Zanu PF at sea over 'pirate' radios

By Gilbert Nyambabvu

THE normally unflappable Secretary for Media, Information and Publicity, Cde George Charamba was recently in a bit of a ‘state’ emphatically berating the Botswana government for hosting the relay facilities of ‘pirate’ radio stations which he claims broadcast ‘hate messages’ and ‘anti-Zimbabwe propaganda’ into the country.

Botswana has indeed admitted playing happy hosts to relay transmitters for the Voice of America’s Studio 7 while yet another ‘pirate’ radio station, the London-based SW Radio Africa, whose editorial policy Zanu PF reckons is similarly inclined, allegedly beams signals into Zimbabwe via Madagascar.

However, in what was perhaps the strongest protest yet by a senior government official over the saga, Secretary Charamba reportedly suggested Botswana had effectively ‘usurped the sovereignty of a neighbour by entering into an agreement (with the United States) to attack the country’ adding ‘this makes … resolution of this matter all the more urgent’.

The Herald’s December 4 2009 issue quotes the Secretary as saying, “we know that they (the US government) have recently completed upgrading a transmitter site with the specific intention of (boosting) the media terrorism against Zimbabwe and its people.”

And in response to suggestions the ‘pirate’ broadcasts would continue until Zimbabwe ‘liberalised (its) media space’ Secretary Charamba retorted; “This country (Zimbabwe) has had a State broadcasting monopoly since day one of radio services. Why is it that VOA never beamed messages into the country during UDI?

“Why didn’t they do this all throughout Rhodesia if they cared so much about the people of Zimbabwe? How about during that thing called Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, why did they not broadcast?

“Why is it they never found it necessary to broadcast into Zimbabwe at independence and … only saw the need to start when we embarked on the land reform programme? What is the principle at work here?”

Coming from a senior government official and considering it referenced a supposedly ‘fraternal’ neighbouring country, this is pretty robust language which suggests Cde Charamba and his political principals have had it to their back teeth with the activities of the ‘pirate’ radio stations.

But while Zanu PF complains to no end about SWRadio Africa and Studio 7’s activities, the fact is that the rhetoric is mere political posturing because, at the very best, the ‘pirates’ only pose a marginal threat to the party.

Secretary Charamba, as a communications expert and seasoned industry operator, certainly recognises that media effects are hardly ever ‘direct’ and people will not necessarily believe that Zanu PF is a vile political party because ‘pirate radio’ broadcasts suggest as much.

Research has shown that, quite apart from being ‘passive receivers’ of media messages, listeners/viewers and readers actively mediate the communication process by interrogating encoded content and, very often, reject outright the influences of media propaganda.

If this were not the case then the relentless efforts of the ZBH, Zimpapers and NewZiana/CNG (surely we can include them among the lot) would have seen Zanu PF reclaim the country’s urban constituencies from the opposition as well as enhance its support in the Matebeleland regions where the party’s entreaties have been met with an ‘hatshi, tshiyana lathi’ kind of refrain going back to the first decade of Independence.

Again, the fact that Zanu PF now names Studio 7 and SWRadio Africa among its own GPA ‘outstanding issues’ does not in any way imply the good chaps running these stations are doing a ‘damn fine job’ of spreading ‘hate messages’ and ‘anti-Zimbabwe’ (read anti-Zanu PF) propaganda.

The only reason the ‘pirates’ find themselves among the venerated GPA ‘outstanding issues’ is because Zanu PF’s strategists have realised the issue provides a convenient and very effective way of forestalling the MDC-T’s own demands.

Zanu PF is fully aware that the MDCs cannot force Studio 7 and SWRadio Africa to shut up shop for the simple reason that the opposition parties do not own these radio stations and, therefore, cannot exercise any control over their operations.

Clearly therefore, Secretary Charamba would probably rather Studio 7 and SWRadio Africa continue to operate because their very existence gives Zanu PF reason to tell Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai and his party to go hang over the matter of RBZ Governor, Dr Gideon Gono and the rest of their ‘outstanding issues’.

As such the source of Cde Charamba exasperation with the Gaborone regime must be something far more profound than the prosaic matter of ‘pirate’ radio stations.

In truth, it has since been evident that the Botswana regime are not the sort of neighbour Zanu PF might look to for help with salt on a skint day. There is every chance such saline generosity, if granted, could come laced with a dash of Polonium 210.

The Botswana administration’s frequent public censure of President Robert Mugabe and Zanu PF has stunned regional observers because it marks an unexpected and flagrant disregard for the long-standing SADC tradition whereby leaders generally refrain from public criticism of each other and countries avoid interfering in the domestic affairs of neighbours.

President Mugabe actually sought to remind his counterparts of this political norm during the signing of the Global Political Agreement on the 15th of September 2008 when he gently chided the Botswana leader, General Ian Khama over the issue and stated that, for his part, public criticism of a SADC colleague was unimaginable.

This ‘common aversion to interference in domestic conflicts amongst SADC states, as well as (the) political norm and culture of avoiding public criticism of a fellow African leader’ is rooted in the solidarity which regional liberation movements forged during the bloody fights against apartheid and (neo)colonialism in the region.

Indeed, his palpable anger notwithstanding, Secretary Charamba still carefully coded his attack in order to speak to this liberation legacy and subtly suggested that by electing to ‘give succour’ to the Western ‘regime change’ agenda in Zimbabwe, Botswana was betraying the region’s and anti-(neo)colonialism traditions.

It is a strategy that has, over the last decade or so, helped sustain Zanu PF’s regime preservation efforts by ensuring the existence of a formidable regional bulwark against relentless domestic and international efforts to remove the party from power.

Nevertheless, while Zanu PF has generally counted on the support of fellow liberation movements that remain in power such as the MPLA (Angola), Frelimo (Mozambique), SWAPO(Namibia), CCM (Tanzania) and the ANC (South Africa), the region has not always presented a united front and Botswana is not the only country to show signs of impatience with Harare.

Writes researcher Eldridge Adolfo; “What can be noted is that the few countries that have been willing to openly criticise (President) Mugabe and his Zanu PF … have either never had a liberation party in government (Botswana) or have in fact removed them from office (as happened in) Zambia and Malawi,’.

Zambia under Levy Mwanawasa latterly became quite outspoken; ditto Malawi under Bakili Muluzu. That these countries presently refrain from any public utterances against Harare possibly has something to do with their current leaders’ familial connections to Zimbabwe.

Malawi President Dr Bingu waMutharika’s late wife was a Zimbabwean and he reportedly owns a farm in the country while Zambia’s Rupiah Banda was born in Gwanda which possibly gives him a more intimate contextual understanding the country’s troubles.

Regional observers suggest that SADC has always been torn between those countries borne out of struggle and want to see the grouping retain its ‘Frontline States’ ethos whereby the totemic narrative of ‘liberation’ and its sequel of resource reclamation/redistribution define sub-regional relations in addition to guiding interactions with the wider world.

On the other hand are those countries which, while recognising the struggles for independence as an ‘historical fact’ nonetheless want to see the regional grouping transition to a post-liberation paradigm in order that the objective of greater and integrated economic development envisioned when SADC was formed can be realised.

This latter group view the ‘Zimbabwe crisis’ more as the result of administrative malfeasance and leadership failure instead of just neo-colonial meddling in the country’s affairs by the British government and its western allies as Zanu PF would have the world believe.

To be fair however, this alone cannot explain the ‘contrarian’ and ‘conflictual’ behaviour of Botswana’s government towards President Mugabe and Zanu PF.

Gaborone’s ‘emoting’ may rightly be the result of increasing frustration over the social and economic challenges that country faces which locals (justly or otherwise) blame on the multitudes of Zimbabwean migrants who streamed across the border to escape the economic crisis back home.

In addition, Zanu PF’s argument that Botswana’s provocative interference is also guided by ‘imperial puppetry’ is not altogether imaginary.

That said, it can also be assumed that beyond publicly calling for President Robert Mugabe’s removal from office, the Botswana administration is (behind the scenes) actively lobbying the region to apply greater pressure on Zanu PF over the so-called ‘outstanding issues’ and general implementation of the GPA.

And any indication that such ‘nefarious’ activities are behind the growing regional impatience with the ‘political ping pong’ in Harare would necessarily leave the likes of Secretary Charamba apoplectic with anger.

Indeed, Zanu PF will certainly not have been overly (if at all) cheered by recent developments with regard to the regional mediation efforts in the country’s political troubles.

It is important to recall that following Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai’s temporary ‘withdrawal’ (possible pun absolutely not intended) from government, the state media reported that the MDC-T leader would be rebuffed by SADC leaders on his regional tour.

It was further stated that the regional grouping would not hold any meetings to discuss the MDC-T’s claimed ‘partial disengagement’ from the inclusive administration.

Still, Tsvangirai was duly received by the leaders of Angola, the DRC, Mozambique and South Africa. Subsequent to that, the regional grouping’s Organ on Politics, Defence and Security met in Maputo to review implementation of the GPA where deadlines/timelines for final resolution of the so-called ‘outstanding’ issues were suggested/imposed.

Yet another significant development was the removal of former South Africa President Thabo Mbeki (who also attended the Maputo gathering) from his facilitation role which would have particularly pleased the MDC-T since they were never happy with his mediation.

It has also long been clear that Zanu PF preferred that Mbeki, with whom President Mugabe appeared to share an intellectual and ideological intimacy without parallel in the region, remained facilitator.

A colleague however dismisses as a mischievous flight of fancy any suggestion that these developments necessarily imply that the region is now coming round to President Khama’s perspective on Zimbabwe.

But there can be no disputing the fact that SADC will certainly not allow any political brinksmanship to threaten the Global Political Agreement and possibly induce the collapse of the inclusive administration.

Zimbabweans can therefore find comfort in the fact that SADC will not hesitate to apply the necessary pressure on all the parties to the GPA because the country’s regression to the pre-GPA mayhem portends an even greater socio-economic conflagration for the wider region.

Gilbert Nyambabvu is a former Daily News journalist now based in the United Kingdom.