The major changes in Zimbabwe's governance and electoral system as proposed in a Constitutional Amendment Bill, which at the time of making this submission is at the final parliamentary stage before presidential assent - has exposed Zimbabwe's legacy media inadequcies to wholly interpret the national question and critically play the watchdog role.
Commonly referred to as CAB 3, the third constitutional amendment seeks among other significant changes to increase President Emmerson Mnangagwa and by extension the legislature and local government an additional two years to their current term initially scheduled to end in 2028 to 2030, as well as abandoning direct presidential elections and whittling down the powers of the independent electoral commission.
When this Bill was tabled before Parliament, Zimbabwe's state-controlled media did what it has done before: switching off.
Dissenting voices were blacked out, the coverage of public hearings were reduced to the ruling Zanu PF party's echo chamber with minimal, if at all critical discourse.
The privately owned legacy media outlets, whatever is left of them - attempted to give a platform for dissent and alternative views, though the operating environment was extremely difficult for free expression to thrive.
A classic example of this unsafe working environment for the media being that of journalists at the City Sports Center in Harare that were forced to delete footage of intimidation and acts of political violence that took place at that public hearing.
Keep Reading
- NoViolet Bulawayo’s new novel is an instant Zimbabwean classic
- Jah Prayzah, Zanu PF rekindles ‘lost love’
- Bank workers appeal to Ncube for tax relief
- Indosakusa marks 21-year anniversary milestone
Reports of the heinous crimes against journalists were not as widely publicised and amplified, not because they didn't take place but most media practitioners were fearful to be on record.
Fear and self-censorship, sharpened by the threats posed by draconian provisions within the country's legal framework hindered the coverage of this constitutional moment by the private media, despite some seemingly elite discourse on online platforms.
While - by all measure, there was relative freedom for citizens to robustly debate and engage in the constitutional debate online - for or against, Zimbabwean controlled channels of expression predominantly propagated one narrative.
In any event, access to online platforms comes at a cost beyond the ordinary Zimbabwean and the value of institutionalised media organisations are that of verifiable and credible news and information.
So, without taking anything away from the online news and content creation platforms, the downplaying of the constitutional moment to a mere mirror of the elite narrative by the legacy media distorted citizens engagement. Both on and offline.
CAB3 became politics laid bare — and the media’s failure to interpret the national question for what it was or not, exposed why advocacy for sustained media reform in Zimbabwe cannot stop at constitutional clauses.
Let us for instance consider how the media's interpretation of the parliamentary public hearings, where the debates were quantitative as opposed to being qualitative. It was if Parliament ought to have considered the quantity and not quality of submissions made at these hearings.
Surely, the reportage could have gone beyond the high turnout, which may have not necessarily led to the guarantee of meaningful participation.
The private media on the other hand focused not so much on the quality of certain debates raised by citizens but on the denial of prominent personalities of an opportunity to speak at the public hearings.
Nevermind that their views were already in the public domain and their written submissions made before the very same Parliament.
News stories of these ordinary people expressing divergent views to the government's proposal were subsumed to those of prominent personalities.
The denial of prominent personalities also subsumed news stories of citizens that were denied access, prevented from speaking, which in itself is a denial to the right to free expression and the corollary rights.
Reports of violence, threats or surveillance after dissenting emerged more from non-governmental organisations were least investigated or reported upon by legacy media.
Arguably, when the public sphere is stage-managed, the media has nothing free to report on. Yet for the media not to go beyond the surface in the conduct of these hearings without interrogating the coercion is to fail the basic test of journalism.
The problem is however structural, not accidental. The Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act, which among other restrictive provisions carries with it patriotic provisions that criminalise speech deemed to “injure sovereignty,” in a way had a chilling effect in how journalists covered this constitutional moment.
There have been cases of journalists arrested in the build up to the process of amending the constitution that may have also contributed to this media censorship.
At the same time, there was a fair share of advertising monies to carry messages in support of the bill. The funds, welcome as they are to a media facing sustainability challenges, however deterred the independent coverage of the constitutional amendment process.
The funding in any event targeted media that cover government favourably.
Reports suggest that community radio stations, who are confronted with some legal and political content restrictions that keep them under-resourced, also received some CAB3 advertising revenue.
For stations that are not allowed to carry political content, there was little room for diverse content or alternative views on matters pertaining to the seismic changes to the constitution.
This complex scenario, which conflicts the under resourced community radio stations shows cause why there is need to amplify for broadcasting licensing diversity beyond the plurality that Zimbabwean media currently enjoys.
Press freedom alone cannot fix a system where the law punishes, the regulator controls, and the market is closed.
Advocacy for media reforms cannot merely stop at agitating for “free speech,” without seeking the broader reforms that determine who gets to speak, who's licenced as a credible news outlet, and who gets paid to stay afloat in the news media and information business.
Yet the deficit is not total. The Media Alliance of Zimbabwe (MAZ) successfully contested the patriotic provisions of the Criminal Law and Codification Reform Act, proving that strategic litigation and sustained advocacy can push back against repression.
That strategic litigation victory should, however, just serve as the model, not the exception.
It shows why media reform advocacy must be continuous, coordinated, and focused beyond single bills or significant developments as the case with the constitutional amendment process.
The fight must maintain the reformation focus on how to transform state-controlled media to becoming public service media that carries divergent views.
There is need to sustain work to improve the operating environment, particularly ending journalists’ harassment and impunity for crimes against the media.
Without those changes, every law-making process or constitutional moment as was the case with CAB 3, will find the same media landscape: intimidated, impoverished, and unable to hold power to account.
CAB3 looks set to come to a conclusion in one way or the other, but its lesson remains.
When a constitutional process becomes a succession contest and the press cannot decode nor interpret it for what it is, democracy is poorer.
Zimbabwe does not need episodic outrage after each constitutional moment – never mind the intentions therefore. The country needs sustained media reform advocacy that treats law, regulation, and economics as one battle.
The public deserves a media that can report fearlessly, not one that is forced to delete the story or self-censor. That is the media deficit, which CAB3 unmasked. It is also the media reform agenda we must sustain.
*Nigel Nyamutumbu is a media development practitioner serving as the coordinator of a network of journalistic professional associations and media support organizations the Media Alliance of Zimbabwe (MAZ). He can be contacted on njnya2@gmail.com or +263 772 501 557