Zimpapers Logo

Hildegarde The Arena
THE July 30 harmonised elections are historic because they are the first ever elections in post-independent Zimbabwe where former president Robert Mugabe and the late opposition MDC-T leader Morgan Tsvangirai will be missing from the ballot paper.

Notwithstanding, it will be a very busy and interesting chessboard as an estimated 128 political parties have shown interest in participating in the polls.

Understandably therefore, all eyes are on Zimbabwe to see whether President Mnangagwa’s promise of a free, fair, credible and non-violent elections will be achieved so that legitimacy is pronounced without having to fight.

The media plays a crucial role in this process, and its power will be tested in the coming weeks.

This also goes for the recent addition of citizen journalism through social media, whose influence cannot be underestimated by contesting parties, supporters, election monitors and observers and other stakeholders.

Whereas calls have been made to the political leadership, their supporters and the media in Zimbabwe to abide by constitutional provisions, we feel that the mainstream media elsewhere should, in the process of telling the Zimbabwean narrative, be part of the building blocks that ensure that democratic tenets are upheld.

It would be a sad day if we see deliberate attempts by the international media to either take positions and/or produce content that can adversely impact on the election process, actions that would look like there is a deliberate attempt to interfere with Zimbabwe’s internal processes, intentionally and/or unintentionally.

The writer was last week disturbed that on two occasions (May 28 and May 29), the AfroTone Media Holdings-owned 24-hour satellite news channel, Afro Worldview, aired content that can best be described as very damaging to any democratic process anywhere in the world.

Afro Worldview says on its website that it is “South Africa’s newest 24-hour news channel focusing on constructive, nation-building stories in the interests of building a culture of unity and pride in SA . . . The leadership of Afro Worldview is ensuring the channel offers innovative programming that resonates with local viewers and encapsulates issues relevant to youth and women of the country.”

The two programmes aired last week had a young man, Tinashe Jonas, who is the leader of a political outfit called Ideal Zimbabwe, which is among the dozens of actors on the political landscape.

It was not the first time that Jonas, who has a South African address, appeared on TV stations in that country. He has also been on ANN7 and eNCA.

On both occasions last week, Jonas appeared on a special coverage of the forthcoming elections hosted by news anchor Lesego Mokonane.

The first time it was just him alone, but on the second day, he was on a panel that included Kennedy Mapesa Mandaza (Zanu-PF South Africa), Chadya Tapiwa Diamond and a Chinodakufa.

During the heated live discussion, Jonas became agitated as he challenged Mandaza to remove the Zanu-PF scarf he was wearing. From a viewer’s point of view, the situation in the studio was not only tense, but it was very dangerous, for anything could have happened.

When Mandaza ignored Jonas’ order, the latter stood up and advanced toward Mandaza and violently removed the scarf, and then proceeded back to his seat.

Viewers were shocked that Jonas was allowed to do what he did, and not just that, that the programme continued as if nothing had happened. The clip trended on social media, leaving many with unanswered questions.

The level of provocation during the live broadcast was not just grandstanding and attention-seeking, but distasteful and had a tendency to incite a violent reaction in the studio. If this was a repeat of South African winger Ashwin Willemse, who stormed out of a live Super Rugby TV show a few days before this programme, all we could have said was that Jonas’ show-boating portrayed Afro Worldview in bad light.

In fact, both programmes were repugnant, tasteless, hateful and full of litigious language. What were the programmes meant to communicate, and more specifically, what did the satellite station, of which Zimbabweans watch after paying in hard currency, meant to achieve?

Why did Afro Worldview give Jonas so much airtime to insult and injure not just the standing of Zimbabwe’s leadership, but all Zimbabweans?

When someone is not capable of tackling issues in a civilised manner the way Jonas did, the obvious thing to do is to dig up and find out who Tinashe Jonas is.

And, thanks to the Internet and social media portals like Facebook where the verbiage that Jonas spewed during the two programmes is there for all to see.

Did Afro Worldview choose Jonas to comment on the election based on the hate speech that is all over his Facebook page?

Have they taken a position that only a person with deep-seated hatred of President Mnangagwa, Vice President General Constantino Chiwenga (Retired) and Lands, Agriculture and Rural Resettlement Minister Air Chief Marshal Perrance Shiri (Retired) should comment on Zimbabwe’s political landscape? If so, why? What he writes or says about the Zanu-PF leadership and opposition leaders like Nelson Chamisa, Dr Thokozani Khupe, Tendai Biti, Professor Welshman Ncube, Evan Mawarire, Advocate Fadzai Mahere, Dr Joice Mujuru is not only offensive, but shocking and unprintable. The bottom line is that it is HATE speech full of fake information.

In one post on his Facebook attributed to “Statesman Correspondent”, and later pulled down, he reported: “Ideal Zimbabwe president, Tinashe Jonas, has challenged the legitimacy of President Emmerson Mnangagwa and subsequently declared himself, the new president of the Republic of Zimbabwe.”

Hate speech and fake news are democracy’s biggest enemies.

So, why should Afro Worldview be aiding and abetting them when Zimbabweans’ major objective is to conduct free, fair, credible and violence-free elections?

In a South Africa with thousands of Zimbabweans, is Tinashe Jonas the best commentator for the 2018 electoral process, considering the level of hate that he displays not just at the ruling Zanu-PF party leadership, but other political leaders?

Jonas is taking freedom of speech way too far, especially when the speech is destructive.

We hope that the owner of the 100 percent black-owned media house, Mr Mzwanele Manyi, will address the issue as matter of urgency, for it is very easy to create a bigger picture on why Jonas got more than an hour of air time within two days, just to disparage the people of Zimbabwe.

We have seen how hate speech and fake news are roundly condemned in South Africa, and we condemn in the strongest terms the May 28 and May 29 evening programmes.