What WikiLeaks means for a government’s assault on media freedom

What happens when a government moves to clamp down on media freedom? It might simply force journalists in that country to adopt the WikiLeaks model when it comes to publishing sensitive information. 

Here’s an example: The South African government recently announced a triple play to clamp down on media freedom in that country, a move which may force journalists to a model akin to WikiLeaks. Concern is mounting over the country’s proposed apartheid-inspired Protection of Information Bill, which will give government sweeping powers to declare virtually any information “in the national interest” (and classify it), making it illegal for journalists to accept, possess, investigate or publish this information.

There is discussion of a government-sponsored media tribunal which would aim to adjudicate on cases brought against the media and finally there is the Criminal Procedure Act which is being amended to force journalists to disclose their confidential sources. At the moment, sadly, the debate around these proposed laws are happening in the media only rather than amongst citizens.

At the same time, the online world is abuzz with news of the massive intelligence leak suffered by the United States government when WikiLeaks published 90 000 internal US military logs relating to the war in Afghanistan. The leak proved the ineffectiveness of legislation designed to clamp down on the free flow of information and the press. The leak happened anonymously, on a global stage, and was covered by international media with the affected governments powerless to plug the leak.

All this raises some interesting questions for South Africans in general and South African government officials and the media in particular. For example, why should South Africans be concerned when it comes to media freedom and access to information? And if it’s clear that governments cannot stifle access to information online, then why is the South African government still legislating to contain information flow? If legislation limits the media’s freedom of speech should journalists break the law WikiLeaks style?

Access to information, especially information supplied by whistle-blowers, leads to greater accountability. Free speech and free access to information remain tightly interwoven with any sense of a reasonably free society.

“Free media can ensure transparency, accountability and the rule of law; they promote participation in public and political discourse, and contribute to the fight against poverty,” wrote Guy Berger, Head of the School of Journalism and Media Studies at Rhodes University, in a special report published by UNESCO to celebrate World Press Freedom Day 2008. “An independent media sector draws its power from the community it serves and in return empowers that community to be a full partner in the democratic process”.

The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights recently reaffirmed “that freedom of expression and access to information are fundamental human rights guaranteed by Article 9 of the African Charter.”  It also noted concern that many states (now including South Africa) are adopting repressive laws “which impose unwarranted restrictions on publishing materials, and encourage government interference with the media, consequently limiting the enjoyment of freedom of expression and access to information.”

Essentially South Africans will give up a fundamental right if free access to information is infringed upon by the legislation and policy proposals of the ANC. Who know which other rights might follow.

The ruling party has essentially run out of patience with internal factions undermining rivals through leaks to the media (with said rivals doing their bit in return, of course). This has aired a whole lot of dirty ANC laundry, has revealed rifts within the ruling alliance and focussed public attention on the “tenderpreneurial” culture rife amongst the ruling elite. An elective conference looms in 2012 and the jockeying for position has already begun (reports that Zuma will be challenged have already surfaced – bad, bad media!).

All of this might explain why the ruling party is keen to muzzle the free media but it still doesn’t explain how it can possibly think these laws will be effectively applied given the rise of the WikiLeaks model. To be fair not many South Africans have made use of WikiLeaks to date. But the Afghan War Log leak has turned local focus towards the power to publish online while potentially maintaining anonymity.

Any move to suppress information will lead it underground and online. Journalists will no longer publish their by-lines under controversial articles (investigative journal Noseweek already sets an example – it hardly ever uses by-lines to protect its journalists from law-suits). The Protection of Information Bill will effectively criminalise investigative journalism. Journalists investigating government corruption will be breaking the spirit of these laws by just pitching up for work.

Information will out, especially the unsavoury kind, and to effectively repress it would require throwing out any pretense at democratic rule. You would need to clamp down on internet access, censor satellite news channels and ban Blackberries. It can be done, but one hopes that the ANC and its alliance partners would be unable to stomach the international pariah status that is bound to follow.