It is not very often that journalists are themselves a new subject, and when this happens it is often negative. Newsmen and woman in Malawi have lately been in the news, owing to President Joyce Banda’s outlandish attack on the local news media. President Banda ceased an opportunity when representatives of a local media freedom watchdog, NAMISA lobbied the President to sign a media freedom pact known as The Declaration of Table Mountain.

The declaration was agreed in 2007 at 60^th World Newspaper Congress and 14^th Editors Forum Conference, held in Cape Town, South Africa. The declaration asks African governments to remove repressive laws and legislations that restrict press freedoms. Specifically the so-called “insult Laws” and “criminal defamation”. Chairperson NAMISA, Anthony Kasunda recently told a local newspaper that these laws promote a culture of self-censorship. Journalists vet themselves in fear of these laws. The consequence of self-censorship, he noticed, is that the public is denied crucial information.

Freedom of expression and free flow of information is crucial in democratic societies and of course people have a right to know. This is not just a journalistic freedom; it is for the general public. Joyce Banda’s outrage over the local media owes it to her own misguided views, or false pretence of what local media ought to be doing. She wants uncritical media that will part her on the back even when things are clearly wrong. She wants media that will “help her”.

Whatever this helps means, but this is not how media in democracy work and Malawi media knows it. Consequently, she has accused the media of disliking her. Apparently the President’s family has advised her stop reading the local press, as it is unhealthy for her. President Banda went further saying that she now understands the late President Bingu wa Mutharika’s dislike of the local media. Mutharika implemented some restrict media laws, which to her credit, Banda has since repealed. If President Banda thought this would silence the media she got it wrong. The president went to unprecedented level of accusing the media of “killing” Mutharika. Her accusations are not true, of course. Mutharika died of heart on his way to the hospital after collapsing in the comfort of presidential palace. There were no journalists there.

President Banda may have said all this thinking that the delegation will be apologetic, especially as they were there on a lobbying mission. If this was the thinking then she miscalculated the move again. Newspapers have since carried critical analysis of their experience and her refusal to sign the declaration; a stern reminder to the president that she promised to promote media freedoms when she descended to power thirteen months ago. Daily Times (editorial put it this way:

“The criticisms from the State House against professional investigative and analytical journalism that expose corruption, maladministration and social ills are not strange. Her [Joyce Banda’s] former predecessors travelled through that same route of criticising the media when it exposed shortfalls of their regimes. As a matter of fact, as watchdog of those in power, the media does not expect praises from the state house.” Daily Times, April 23, 2013; p4

And “exposing shortfalls” is what a good section of Malawi media, especially press, have been doing. In particular, weekend newspapers – perhaps because they have more time to investigate stories, are good at exposing malpractices with the government and public institutions. The deficit is that such exposé die by the time the next edition is out. Newspaper reports rarely, if at all, lead to any investigations by relevant authorities.

This is a worrying situation and the media fraternity should be equally concerned about it. It shows that those running public institutions have very little to no regard for what the media reports. Hence they cannot act on it. This undermines the great and commendable job that a good number of journalists do in the country, journalists that are often working under pressure due to poor infrastructure, stringent legislations, inadequate pay etc.

It would definitely be big leap-forward to have a government committed to protecting press freedom, not just in theory but in practice as well. Yet the key issue remains that excellent media exposés are not acted upon. This will not change even if Joyce Banda was to sign the Table Mountain pact now. Yes, this may help reduce self-censorship, which would certainly translate into more news stories in the public domain, stories that would not otherwise be there. But the role of journalism in democracy does not and should not end there.

Authorities must take media reports seriously. Media reports verified facts. This can only be achieved if the likes of Joyce Banda stop seeing the media as trouble markers but professionals working in the interest of public. Excellent journalism exposing corruption in high places is of no use if the government is unwilling to do anything about it. Joyce Banda should realise that her attack on the media is a fertile ground for corruption and impunity. President Banda should see a bigger picture and realise that her stance will not hurt the media. It will hurt the citizenry she swore to serve and protect. War on media is war on poor people. The poor always major victims of myopic, reckless and selfish policies.

This post also appears on Africa on the Blog

In June 1993 Malawians voted in a referendum that gave them an opportunity to choose between continuing with one party state or adopt a multiparty democracy in which 64.69 per cent of Malawians chose the latter. This outcome paved way for presidential and parliamentary elections in May 1994 which Bakili Muluzi won, ending Hastings Kamuzu Banda’s 31 years of dictatorship.

Malawi’s new democratic constitution came into force in 1995. Civil society groups, including the media, academia, and civil and human rights organisations emerged as major winners. Malawians were now free to express themselves as they pleased. Women were among the most notable beneficiaries of the new constitution. They were finally liberated from the shackles of Kamuzu Banda’s 1973 dress act that banned wearing of miniskirts and trousers for women.

Still, it needed a societal mind-set shift on what was an acceptable form of dress for women in the country. Seeing a woman wearing a miniskirt or trousers was almost inconceivable for the majority of the population that had learned to see and accept things the Kamuzu Banda way.

Though still a very conservative country, women in Malawi now dress as they please without fear of persecution or harassment – barring an episode in early 2012 when group of men, allegedly vendors, harassed and undressed women wearing miniskirts and trousers on the streets of Lilongwe and Mzuzu. This caused a national uproar, including a condemnation from the late President Bingu wa Mutharika. The national outcry form men and women alike signaled a huge shift in attitude towards freedom of dress for women in the country.

It was for this reason that it appeared like a practical joke when it cropped up on twitter recently that Malawi’s oldest media group, Blantyre Newspapers Limited (BNL), (publishers of five newspapers: one daily and four weeklies) had banned its female workers from wearing trousers and miniskirts at work. There was a reaction of shock and disgust on social networks, Twitter and Facebook, when it eventually turned out that it was not a joke after all. Apparently, BNL decided to evoke an alleged clause in its workers’ “conditions of service”, which a female employee at the news group confided: “…it is not that clear, it just says dress smartly. No mention of minis or trousers.”

Perhaps no one at BNL bothered to read their “conditions of service” after all? Such possibility is inconceivable given the reaction from the workers. What is clear however is that female employees are not happy and their reaction certainly indicates this took everyone by surprise. A female at the news group confirmed this was the case:

“It was something management decided, we were simply told, no room to argue. Those who want to defend their dressing have been told to go [to the management] as individuals … if you don’t have clothes you can get a loan [to purchase necessary clothes], if you don’t like the decision leave/resign,” she said.

At the time of writing, it was unclear whether the female workers were accepting the decision willy-nilly or they would fight against it. Disregarding how the situation will unravel, this is a particularly worrying trend given that this is a big and influential media group in a democratic country where freedoms such as the one it is denying its workers are paramount. BNL bosses would be among the first to complain if any of the media related constitutional provisions were violated by anyone. Why does it please them to violate constitutional rights of its employees?

Would BNL bosses not want its journalists cover a scandal like this if it were to happen to, say, a government department? Should Malawians count out BNL to ever stand up and protect the constitution of the land if, say, the government was to decide that women in Malawi should no longer wear miniskirts and trousers? Is there any safer piece of clothing than trousers for a woman? Let alone a journalist that her pursuit for information can take her anywhere? And yes, there are ‘smart’ females out there. Why should ‘dressing smartly’ only apply to women?

Times Group is in a business of holding public official and influential people to account. It is very worrying when an organisation in the business of making news become news itself – BNL bosses ought to know this. This may be an in-house issue, and there is plausible argument for that but BNL bosses have a moral obligation, not only to explain itself but to reverse this ban – it has no place in democratic Malawi.

This article is also published on Africa on the Blog

The Daily Times newspaper of Friday February 15, 2013 ran an editorial that correctly laid a damning verdict on lack of institutions of democracy in Malawi. It is safe to say that this includes Malawi parliament, it is an open debate whether it is fit for its purpose. The editorial decried the ‘dormancy’ of the country’s civil society organisation (CSOs) since Joyce Banda’s ascendancy to power last April following a sudden death of her predecessor, Bingu wa Mutharika whom she had been a deputy of from May 2009.

The Times’ editorial observed that CSOs are particularly crucial in Malawi given that “our democratic system at all its levels are not working, hence the relevance of having organisations that work to advance the position of the common man.” It added: “The CSOs have been pivotal in galvanising people into action whenever people in authority chose to deviate from the correct path.”

The editorial was a direct comment on a news story the newspaper carried adjacent to the editorial – on page 4. The news story reported on the CSOs meeting they were organising to discus their ‘dormancy’. The paper reported out that the meeting was to be headed by CONGOMA, a national non-governmental umbrella body whose chairperson, Voice Mhone, the paper said neither admit nor denied that the agenda of the meeting was to discuss the CSOs ‘dormancy’. This is an indication that the CSOs are treating the issue as sensitive and Mhone may well have avoid revealing some uncomforting information, from CSOs point of view.

The editorial recognised the important, courageous and unmissable contribution that the CSOs have made in Malawi, particularly in 2011 when the country was sliding into dictatorship, when Malawi leadership became arrogant, self-saving and intolerant of any criticism. This was a period when being a government critic, as the majority of the CSOs were, meant putting one’s life and their loved ones in danger. It was noble and plausible cause indeed; their courage cannot be underestimate.

However, the story observed that Joyce Banda’s appointment of some of the key CSOs leaders into various government and parastatal boards has weakened the CSOs and ‘dormant’. It noted that the government through Minister of Information, Moses Kunkuyu has argued that the appointments are simply to utilise available talent in the country and not necessarily to marginalise operations of the CSOs. Nonetheless, Simeon Maganga, the author of the story cites a ‘confidential’ source within the CSOs who without confirming government’s deliberate attempt to stifle the CSOS, agrees that the appointments have definitely weakened the civil society.

The source confided:

“Some of our leaders are seating on highly politically charged boards of parastatals where they draw hefty allowances more than their net salary in their NGOs. So, it’s not that the government has given them bags of money but they have access to government’s money so much that it has compromised their independence thereby weakening the civil society.”

The appointment of civil society leaders into various parastatal boards and the ‘dormancy’ of CSOs have happened simultaneously. Coincidences happen and this may well be the case but the CSOs ‘dormancy’ has understandably caused a stir in Malawi, especially among middle class business owners and white colour workers who have a better understanding on the operations of the state – no wonder this was a newsworthy story. This social class has seen their business interest suffer and purchasing power deteriorating due soaring inflation that has made the cost of living unbearably high for them and almost impossible less earners.

Unlike politicians and those on taxpayer’s salaries, it is difficult for the general public to hold the CSOs to account even though they exist to work for the interests of the public. Yet the general public is their constituency, CSOs exist and survive in its name and they must be open to scrutiny and criticism. Arguing about ‘liberation’ of the poor people – wage labourers (proletariat) in a society ran by the ruling elite who owns and control all the means of production (bourgeois) Karl Marx observed thus:

“Among all classes that confront the bourgeois today, the proletariat alone is really revolutionary… The lower middle class – small manufacturers, small traders, handcrafts men, peasant proprietors – one and all fight the bourgeois in the hope of safeguarding their existence as sections of the middle class… If they ever become revolutionary, it is only because they’re afraid of slipping down into the ranks of the proletariat.”

The question of ‘dormancy’ is reflected here: have the CSOs leaders, with the government money the ‘confidential source’ told The Daily Times they have access to, settled on safeguarding their own interests not the people they claim to speak for, like Marx identified centuries ago? Only they can say, categorically. Yet very sentence in Marx’s quote reflects the status quo.

Posing this question is no a failure to honour and/or recognise the work and sacrifices that CSOs leaders have made in this country. On the contrary, it is their past success that has brought this issue – success can sometimes be catalyst of our future failures and as public figures and institutions you are judged by the status quo. “Nearly all men [and women of course] can stand adversity”, said Abraham Lincoln, “but if you want to test man’s character, give him power,” he added. CSOs need to explain themselves:

Why stay quiet only at a time when most of CSOs leaders have been given board memberships, coincidence? Unlike before, why are the CSOs quiet at a time when the country is undergoing through a painful economic crisis? Why is that most senior CSOs members publicly refused to back CAMA protests against rising cost living while agreeing with its grievances? These issues ought to be ironed out if the CSOs want to maintain their integrity and be taken seriously again by the public that rightly feels betrayed.

Let us hope the on-coming CONGOMA led meeting will address these pertinent issues and communicate them to the public clearly. It is an open secret that lack of communication bleeds rumours and speculations; silence and aloofness only succeed to affirm the same.