Journalists stand the test of time

Dar es Salaam. Looking at what journalists are going through in the country – intimidation, assaults, torture and killing – it is evident that press freedom in Tanzania is at risk. To say the least, there are overt and covert efforts to trample on press freedom – to silence journalists.

This is what is happening in repressive regimes all over the world. Repressive regimes have a tendency of turning against journalists, who expose inefficiency, poor performance, misappropriation of public funds and corruption scandals in top government offices.

During Jakaya Kikwete’s early months as President, he travelled to various parts of the country expressing his gratitude to voters for his overwhelming victory and telling Tanzanians what his government would implement to facilitate development and bring about decent life for all. His words are still lingering on in our memory!

In one of his early visits, Kikwete made an impressive speech in which he asked his new ministers and their deputies to work closely with journalists to enable people to know what the government was doing. In response to this, the ministers and their deputies too promised to cooperate with journalists in support of the President in his new responsibility as the Head of State. This was a good start and the work has not been completed. It was the only time, they said they were going to cooperate with journalists. I have never heard anyone expressing similar sentiments as they did at the time! Was it done to please the President?

A recent proposed penalty to amend section 37(1)(b) of the Newspapers Act, 1976 was increased from Sh150,000 to Sh5 million or imprisonment for three years or both should a journalist or a media outlet be found guilty of inciting violence and publishing seditious material, an indication that some politicians are no longer cooperating with journalists as the President had intended.

The Attorney General, Mr Stephen Werema, while defending this severe penalty against journalists said he was doing it in the public interest, yet when the Parliament was debating the Public Procurement Bill, 2011 he was against imposing a severe penalty against government officials, who would be implicated in sham deals or purchasing used machines as brand new ones. Members of Parliament proposed a severe punishment against any government officials implicated in such deals. In his own words against the severe penalty, Werema said “the Bill shouldn’t be debated with emotion or arrogance”. He explained that what was important was not so much about the severity of the penalty, but the purpose it served to help an offender reform.

I was taken aback when I heard the same Attorney General supporting the imposition of a severe penalty against journalists, while in 2011 he was against the imposition of a severe penalty against government officials, who would be found guilty of purchasing used things and brand them as new or put up the price for that matter. But this contradiction in terms is not new among politicians. It is interesting to hear how some ministers, deputy ministers and MPs flatter the President for the things they don’t believe and do the opposite. For instance, I don’t think what the President asked them to do in 2006 about working cooperating with journalists to enable the people to know what the government was doing is no longer important in 2013, where the same people want the media to be restricted and journalists be severely punished should they report something that doesn’t please them. How will they work with journalists in such an overly suspicious relationship? Is this what the President intended when he told them to cooperate with journalists? After all, sometimes they would dodge journalists when the latter want certain information to balance their stories and when that happens they will be the same people to blame the journalists for publishing unbalanced stories!

Then, why is it happening at this time if it is not throttling and silencing journalists so that they become subservient? This reminds me of a story of two ancient philosophers, Diogenes and Aristippus. Diogenes was having lentils for supper as Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king, looked on. “If you learnt to be subservient to the king you would not live on such garbage as lentils,” said Aristippus. “If you had learnt to live on lentils you would not have to flatter the king,” replied Diogenes.

It is hard to say which philosophy Tanzanian politicians would subscribe to. On the other hand, what would happen if journalists everywhere stop reporting for a day, a week, a month or a year? The point I want to stress here is that, journalists could be having weaknesses in their reporting and it is good to be angry about it, but we shouldn’t overdo it. We can impose penalties against those violating their professional ethics and the law, yes, but not to the extent of being so unreasonable. As we are in the process of writing the new Constitution, let the new Constitution protect press freedom, including freedom of expression and opinion. In my opinion, too much restriction, as touted by the AG and supporters, won’t build our nation. It will only create more hypocrites and flatterers. What we want is responsible freedom, which is not brought about by severe penalties, but by enlightened or well-informed journalists. But we cannot have enlightened and well-informed journalists in the society, which does not provide quality education and there is moral decadence. There is no miracle for making journalists angels where society itself has moulded them into what they are today. Disrespect for moral values is a societal problem for what the journalists are doing is just a reflection of what society is. To change this, we need to start with our education - it should help transform school children to become responsible citizens. Above all, public leaders should show a good example to all other members of the public and if there is a need to impose any penalty or restriction, let it be reasonable.