Privatisation of the media and national survival in Lesotho

Lesotho is a tiny enclave of the Republic of South Africa covering an area of 30,355 sq. kilometres, with a population estimated at 2.1 in 1997.1 Its economy within the region is often regarded as small and therefore absolutely dependent on that of the Republic. Modern and past writers have tended to emphasise economic dependence, lack of technological infrastructures, geographic hostage position and military vulnerability as the key conditions that place the country and people in servitude to South African regimes.2 ‘The economy of this landlocked country is closely tied to that of South Africa, and it is dependent on this bigger neighbour for trade, finance, employment, and access to the outside world.’3

Nevertheless, Lesotho has made a considerable contribution to the development of the South Africa economy through the sale of its manpower, a fact not often recognised. Some writers have discussed economic relations with a view to demonstrating how Lesotho has subsidised the development of South Africa. Through migratory arrangements, Basotho miners spent most of their healthy lives underpaid in South African mines. As they grew older and fragile, they are returned to Lesotho as a burden to their country and families without pensions or any meaningful savings from their employment.

Pluralism of media ownership

Historically the mass media in Lesotho are foreign as against indigenous, in terms of their technology and structures. They are as such not African, although in their use they have become localised. Like other forms of survival technologies they require adaptability by the receiving culture or society in a manner that such societies can ensure their own preservation and survival.

Primarily, the media processes have to be viewed as part of society’s striving towards self-articulation, identity and existence. The problem of the media being foreign to the blacks is easily demonstrated.

Firstly, even within the regional context the media are relatively stronger in those societies where European economic power still holds sway. Although political control has gone to the blacks, effective operation after colonialism still remains with the former owners - the Europeans. It is easy to say that a country has so many newspapers and radio stations, but the calculation cannot be accurate unless factors of ownership are brought into the general analysis.

Secondly, even where ownership has been claimed by the African population, the maintenance of the structures still depends largely on the owners of the technological skills who, in another sense, are not local blacks but mostly white companies with local or international links.

It is indeed a pity that the inheritors of state power in what were historical European administrations in Africa view themselves as the anointed regimes, inherently different from the rest of the black continent. In the days of white domination in Southern Africa, it was not uncommon to hear statements by white politicians to the effect that black communities were politically unstable. These politicians argued that the economies of black states were turned into a shambles through poor management after independence. They also pointed out that internally the new leaders, since independence, tyrannically dominated their kith and kin without tolerance, allowing no competition in the area of ideas.

The criticism is in part true. But what ‘the new leaders,’ who view the economic problems of the rest of Africa as a problem of immaturity ‘out there’ and ‘not here,’ fail to realise is the fact that the seeming wealth is a result of historic conditions and not of their genius. They also overlook the fact that ownership of the instruments of wealth still remains outside their immediate design and control. What has not much changed are the facts of ownership in these states. The assumption, therefore, that the relatively powerful African states reflect the maturity of their leaders is both arrogant and nonsensical.

Pluralism in print media

When Lesotho attained independence in 1966 the setting was complete. First, the government acquired a system that already existed - a system that allowed plurality of voices through the print media, controlled primarily through registration with the Law Office. One could produce a publication, provided one had the financial capacity to do so within the constraints of existing laws between persons. Freedom to publish newspapers seems to have been won by missionaries through a long tradition of book publishing, which was neither questioned by the colonial government nor offended local authorities. It is therefore not surprising that in the 1930s some educated members of the community also entered the publishing business and produced political publications with a mission to entertain, educate and reform society.4

It can be argued, nevertheless, that the freedom that the print media seemed to enjoy became possible only because a very small section of the population could afford the cost of regular publishing. Thus financing production was itself a restraint for most would-be-publishers. There was, therefore, no need for legal prohibition where costs of production served a controlling purpose.

Electronic media - radio

While in regard to print media a policy of ‘free for all’ seems to have existed and pluralism in publishing was the order of the day, the story of the electronic media is different since they survived under stringent government controls.

Proclamation 5 of 1927 contains some control measures in regard to radio operations and activities within the territory of Basutoland. The High Commissioner, who made the proclamation also occupied the position of Governor-general of the Union of South Africa. Among other peculiarities, the proclamation authorises the postmaster general of the Union of South Africa to issue broadcasting licences in the territory of Basutoland, thus, subjugating the political existence of Lesotho to that of the Union.

Another peculiarity is the stipulation that ‘no person shall be employed as an operator at a radio transmitting station within Basutoland unless he was a British subject.5 So control was not only limited to the provision of licences but also qualified the persons who could be allowed to operate within Basutoland in sending public messages.

Section 13 stipulates that ‘A broadcaster shall not broadcast any news but purely local news.’ The intention of this restriction is not immediately clear. Nevertheless it represents political control of content.

Another peculiarity of the radio proclamation is its stipulation with regard to the qualification of persons applying for licences to operate amateur radio stations. According to the provisions of this law only applications from persons who could speak English fluently would qualify for licensing. The provision excluded the majority of the citizens of Basutoland on grounds of language. Such a provision, by today’s thinking, is highly discriminatory.

New radio stations

Since 1998, four new radio stations have been given licences to broadcast. Of the four, two have a clear independent editorial policy and caused state authorities to question the wisdom of allowing many voices on the air. MoAfrika Radio was condemned and criticised by member of a single party assembly for its style of coverage. The Roman Catholic Radio concentrates on church matters but also deals with social and political issues. Its presentation and slant is different from that of the government. The other stations, Joy and People’s Choice radio stations are essentially commercial and tend to refrain from political controversies. Although, on paper, the licences were issued to Basotho nationals, the study shows that in most cases the bulk of the financial support for running these stations came from outside sources.

Thus the tradition of pluralism in regard to media ownership was well established and existed for over a hundred years in the print media while the electronic media have no claim to the history of liberalism. It has only been since the 1998 abortive general elections that government took steps to free the airwaves and allow a multiplicity of voice to be heard.

What factors contributed towards this development? A recent document published by the Ministry of Information details some of the government’s considerations for introducing a new media policy, allowing pluralistic ownership of the airwaves. The document is a result of two conferences held by the Ministry, to which members of the association of journalists were invited. Although government published a document about its new media policy, and has in fact implemented pluralism in electronic media, an interesting observation at the time of writing is that there is still no law that sets the new policy. It is being implemented through executive directives and not through a legal process.

In its introduction, the document points out that government supports privatisation of the media. Consequently, the Ministry of Information, which owned the only national radio station, would under the new arrangements play a different role in managing media affairs than that of remaining the sole owner and producer of media ‘goods.’ This, indeed, is the essential consequence of the new arrangement. Why was it devised at all when it could not be made law? There are those who feel that change was necessary and long over-due. They argue that for a long time, no one was ever satisfied with the one-sided nature of the national radio station, especially in its presentation of internal issues. For them pluralism in ownership of the media was a welcome development.

Others, on the other hand, feel that an unpopular government at home had no other option than to appear modern and keep in line with ideas current in the rest of the world. For its existence, the government had to appear democratic in order to enjoy external sympathy and support, on which it survives.

Privatisation as economic politics between nations

Although the paper looks into privatisation of the media in particular, it has be noted that the new media policy is part and parcel of the government’s plan to introduce it in all state controlled enterprises. Secondly, privatisation does not seem to have been initiated locally but was influenced by the new global ideological orientation. It follows, therefore, that reference to other enterprises recently privatised, or being privatised, is intended to present the context and a wider picture of the new policy and its consequences – the media being only part of a broader picture.

The fact that privatisation of the media, in particular, has some fruitful benefits for the public need not detract one from observing the overall spirit that begot it. The media are being privatised because government has embarked on privatisation in general, and thus the justifications implied in regard to the privatisation of the media are similar to other enterprises that had been state owned and controlled As the government’s Privatisation Unit notes:

The decision to privatise the state-owned enterprises was a decision to move towards a free market economy and consequently to undertake an extensive reorganisation of the existing economy. ..The main target the Privatisation Unit has to achieve is to reduce the public sector as quickly as possible and to find active entrepreneurial investors.6

The Lesotho government has declared its support for privatisation. But the word ‘support’ implies that the origination of privatisation was from elsewhere and all that government did was to give the idea its blessing. It is also a fact that socio-political ideas cannot always be understood through analysis of the local setting alone. Ideas have global influence. Influence is a ‘prerogative’ of a participant possessing greater power than others in an interaction. Privatisation as a concept has both national and international implications. The idea of privatisation seems to have been aimed at ‘taming the governments’ in developing countries.

It is the case that most African countries have been not only involved in administration and governance, but were also swamped by everyday economic projects. By privatising state owned businesses and placing them in private hands, a system of economic laissez-faire was introduced locally, leaving small states more vulnerable and dependent on the more powerful economies of the world.

Assessment of the process of privatisation in Lesotho

Privatisation in Lesotho has neither empowered the individual nor the nation. It has, instead, made the country weaker. This is because the enterprises which were created to serve the people are being sold to private owners whose philosophy is not necessarily the improvement of people’s lives but to make business or profit. Most such enterprises, which were state owned, existed in areas where individuals interested primarily in profit did not venture. By creating these enterprises the state filled a vacuum for the sake of development.

Since privatisation, Lesotho no longer owns or controls its banking system. Both the agricultural Bank and Lesotho Development banks, which were established after independence to address economic needs, have been sold and the country now depends on South Africa for its savings and economic development. Banking is strategic to the life of a nation. Through privatisation government has no influence in the development and well-being of its people.

In addition to the banking system, air transport has collapsed. And the people are experiencing travelling difficulties in which there can be no hope for improvement. This difficulty is felt the more in the mountain areas where small aircraft had for long been the only link with the outside world.

The assumption is that privatisation offers economic opportunities to individuals and reduces waste and inefficiency associated with government management and involvement in economic projects. Privatisation is thus loosely implied as indicative of democracy since government does not control all spheres of life and leaves room for individual participation in the national economy. The arguments might have merit. But one could still argue that even a democratic principle needs to be democratically applied and may not be imposed upon the people.

The concept of privatising was never debated locally by the government and the people. It was generally imposed on the nation, although the consequences and the decline of services are felt by the citizens. Though equated with democracy, in its implementation privatisation was far from democratic.

It might be argued that government consulted the public before introducing the new policy. A two-day conference which civil servants, parliamentarians and some members of the public attended took place in September 1999. The conference titled on ‘National Dialogue on Privatisation and Restructuring of the Lesotho Economy’ was held in Maseru in September 1999. About 300 people participated in this dialogue, but it is clear that the majority of those invited were government servants. The conference, it maybe argued, was called to rubber-stamp decisions already reached between the World Bank and government.7

The law to privatise government owned enterprises was passed in 1995. Since then, five strategic concerns have been sold to foreign companies. The Lesotho Airway Corporation was the first to go to Rossair, a South African company, in 1996. Rossair, however, soon closed its operations in Lesotho in 1998 although it continues its work in the Republic. Since the privatisation of Lesotho Airways Corporation, air transport from the capital, to the districts collapsed, leaving the mountain people in greater difficulties.

In addition, the car-hire service, Avis Lesotho was sold to Avis South Africa; the Lesotho Flour-Mills was sold to an American Company, Sea Board Corporation for R50 million; the Lesotho Bank was taken over by the Standard Bank of South Africa (services in the interior have been cut since some of its branches have been closed down); and the Plant and Vehicle Pool Service has been privatised. Another five parastatals are to be privatised.8

Pluralism in the management and ownership of the electronic media should be seen in the context of a global privatisation campaign which originates from western powers and is dictated to small states through economic pressure and domination.

Democracy and development

Of course dissatisfaction with the situation that existed before 1998 was often expressed in different ways. Some were unhappy with both the quality, and the partisan nature of the state controlled radio and TV stations by the government of the day. Firstly, there was a need to hear other voices than that of the government in state matters. Secondly, there has always existed a suspicion, among media practitioners, that official information was not accessible to independent media and remained a preserve of the ministry of information.

The government publication that discusses the new media policy expresses certain assumptions that need examining.9 These assumptions are made to justify the need for pluralism in the ownership of the electronic media. Some points made in the document are universally acceptable, other need careful examination.

There is the assumption that in democratic societies the media are free of domination by powerful groups. Under the heading ‘The role of the media in a democratic society’ the document reads:

In democratic society the media are expected to serve public interest in the economic, political, social and cultural life of the nation. The media can serve the needs of the entire society and not just sectors of the society. This possible where relevant information affecting the public is widely available, where discussion is free of domination by the state or any other powerful sector of society and where all those participating in public debate do so on equal basis.10

While pluralism in ownership is commendable, the thesis that it frees society of domination fails to reflect the total picture.

The assumption that plurality is akin to equality needs debating. The document claims:

Equality is a value that requires that special favours are not given to power holders and that access to the media should be on fair and equal basis to contenders for office and to oppositional or diverse opinions, perspectives or claims. Equality requires fair access to the media for all alternative voices in public debate on national or public issues and matters.11

The concept of equality is broad and debatable.

The assumption that pluralism would help the media to serve as catalyst for nation building and development is problematic. What is nation building? Some of the specific objectives of the new policy according to statement include:

To protect rights of all citizens regardless of status, in accordance with the provisions of the constitution…

To ensure that all media have access to public information.

To promote the existence of wide variety of independent media which will allow, among others things, the enrichment of information reflecting diversity of opinions and ideas.

To ensure that the media are effectively used for the development of the nation;

To promote international co-operation and understanding.

To scale down the existing Ministry of Information and broadcasting and redefine its new role.

It might be too early to judge the impact of the new liberalisation policy in regard to the opening of airwaves to many voices. But as long as privatisation of the media and ownership of other economic enterprises is not in the hands of nationals, the media will fail to function in accordance with the primary responsibility of striving for national identity and survival. Under such conditions they cannot express true political needs of national identity and preservations where the interests of the donor countries and organisations compete demands from the grassroots. Issues of national identity cannot effectively be focussed on by media financially dominated by foreign interests.

What is paramount in theory and practice is the fact of national existence. Global ideas enslave rather than address local conditions. This is not to negate all global ideas, but to argue that privatisation that does look at local aspirations can never be the best ‘medicine.’

Notes

1. Lesotho Review, Pinetown: Wade Publication, 1999, p2.
2.
3. Almost everyone who has written about Lesotho politics and economy has emphasised her dependence on South Africa. Halpern, J. South Africa’s Hostages: Basutoland, Bechuanaland and Swaziland, Middlesex: Penguin, 1965.
4.
5. Lesotho Review, op. cit. p2.
6.
7. Some of these newspapers included Mochochono, Mphatlalatsane and Naleli were published by wealthy educated Basotho in the 1930s. Willet, M. S. and Ambrose, David, P., Lesotho: A comprehensive bibliography, Oxford: Clio Press, 1980, No 3. p295.
8.
9. Section 17 of Proclamation 5 of 1927.
10.
11. Questions and Answers on Privatisation, Maseru: Lesotho Government Privatisation Unit, 1999
12.
13. Report of the National Dialogue on Privatisation and Restructuring of the Lesotho Economy, Maseru: Privatisation Unit, 1999.
14.
15. Lesotho Privatisation and Private Sector Development Project (World Bank Credit 2612) Third annual Report 1998, and interview with Privatisation Unit Publicity official.
16.
17. Lesotho Media Policy, a document published by the Ministry of Information in Maseru, UD.
18.
10. Ibid. p6.

11. Ibid. p8.

Patrick Mohlalefi Bereng is senior lecturer (senior extension educator) at the National University of Lesotho’s Research, Evaluation and Media Division. He holds an MA in Journalism and Political Science. His special interest is in Basotho social, cultural and political developments. His publications include: Haboo, (Mazenod, 1991); I am a Mosotho (Morija, 1981); and Echoes of Passion (1982). He has worked for government and independent papers in Lesotho.