January 2008) wrote, ‘[... ] students could now be spectators of a clash between security forces and lecturers being frog-marched into the examination rooms with guns pointed to their heads.’
The comment goes on to say that UNISWA is ‘an institution that should boast of the most highly qualified academia expected to educate others in good leadership, management and problem solving. What are we going to learn from this; that guns will now rule at the institution?’
Although the Times editorial shows a commendable spirit of independence, the news media in Swaziland have to a large extent let the public down on this issue. They have been quick to print reports about student violence on campus and they have published the paid-for adverts. But what is ethically unacceptable is that they have extracted sections from the advertisements and published them in the news sections as if they were independently written reports from the newspapers’ journalists.
Also, journalists have not been very good at giving the background to the dispute. It is constantly stated that the issue is about ‘semesterization’ but the first time I saw an attempt by any news media at giving a clear definition of semesterization came in the Swazi Observer today (Friday 18 January 2008) and that was written not by a journalist but by a law lecturer at the university. It also came about four months into the dispute.
The article although welcome was incomplete as the writer failed to recognise that semesterization has failed in many universities across the world and as a result those universities decided to ditch semesterization and revert to their previous status.
It was nonetheless a brave attempt by the Observer. Now would someone tell us why UNISWA considered it necessary to introduce semesterization into Swaziland? Since the introduction of semesterization is at the centre of the dispute this is a very serious omission.
The news media have also mostly failed to call to account those in power. Even the Times in its editorial could only come up with the suggestion that the Minister of Education should intervene or if this was beyond his abilities then King Mswati III should ‘come to the rescue of both students and lecturers who are now learning and teaching under a state of emergency’
Regular readers of this blog will not be surprised that journalists are failing in their duty to their readers. There are three possible reasons for this present failure. The first is that journalists don’t themselves understand what ‘semesterization’ is all about and they don’t have the research skills to go find out.
The second reason is that they don’t possess the analytical skills to, for example, look at the paid-for advertisements and realise that their contents raise issues that need to be debated. I don’t recall any journalists questioning UNISWA senior management’s decision to ban student meetings at the campus, even though this looks like a clear violation of the students’ constitutional rights.
The third reason is a deeply set cultural one. Swazis do not question people who are in power. To journalists the Vice Chancellor is a big cheese and his word carries at least the same weight, if not more, than any chief in Swaziland. The Chancellor of UNISWA is the king and the chairman of the UNISWA governing council is the king’s half-brother and we all know what happens to newspapers that dare criticise the king.
See also
SELF-CRITICAL SWAZI JOURNALISTS
No comments:
Post a Comment