THE SOUTH AFRICAN SCENE ENGLISH-LANGUAGE PRESS IS UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 32053, 30 July 1969, Page 16

THE SOUTH AFRICAN SCENE ENGLISH-LANGUAGE PRESS IS UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE

(TM, apecidl article wa, written for the "Guardian”, Manchester b B a South African journalist who has to remain anonymous) '

(Reprinted from the “Guardian” by arrangement)

. broads “to the freedom of the South African press have been steadily increasing over the last 20 years; The Gandar trial should not be looked on as of great significance in itself for it is only important when seen in the light of what has gone before it.

This is not to underestimate some of its unique aspects—that, for example, every single individual who gave evidence to the “Rand Daily Mail and in Johannesburg to “The Sunday Times”) was subsequently charged and convicted of offences ranging from possessing dagga (cannabis) to perjury, a fact about which even the politically sophisticated Gandar was incredulous.

Attacks on the Englishlanguage press in South Africa began immediately after the Nationalists came into office in 1948, resulting in the setting up of a press commission of inquiry in 1950. After six years of the inquiry —and no report—the International Press Institute appointed a special investigator to conduct an Inquiry into the commission, as disconcerting reports of methods of interrogation had been reaching it for several years. The 1.P.1. report was never published, but in 1964, 14 years after its setting up, the findings of the commission were made public. Fourteen years was a long time for a commission to be hanging over the press, especially as it was accompanied by threats from high-ranking Nationalists about its likely proposals.

Arbitrary Rules During the 14-year period the law-makers were not idle and the commission, combined with the laws that were promulgated, provide a formidable framework within which the press had to work. In 1950, the Suppression of Communism Act marked the beginning of direct State censorship as opposed to rely-

ing on the independent courts to impose sanctions, for it made recourse to the courts after a banning order impossible. In addition, the law was so loosely drafted as to make it quite impossible for an editor to know whether or not he was breaking the law, as the definitions of communism were so vague as to permit of any number of arbitrary interpretations. A diabolical law passed in 1953 made It dangerous for newspapers to criticise any existing law or the enactment of any future laws. For if that law were to be broken in protest as a result of any critical article, the editor would be liable to a sentence ranging from five years’ imprisonment to a whipping of 10 strokes. The Prisons Act of 1959 — under which Gandar and Pogrund were charged—was itself amended as a result of an earlier prison condition disclosure by the African magazine “Drum.” The “Drum” story gave prominent coverage top pictures of nonwhite prisoners being forced to dance around the prison courtyard in the nude, apparently to prove they were not hiding anything such as drugs or knives on their person. A Silence Broken The terms of the amended Prisons Act restrained editors from finding too frequent fault with the prison system;

thus it was not until 1965 when the “Rand Daily Mail” bombshell exploded that the long silence on the subject was broken, in spite of the fact that a great deal of material on shocking prison conditions had been filed and not used.

The “Rand' Daily Mail” articles and their consequences are of great importance in understanding exactly how the Government controls the English language press. The body of laws relating to the press are perhaps more important as intimidatory weapons than in fulfilling the more strictly punitive function.

In practice over the last 21 years, the laws have infrequently been invoked and the threat has in general far exceeded the actual outcome. For the laws to serve their purpose, they must have an evidential existence at least part of the time. It is not suggested that the Government was not genuinely outraged by the criticism implied in the prison exposures. It interpreted the articles as a political attack on itself by unpatriotic enemies of the State. But there was undoubtedly an undertone of “teaching” the English press a lesson, of demonstrating that the threats were not idle.

Into Submission Although the Government is prepared to use its powers against the English press, Its real aim is to get the press to censor itself. The Nationalists play a strange game of paying homage to some democratic forms while flouting them whenever they deem it necessary. Contrary to popular belief, forcing the press into submission by threats of action is much more to the Nationalists’ liking than any form of direct censorship action. This is borne out by the statement made in Parliament in 1950 during the debate on the press commission by the motion’s proposer, ex-editor Dr A. J. van Rhijn, who stressed the necessity for a free press but expressed the conviction that “a self-disci-plined freedom ultimately constitutes the best safeguard for the maintenance of the freedom of the press.”

the Nationalists partially succeeded in 1962 when after a long battle the Newspaper Press Union agreed to the setting up of an internal code of conduct in exchange for an exemption from the more stringent demands of an Undesirable Publications Bill. Thanks to the vocal protests of the South African Society of Journalists, and to some extent the South African

Associated Newspapers, owners of the “Rand Daily Mail,” the code did not achieve what the Government had hoped it would. At the time, the South African Society of Journalists commented, “. . . it is not our function to gag ourselves in the hope that the process will in that way be made more comfortable.” So the voice of protest continued to be heard, though after 14 years of battle a more muted sound was inevitable.

“Opposition” Function

The “opposition" function of the English-language press, in a society where four-fifths of the population has no voting or collective bargaining rights or powers and where a dwindling official Parliamentary Opposition opposes very little, cannot be overstressed. And it not only the “Rand Daily Mail” which opposes the Government, but almost all the English-langu-age newspapers of the country which, ironically, have a circulation dominance way above their Afrikaans-langu-age counterparts.

The need for a free press in South Africa is multiplied by the environment within which the English-language press is working. The Afrikaans newspapers are Government-con-trolled—two South African Prime Ministers started their political careers as editors of Afrikaans newspapers, although never having been working journalists. The radio, too, is Governmentrun and there is no television. Still worse is the total ignorance of each racial and linguistic group about each other. Without an Englishlanguage press the “black problem” and the strains under which blacks have to live would simply not exist for most of white South Africa.

Voice Of Voteless In spite of all the legislation and the threats and the formidable white-society anger under which the English-language press has to function, it continues to see itself as the sole representative of the voteless opposition. Just so long as the press persists in this view of itself the Nationalist Government will never be able to stamp out all sounds of protest in its tidy little white society without outright banning of offending newspapers—something it is extremely loth to do.

It is a very small note of hope. Even the most courageous and committed of the English-language editors will be less willing to face the consequences of their actions —especially as they have no way of knowing when the sanctions will be used against them. Fear has and will shut out much, but it will not silence South Africa’s opposition press. They will speak out, they will still expose iniquities where they find them anew, but they will do it less often and more mutedly.