admin
It is some kind of a paradox that for many, parliament is an enigmatic institution, yet, at the same time, represents, or should represent, them. In many jurisdictions, it tends to be far removed from the people, who, through their votes, put it in place. This, until very recently, has been the case in newer democracies of Africa, Asia and the Caribbean. Over the past few decades, governments in these countries have been facilitating the opening up of their systems and institutions, including the legislature.
In Zimbabwe, reforms were initiated in the late 1990s as the House sought to bring itself closer to the people, strengthen its oversight function and its internal administration. Parliamentary portfolio committees, conduct of public hearings, the setting up of a website and constituency information centres are some of the initiatives under the programme.
It may not be specifically part of that reform agenda, but the real-time broadcast of parliamentary proceedings by ZBC’s SFM on Wednesday advances that broad thrust. SFM said the broadcasts would be done every Tuesday and Thursday from 2pm until the House adjourns.
The live radio broadcasts demonstrate our high democratic credentials as a country, which is positive. They demystify the House and what happens there. Also, we expect this to encourage high quality debates as legislators now know that Zimbabwe would be listening as opposed to the old scenario when electors had to wait for a copy of the Hansard for a printed record of proceedings or reports in newspapers, radio or TV, which, of course are abridged and subjective representations of what happened in the august House yesterday. The Hansard is a record, yes, but presents hard points of proceedings without sufficiently capturing the emotions and drama that often characterises Parliamentary debates.
SFM has taken a good first step, but as we continue to open up, live television coverage would be best. Television cameras are only allowed in the chamber for regular recorded reportage, though when the President sets the legislative agenda and when the Minister of Finance presents the national budget the national broadcaster is permitted to broadcast live on television. We wait to see the proceedings on the screens as this is a strong medium of mass communication that gives visuals as well as voice at the same time.
Zambia started around 2006 with radio broadcasts and later went into live television broadcasts on a trial basis. However, the latter ran into financial challenges, resulting in the pilot run being halted only last month. South Africa has both radio and television airing. The Botswana Parliament passed a motion to do the same last July. In the West live broadcasts are common. In devolved Australia, respective regional parliaments permit them.
But as we receive the SFM’s first happily, it is useful for Zimbabweans to learn that there would be no carte blanche access. Nowhere under the sun is there unfettered access to proceedings of Parliament, so no one must expect a game without rules here.
In the UK parliament gives strict rules to protect members’ dignity, guide how cameras record and transmit proceedings and how films generated from the chamber are used. Cameras only focus on the speaker, while cut-away reaction shots are not permitted, except of those named in the debate. Therefore, television viewers cannot see things that one would be able to notice if he or she were sitting in the public gallery.
“The cameras cannot show MPs yawning or dozing on the green baize benches, unless they happen to be in the frame behind the MP who is speaking or sitting next door,” says a 2003 Unesco-funded study on live parliament broadcasts.
Furthermore, recordings of proceedings in the UK Parliament cannot be used for political party advertising, satire or ridicule or for commercial sponsorship or advertising.
In our case, we hope guidelines have been spelt out. If not we expect Parliament to do so now to ensure our fledging democracy does not regret later when bad content or that which undermines the dignity of the House and MPs is beamed live.
In that connection we need guidelines on how live broadcasters and parliament would handle acrimony in the chamber. MDC-T MP Amos Chibaya was ejected on Tuesday after he uttered expletives. Former MDC-T legislator, Roy Bennett even floored Minister Patrick Chinamasa a few years ago and was jailed for his savage, unparliamentary conduct. Such content does nothing to advance our democracy, so there must be a way, clearly spelt out in advance, on how live broadcasts should treat it.
But having said this, live broadcasting can help MPs to behave, remain awake and make meaningful contributions to debates because they know every detail is being captured and aired.
While live broadcasts are commended for bringing Parliament to the masses, research has ironically shown that they frequently attract niche audiences only. This is so because parliaments across the world sit from morning to afternoon, a period that is hardly prime time for television viewing. For example, SABC’s figures covering August and September 2002 show an average audience of 15,000 to 17,000 viewers in a country of more than 50 million people.
Online Reporter