MISA-Swaziland Statement, 18
December 2012
Times of Swaziland
says ‘Free the airwaves’ – MISA Swaziland agrees
MBABANE, Swaziland – Swaziland’s
only privately-owned newspaper has called for the liberalisation of
the Kingdom’s radio airwaves.
In an editorial titled ‘Free the
airwaves’, the Times of Swaziland notes that radio is the
dominant medium of communication in Africa, yet in Swaziland – a
small, landlocked country in Southern Africa bordered by South Africa
and Mozambique – options remain limited.
“Radio is dynamic, alive to the
issues of the day, changeable as the fashions. In Africa, the age of
radio is still very much alive and strong. But not in Swaziland.”
The editorial, which appeared on 18
December 2012, suggests Swaziland should open up its airwaves and
allow more players into the government-controlled ‘market’.
“One very simple way that this
country could tap into its creative potential – especially
economically – would be to allow anyone who wanted to own a radio
station to do so.
“Imagine how a health-focused rural
radio station would benefit local communities; imagine if every
Tinkhundla centre (traditional constituency) had their own radio for
community announcements and educational programmes.”
In Swaziland, where music is part of
the national fabric, the Times editorial dares to “imagine
how the music industry would blossom and nurture our national talent”
if the airwaves were freed from stringent and arbitrary state
controls.
It should be noted, however, that the
Times does not mention stringent and arbitrary government
controls as the reason why the airwaves remain stifled.
Nevertheless, the Media Institute of
Southern Africa in Swaziland (MISA-Swaziland) applauds the Times
of Swaziland for taking a position on this issue.
As it stands, there is one national
radio station in Swaziland – the Swaziland Broadcasting and
Information Service (SBIS). It acts more as a propaganda tool for the
government and traditional authorities than as the public broadcaster
is purports to be. There are some worthwhile health programs that air
on SBIS, however, on the whole, it a long way from a true and honest
public broadcaster that is free to question, criticise, educate, and
entertain.
Earlier this
year the minister for communications told Swazi citizens they
must first clear – or approve – their opinions with their
respective chiefs before approaching the radio station.
The
Swazi
Observer, a state-owned newspaper, reported in August 2012
that “
the Swaziland Broadcasting and Information
Service is not allowed to broadcast any public service announcement
(PSA) that does not support government’s agenda.
“This is contained in
the Public Service Announcement Guidelines of the Swaziland
Broadcasting and Information Services (SBIS).
“The guidelines were
tabled in the House of Assembly by Minister of Information,
Communication and Technology Winnie Nxumalo on Monday.
“They are to be observed
by both the radio station and the public as they are meant for smooth
and professional service to the nation.
“Part of the guidelines
read, ‘Any PSA that is negative or does not support government’s
agenda shall not be allowed.’”
The Swaziland chapter of
the Media Institute of Southern (MISA-Swaziland), a regional
non-governmental organisation that promotes freedom of speech, notes
that the actions taken by the minister of communications contradict
section 24 (1) of Swaziland’s Constitution: “A person has a right
of freedom of expression and opinion.”
More specifically, Section
24 (2) protects “freedom of the press and other media”, and
Section 24 (2)(c) protects the “freedom to communicate ideas and
information without interference (whether the communication be to the
public generally or to any person or class of persons)”.
While freedom of
expression is protected under the earlier clauses of Section 24, in
practice this freedom is often snatched away by leaders and
bureaucrats who invoke Section 24 (3)(a). This latter section permits
speech to be curtailed in the name of “defence, public safety,
public order, public morality or public health”.
MISA believes criticism of
the “government’s agenda”, as well as criticism of higher
authorities to be in the public interest; for trust in the
authorities can only come after that trust has been tested. And MISA
further believes that interpreting the Constitution requires emphasis
to be placed on certain clauses, thereby allowing a more reasonable
course of action
In this case, let MISA
state its belief that freedom of speech, in all but legitimate cases
of libel and defamation, trumps all other liberties. And freedom of
speech, in all but the most rare cases, trumps the often trite
defences of public morality or public order, etc. In reality, those
who invoke the ‘public morality’ clause, for instance, simply
want to suppress information that will embarrass the wealthy and
powerful.
Of course there are rare
moments when information should not be disclosed – if that
information will cause huge harm, for instance, or the information
will cause great pain to a suffering victim. But all factors need to
be weighed against each other, and in all cases disclosure should be
the default option, always bearing in mind that the public has a
right to information.
Again, there are fine
lines between hate speech, offensive speech, and sincerely held false
opinions. And similarly, there are many shades of truth. The best way
to find out what is what is to have an open and frank discussion.
To suppress legitimate
speech in the name of vaguely worded clauses does nothing to bring
Swaziland into the modern world. The only way to work out what terms
such as ‘public morality’ or ‘public order’ mean is to freely
discuses their meanings.
As Christmas approaches,
MISA-Swaziland looks back on a bad year for freedom of expression in
the kingdom. Sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarchy, in many
ways, is incompatible with universal notions of freedom of expression
– even though the country is a signatory to most regional and
international conventions that protect freedom of expression.
Despite this,
MISA-Swaziland remains somewhat optimistic that 2013 will be a better
year for freedom and democracy. National elections are to be
scheduled for the second half of next year. The world will be keeping
an eye on proceedings to see if democracy becomes more than a name.
And it would seem that Swazis are beginning to demand more from their
unelected leaders. Hunger, poverty and AIDS are taking a toll.
One way to help give
Swazis a voice on matters that concern them most is to open up the
airwaves. As American civil-rights activist Martin Luther King Jr
said, “riots are the voice of the unheard”. These words ring
hollow in the ears of leaders at their own peril.
And a question that Swazis
might ask themselves over the festive season, as we sip on a beer and
search the dial for more radio stations, is who actually owns the
airwaves? If Swazi taxpayer money pays for the radio station, why is
it not a true public broadcaster? Why does public money protect state
interests and only allow some senior government voices free rein? Why
doesn’t the radio operate in the public interest? Why aren’t
Swazis getting what they pay for? And why aren’t Swazi citizens
allowed a voice to speak on their own radio station?
In short, why pay for
something that you don’t own and control?
MISA-Swaziland
agrees with the Times editorial
when it says: “We have a nation of creative, talented people
bursting to express themselves and to tackle the ills of this
country, such as poverty.
“Let’s give them more
platforms to do so.”
