Comments on: Zapiro, SABC and Freedom of Speech in South Africa

By: Maruis

Maruis — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 05:47:11 +0000

“Editorial independence and press freedom should never be placed above the national interest” – Thami Mazwai at a SABC interview for a position on the SABC board. This was pre 2000. This is still the mindset even more so today. Who decides what is in the national interest? The ANC is communist. Freedom of speech does not exist in communism. Enough said.

By: JamesBlacks

JamesBlacks — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 17:50:55 +0000

I agree with Antiaa and PM.Real Democracy does not exist in africa.What we have in africa in my opinion is “Tailored Democracy”.

As soon as they get into power ,politicians tweak the rules to suit their personal and party’s agenda leaving the masses who voted for them in the dumps.

It is the unfortunate truth and it is quite a shame because with all the natural resources and scenery that Africa has been blessed with, Africa should be the wealthiest continent in the world.

People should be lining up at African Embassies in western countries trying very hard to get a Visa to enter Africa.Ancient Egypt is an example of how great mordern day Africa could have become if our leaders had been more selfless and dedicated to the upliftment of their citizens.

Instead wars,curruption, domestic violence,genocide ,epidemics, political manipulation and political censorship has become the order of the day.May GOD have mercy on Africa.

By: Antiaa

Antiaa — Fri, 29 May 2009 13:47:42 +0000

@ThaboM – If you regard my opening remarks as silly, that is naturally your prerogative. I stand by them.
As far as I am concerned, one need only look at Africa (SA included) with an open mind to see that TRUE Democracy and Freedom of speech does not exist.

By: ThaboM

ThaboM — Fri, 29 May 2009 12:49:47 +0000

@Antiaa – I disagree with you on the level of harshness b/w what Uys showed on TV and the approach of Zapiro. Uys tired harder at being artistic and clever in his criticsim. Zapiro approaches it very differently, nuance is not in Zapiro’s vocabulary.
I am, however, glad that you put together a reasoned line of argument as opposed to where you began with a broad and in my mind nonsensical statement. Democracy and freedom of speech in any society is never a finished process. It needs to be worked on but progress is not served by silly statements. I still believe that the way to go is to create private spaces for freedom of expression that are completely independent. State-run broadcasters seem to have to pull off a strange balancing act.

By: Antiaa

Antiaa — Fri, 29 May 2009 12:03:30 +0000

@ThaboM. Whether Uys’ theatre shows were harsher than those aired on TV is neither here nor there.
The point I was trying to make was that, in the the “new South Africa” we are supposed to have more freedom of speech than in the apartheid era and that Uys’ satire, which was aired on TV, was no more politically harsh on the then ruling party than is Zapiro’s today,which is not being aired. But when individuals have such narrow-minded autocratic views, then other points of view and relevant arguments tend to fall on deaf ears.

By: Semaj

Semaj — Fri, 29 May 2009 11:59:09 +0000

Antiia hit the nail on the head at 08:23 – `Freedom of speech in Africa is like Democract; it doesn’t exist’. So was PM when he suggested Freedom of Speech is only for the ruling party. Maybe he was being sarcastic, but that’s the way it is. SA is sinking deeper and deeper into socialism. Semaj.

By: ThaboM

ThaboM — Fri, 29 May 2009 09:30:40 +0000

@PM I am glad you accept there is a nuance. The absence of satire does not automatically imply the absence of freedom of speech and therefore comments about Zimbabwe are basically crap.
That a democracy that is 15 years old needs to learn to deal with various issues should come as no surprise to anyone. My point on the UK was to show you that democracies evolve, they are not an abstract ideal. Also note that John Major got nowhere this amount of stick from the press. The British press has been evolving too.
As far as the SABC is concerned, what is needed is to create more space for private television, which will cater to different tastes, audiences and allow different forms of expression which will lead to greater freedom of speech.
As for the comment on the Uys, the apartheid government restricted what was shown. If you attended his theatre shows, you got a harder different feel.
Zapiro still has many avenues in which to express himself. What we need to get away from is expecting the state or state-owned institiutiions to be the drivers of this. In most countries, that freedom is provided by the private institutions and that is the way it should be.
Personally, I do not like Zapiro and do not want any of my taxes to go towards promoting his nonsense, but he is free to use other avenues.

By: Antiaa

Antiaa — Fri, 29 May 2009 05:44:17 +0000

@PM- At least during the Apartheid era, notwithstanding all the censorship that was in place, the Satirist, Pieter Dirk Uys, who I am sure you recall and who was forever poking fun at the leaders of the old National Party, was often aired on SABC

By: PM

PM — Thu, 28 May 2009 20:26:06 +0000

@Thabo –
1) Cornflakes are also not necessary for freedom of speech to exist – the point is satire is an often a controversial art form which is stifled if freedom of speech is not available. Nobody is saying satire drives freedom of speech.
2) When Mr Zuma and the ANC can take the same amount of media flak Gordon Brown and Labour are dealt by the media then I’ll accept your comparison. The slightest hint of anything negative said about either in South Africa leads to uproar and threats of court cases here. When it starts resulting in physical violence, I’ll let Mr Tsvangirai help you make the comparison with Zimbabwe.
3) Yes – the state broadcaster should only show positive things about the ruling party. Anything out of those bounds should be deemed too controversial and unacceptable for public viewing. Welcome to China.
4) I agree partly with your point in (4) however the issue at hand is freedom of speech not the programs on SABC that broadcast stuff. Given that the point of the article is that it’s Zapiro’s fundamentally controversial representation of President Zuma that is preventing the show being aired, my argument is appropriate. Why can the ANC followers get away with saying anything and why is Zapiro not extended the same right?

Thabo, if we allow the government to restrict expression in any of its various forms – particularly when that form challenges them, we may as well go back to the days of apartheid where if you spoke up you were beaten up. I’m not defending Zapiro per se – just his right to air his opinion.

By: ThaboM

ThaboM — Thu, 28 May 2009 12:52:51 +0000

1) Yes, freedom of speech is necessary for satire to exist, but satire is not necessary for freedom of speech to exist. That overstates its’ importance.
2) this makes us more like the UK than Zimbabwe everybody’s favourite example, Read the wikipedia entry on Splitting Image and BBC radio. Note also it was provided under public service conditions by private broadcasters.
3) Private channels exist for Zapiro to be shown, He does not necessarily have to rely on the state broadcaster. If his program is of value, they will pick it up and given the controversy they probably will. Zapiro is not denied the right to express his art form, he has other avenues from private television, to using the web. What he is denied is access to funds via a state-owned entity.
4) Statements by the ANCYL and Malema are reported as news. They are reported not just by the SABC but by the private secort (newspapers, TV channels, etc) so your example is not appropriate.