Zuma election win confirmed but falls short of two-thirds majority

Final results from South Africa’s election showed that Jacob Zuma’s African National Congress (ANC) has fallen just short of the two-thirds majority it needed to change the country’s constitution. The ANC took 65.9 per cent of the vote which gave it 264 seats in South Africa’s 400-seat parliament. While the overall result was a foregone conclusion, the drop of 4 percent from the last election in 2004 was one of the few crumbs of comfort for opposition parties who feared a Zuma landslide would lead to the reduction in local government powers.

Nonetheless it still represents an impressive mandate for the party that has ruled since open elections began in 1994. It blitzed its closest rival the Democratic Alliance (DA) led by Helen Zille which took just 16.7 per cent of the vote. The election also represents a remarkable comeback for the newly installed president. Just four years ago Zuma was sacked as deputy president by his boss Thabo Mbeki for being implicated in a corruption scandal. He was charged with corruption, money laundering and racketeering, but the charges were dropped on a technicality in the lead-up to the election. Zuma’s supporters claim he was the victim of a political conspiracy hatched by Mbeki.

Zuma got his revenge when he assumed leadership of the ANC in December 2007. At the party’s national conference he defeated Thabo Mbeki by a 60:40 margin leaving Mbeki a lame duck president. Zuma counted on the support of people in rural areas and townships where unemployment is nudging 50 percent and poverty is widespread. It was also South Africa’s shack-dwellers, farm workers, unemployed and domestic workers who gave Zuma his emphatic election win.

And despite many problems associated with their 15 year tenure of power, most of South Africa’s poor don’t have a logical alternative to vote for. Most people see Zille’s DA as the political front of white business while the newly formed Congress of the People (an ANC breakaway faction loyal to Mbeki) which came third, is seen to stand for black business. Together their combined vote barely topped 24 percent and, according to the BBC, will face pressure to merge if they are to launch a more effective challenge to the ANC in the next election in 2014.

In the meantime, it will be Jacob Zuma turn to hog the limelight. The 67 year old is the first Zulu president and is known for wearing traditional garb including leopard skins and a spear at ceremonial events. He celebrated victory on Thursday in typical fashion by dancing and singing his signature song, the Zulu anti-apartheid anthem “Bring Me My Machine Gun.” Yet many people believe there is a political conservative hiding underneath this flamboyant façade. During the election, Zuma offered prayers to ancestors, denounced same-sex marriage as a “disgrace to God”, promised a referendum on the death penalty, condemned political rivals as “witches” and “snakes”, and defended polygamy as “African”.

Zuma’s most difficult task will be to fulfil his post-election promise to unite the country. Nearly all of the nation’s whites and coloured people voted for the DA and South Africa’s communities still live their lives apart along colour-coded lines despite the emergence of a growing black middle class. As Matthew Tostevin writes at Reuters, Zuma will have to juggle the needs of those who want a greater share of the wealth with those who feel they are politically marginalised.

There is also suspicion over the long-standing charges against Zuma which were suddenly dropped two weeks prior to the election. In 2005 his personal financial adviser, Schabir Shaik was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment for soliciting and paying bribes and for fraud, mostly to benefit his boss. Zuma was then charged with 16 offences for corruption, money-laundering and racketeering in a controversial $5bn 1999 arms deal with French company Thint. After a complicated court case, the charges were first deemed unlawful, then reinstated on appeal, before finally being dropped due to flaws in the legal process. State prosecutors denied they had yielded to pressure from the incoming government but said that their case had been irretrievably compromised by pressure from the old Mbeki administration.

Zuma also survived a rape charge in 2005 brought by the daughter of a friend. The case was dismissed after the judge ruled the sex was consensual. However Zuma’s testimony revealed startlingly naïve attitudes about sex and AIDS, including an admission that he had unprotected sex with an HIV-positive woman but he showered afterward to reduce the risk of infection. Zuma’s handlers, aware of his unorthodox opinions, shut him down during the election campaign and he refused to answer all policy questions deferring instead to the ANC’s executive committee.

While the ANC has faithfully served the anti-apartheid cause for almost a century, many argue it is now time to move on to a new political era in South Africa. The party’s popularity, membership and moral authority are in decline. Five million South Africans have HIV/AIDS (the largest population in the world),violent crime is endemic; and the black underclass continues to grow. In 2006, the South African Institute of Race Relations estimated that 4.2 million South Africans were living on $1 a day or less in 2005, up from 1.9 million in 1996 (pdf). With or without the protection of the ANC executive committee, Zuma will need a lot more than populist appeal and revolutionary anthems to deal effectively with these issues.

Forgetting Papua New Guinea

There is a common presumption often mentioned around Anzac Day that the Japanese did not invade Australia in World War II. This is not entirely true. Japanese troops landed in Buna-Gona on 21 July 1942 with the intention of taking Port Moresby. Buna-Gona, Port Moresby and Kokoda, where they were stopped by Australian soldiers and local stretcher bearers known as fuzzy wuzzy angels, have been part of the independent nation of Papua New Guinea since 1975. But in 1942, they was still part of a colony administrated by civil servants sent there by Canberra. The northern part where the Japanese landed was formerly German New Guinea which Billy Hughes won for Australia in the 1919 Versailles talks. The lower half was British New Guinea which was re-named Papua in 1904. But many still forget that Australia was the de facto ruler of Papua and New Guinea for much of the 20th century.

Forgetfulness is a common response to Australia’s closest neighbour. Few Australians go there and the country rarely gets a run in the Australian media. So it was when the country’s Prime Minister Michael Somare appeared in Canberra yesterday to talk to the local metropolitan power, he was mostly ignored. According to Richard Farmer at Crikey, the ABC did not even mention Somare’s name when Rudd was giving a military award to the fuzzy wuzzy angels. And he was treated worse last time when he was asked to remove his shoes for an airport security check.

At least this time he did speak to the Prime Minister. Kevin Rudd does not ignore PNG and Port Moresby was one of his earliest overseas stops as PM in March 2008. Yet even Rudd still felt the need to play big brother and tell Somare yesterday that he was not spending Australian aid money wisely. Australia supplies 20 per cent of the nation’s budget worth over $300 million a year.

While Somare defended current practice saying no one starved in his country, Rudd said too much aid was “consumed by consultants” and not enough given to teachers, builders and health workers in villages across the country. But Rudd too, was forgetting something. As Somare told him, Papua New Guinea is a village society. “When one village is poor, the other village helps,” he said. The majority of Papua New Guinea’s population is still dependent on agriculture. While PNG makes a lot of money from mineral deposits like oil, gold, and copper, it remains reliant on World Bank aid and support from Australia to survive.

But the indelible influence of Australia on PNG is more than just monetary, it has also left its cultural mark over the decades. Back when PNG was still a colony, Australia was responsible for the census. In the 1950s, the census takers found the hill tribes were changing under Australian influence. They saw that cloth clothing was replacing bark skirts and sporrans and young male initiation no longer involved braiding bark strips in their hair and smearing their bodies with pig grease. Nose piercing with cassowary bones and ritualised cannibalism was also on the way out.

And while Papua New Guinea remains today the most linguistically complex country in the world with 860 languages, many of them are endangered. English is one of only three official languages (the creole languages tok pisin and motu are the others) and the only language of government and the education system. It also has many imported western problems such as car-jacking, firearms offences, robbery, violence, rape and a high prevalence of HIV/AIDS.

HIV/AIDS is central to one of the new initiatives announced in Canberra yesterday. Rugby league is the nation’s biggest sport and one of PNG’s biggest uniting factors. Rudd gave Somare $20 million for a national rugby league competition. Somare wanted league development to boost school attendance and help with HIV/AIDS awareness. The long-term view would also be to integrate the competition into Australia’s rugby league.

Somare continued his visit to Australia today mostly away from the media glare. AAP reported he toured Victoria’s firefighting nerve centre during a visit to Melbourne. Victorians owe a debt of graitude to Somare who donated $1 million to the Victorian bushfire appeal on behalf of his country. He said PNG did not experience fires on that scale, but wanted to show its support anyway. “We thought it was a gesture to support the Australian people because they normally, in our bad times, they always come for our support,” he said. Even if most of the time Australians forget they do.

Greens say journalists’ shield laws don’t go far enough

The Greens have announced today they will be seeking amendments to the proposed federal shield laws to protect journalists’ sources. The Evidence Amendment (Journalists’ Privilege) Bill has completed Senate hearings but the Greens say needs further changes if it is to adequately protect journalists. The party’s Attorneys General spokesman Senator Scott Ludlam (pictured) said the bill did not support the minimum protections of confidentiality nor did it meet the objectives as claimed by the Attorney General. “At a bare minimum we need to make it explicit that courts should assume protection of journalists sources unless there is a compelling reason to the contrary,” said Ludlam. “The Greens will propose a range of amendments to make sure the bill meets these important objectives and in coming weeks we will be seeking the support of other parties.”

The new legislation is a Labor election promise for a review of whistleblower protection. However the crux of Ludlam’s beef is that it does not go far enough to ensure journalists have the right to protect the identity of their sources unless overridden by strong public interest or national security reasons. And Ludlam is not alone in thinking the new law will be ineffective. Last week the media industry’s Right to Know Coalition (which includes most of the country’s key media players) also said the proposed law was defective. They told the Senate enquiry that the scheme should be based on the New Zealand model which contains a presumption that journalists’ sources should remain confidential.

However federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland has rejected the New Zealand model in favour of the scheme drawn up by the House of Representatives standing committee on legal and constitutional affairs. Announcing the government’s position on 19 March, McClelland described the Labor position as a balance between the media’s role in informing the public and the public interest in the administration of justice. He says the bill required courts to consider whether information was passed illegally before determining if evidence should be admitted or a source revealed. This consideration needed to be balanced against the potential harm to the source or the journalist if evidence is given.

Critics say the bill retains criminal sanctions for most public disclosures, even those that are made in the public interest. Whistleblowers Australia say that if the scheme is enacted in its current form, they will advise commonwealth public servants to ignore it when dealing with disclosure issues. The most infamous recent case is that of customs officer Allan Kessing who leaked a confidential report to the Australian which showed the poor state of Australian airport security. The report was ignored by his superiors for two years but led directly to a $200 million improvement program after the leak. Kessing was convicted of disclosing official information and received a nine-month suspended jail term.

The legislation also leaves journalists vulnerable. South Australian independent Nick Xenophon questioned its efficacy when he asked “would it have protected Michael Harvey and Gerard McManus?” Harvey and McManus (pictured) were Herald-Sun reporters convicted of contempt of court and fined $7,000 for refusing to reveal the source of a leak about a federal government proposal to slash war veterans’ benefits. In response the then Howard government put up shield legislation which relied heavily on judicial discretion.

The 2007 Moss Report into the state of free speech in Australia stated those shield laws would not have helped Harvey and McManus. Labor’s proposed legislation does not seem much better than their predecessors. But despite the Greens and Xenophon’s reservations, there is still hope an amended version will be passed with the help of the cross-benches. Scott Ludlam wants the legislation to also apply to new media including citizen journalists and bloggers. “With goodwill and cooperation amongst the parties, we can ensure this bill serves its important purpose,” said Ludlam.

Calvo Ospina falls foul of American security paranoia

If anyone thought that an Obama administration might see the re-emergence of less paranoid American attitudes to security, they should think again. Just last week, an Air France flight from Paris to Mexico City last week was forced to make an emergency landing in Martinique because US authorities refused permission to fly over American airspace. The refusal was because one passenger was deemed a security risk. Air France had sent its passenger manifest to Mexican authorities but that information was somehow obtained by the US. The prohibited passenger was Colombian journalist Hernando Calvo Ospina, who works for the French left-wing monthly Le Monde Diplomatique.

Hernando Calvo Ospina has written many critical articles about American involvement in Latin America. He is currently writing a book about the CIA and in 2007 wrote a stinging and cogent piece about Reagan’s shadowy National Endowment for Democracy which destabilised unfriendly regimes. But none of this makes him a terrorist and there is no good reason he should end up on a terror watch list other than the fact he is deemed unfriendly to the political administration. This is McCarthyism gone mad.

Ospina has since written about his experiences on the Mexico flight. He says that five hours before the flight was due to land in Mexico City, the captain announced the plane had been refused permission to fly over the US. The captain said one of the passengers aboard was a person who was not welcome in the US for reasons of national security. A few minutes later, he announced the flight would have to divert to Martinique because there was not enough fuel to cope with the unintended detour.

Aboard the plane there was hushed talk about who the unwelcome passenger might be. Ospina overheard one conversation where someone said no terrorist could be at the back of the plane because “nobody there looks like a Muslim.” After the plane took off again from Martinique, the co-pilot came to him and asked if he was Mr Calvo Ospina. He asked Ospina to accompany him to the rear of the plane where he told him he was the reason for the detour. “Do you think I’m a terrorist?” asked Ospina. “No,” said the co-pilot, “that’s the reason I’m telling you this.”

The co-pilot asked him to keep quiet about it and Ospina returned to his seat. When they arrived at Mexico City, he was stopped at Immigration and taken to a room where two men asked him to “verify” a few things. His inquisitor told Ospina that “five information sources” in data bases had shown some information about him and they needed to make a summary. A second man told him he was being held at the request of US authorities and that after September 11, 2001, the Americans and Mexicans had stepped up their “cooperation” work.

Ospina asked “So, am I to blame for the plane’s rerouting?” They told him no, it was merely a technical stopover. Ospina said he heard differently but the two men ignored this and resumed questioning. After the basics came “Are you a Catholic?” and “Do you know how to handle firearms?” Ospina said no to both and added “”my only weapon is my writing, especially to denounce the American government, whom I consider terrorist.” One of the questioners responded “that weapon sometimes is worse than rifles and bombs.”

They then asked him where he was going. Ospina said he was heading to Nicaragua on a story for Le Monde Diplomatique. After a few more basic questions, he was politely released and he went on to Nicaragua the following day without further incident. But he was left with many questions: How much did it all cost (Air France had to pay for hotel rooms and food for at least half the passengers, who missed their connections) and why have Air France and the French authorities kept quiet about it? And perhaps the most difficult to answer: how far will the US authorities’ paranoia go?

No one knows, but clearly the American secret blacklist now stretches to peaceful critics of US policy. Maurice Lemoine, editor in chief of Le Monde Diplomatique, said: Calvo Ospina was a Colombian political exile in France who has denounced his home government of President Uribe and the role of the US in Latin America, and as a journalist has had occasion to interview top members of the leftist guerrilla group FARC. “That seems enough for him to be considered a terrorist,” said Lemoine. The best thing that can be said about this case is that the move has backfired badly. Ospina’s ideas will now get to a much larger audience thanks to American stupidity.

Centre-left victory in Icelandic election

Interim Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir has claimed victory overnight in Iceland’s election ending the long-term rule of a conservative alliance. Sigurdardottir’s centre-left Social Democratic Alliance won 20 seats with 30 percent of the vote and will govern with the aid of coalition partner the Left-Green Movement who won 14 seats. Together that gives them a five seat majority in the 63 member Althing (one of the world’s oldest parliaments).

Conservative Independence Party leader Bjarni Benediktsson conceded defeat in the worst election result in the party’s history. His party took only 22.9 per cent of votes, well below the previous all-time low of 27 per cent in 1987. The Independence Party has ruled Iceland with its coalition partners the Progressive Party for nearly all of the last 64 years. But they were forced out of office earlier this year when then Prime Minister Geir Haarde stepped down due to health reasons.

But it wasn’t just Haarde’s health that was suffering. It was the country’s economic collapse that claimed the conservative administration and the left-wing parties formed a caretaker government in February with a view to holding elections in spring. In the process Sigurdardottir became the country’s first female prime minister. Her rise to the top was also notable for the fact that she was the world’s first openly gay premier.

However Sigurdardottir’s sexuality was the last thing on the minds of voters in this weekend’s election. Opinion surveys and interviews with voters showed a clear inclination to punish the pro-business leaders who brought the country to ruin. In the good times banks offered 100 percent lending. Now many Icelanders are now trapped with skyrocketing loan repayments while inflation hovers at 15 percent and unemployment has shot up from barely one percent to ten percent.

The country’s banking sector collapse late last year and left the country swamped with debts. Inflation is spiralling out of control and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has predicted that the economy will shrink by about 10 percent in 2009, which represents the Atlantic island’s biggest slump since it won independence from Denmark in 1944. In October the IMF gave Iceland a stimulus package worth $2.1 billion to stabilise the freefalling currency (the krona lost almost half its value to the euro in the last 12 months) and also prop out the country’s stock market.

Icelandic financiers are now delicately trying to untangle the mess left by the global financial crisis. Its banking system significantly outstripped the authorities’ ability to act as a lender of last resort when the toxic debts began to emerge. The new government was forced to implement budget austerity measures of upwards of $400 million and hopes this plan will end capital flow curbs. This would allow foreign investors to take their money out of the country without destroying the currency. Investors (including many English councils) had been locked into crown assets when the previous government imposed capital controls to stop the domestic currency going into freefall after Iceland’s top three banks collapsed.

In the past Iceland deliberately stayed out of the EU to protect its rich fishing grounds from European boats. But now Icelanders are now looking to the European body to bail them out. Their application to join is being expedited and a process that normally takes ten years or more could be over by 2011. The EU is looking favourably on Iceland’s application. Olli Rehn, the European commissioner in charge of enlargement gave it a glowing endorsement despite the financial crisis. “It is one of the oldest democracies in the world and its strategic and economic positions would be an asset to the EU,” he said. Sigurdardottir has pledged to fast track membership application and says she wants Iceland to join the euro zone within four years.

The metamorphosis of Anzac Day

Watching the Anzac Day marches on television today, I was struck with how familiar it looked twenty years ago when I first arrived in Australia. In 1989 I saw the last few First World War diggers lead the parade. They were dying out then and now they are all gone. In today’s march it was the turn of increasingly rare Second World War vets to feel the cold of comrades dying in numbers similar to when first they met.

Anzac Day is all about ritual and it is one of the reasons the media love covering it in detail. The day is a stable source of controllable news and a rare chance to get away with clichés about pride, mateship and honour. One of the important rituals around Anzac Day is the day off work and it was slightly skewed today as it fell on a Saturday. There were many reports of numbers down on last year as people didn’t necessarily feel the same sort of time sacrifice was required on the weekend, and perhaps doubly so as most states did not give out a holiday on Monday.

However the other key traditions of the dawn service, the parade and the two-up were still well in evidence today. A newer tradition is the battleground service in which Australians and Kiwis combine overseas holiday with a local remembrance theme. Numbers were down at Gallipoli this year. According to the ABC it was the fault of the recession but today’s event at Lone Pine still attracted 7,500 people. Another 3,000 packed out the French 1918 battle site at Villiers-Bretonneux which rose to Australian prominence last year on its 90th anniversary.

Even though overseas Anzac Day celebration dates back to 1916, it was possibly one of the few things the well-drilled founders of the tradition probably hadn’t anticipated. Today is the 94th Anzac Day and there is a strong view that the first Anzac Day was a spontaneous event. On the 25th of April that year, Australian and New Zealand troops celebrated in England, Egypt and the Middle East and in France (where they had just arrived). Back home the excitement generated by what had occurred a year ago ensured it would not be forgotten there either.

Much of the credit for the way it captured the public imagination in 1916 belongs to the war reporting of Ellis Ashmead-Bartlett and Charles Bean. Throughout 1915 their lively accounts ignited a fire which the religious institutions were quick to pick up on. By June the bodies were starting to come back from Turkey in significant numbers and they continued to arrive until the operation was called off in December. It was becoming appropriate that a national day of mourning needed to be called to deal with collective grief.

But even with the help of journalists, Anzac Day did not ignite spontaneously. The first Anzac Day Commemoration Committee was set up in January 1916. It was a Brisbane auctioneer named Thomas Augustine Ryan who decided 25 April was a good day to have the commemoration. He was a member of the local recruiting committee and the father of a soldier who survived the Anzac operation. Ryan suggested the idea to TJ Ryan (no relation, as far as I’m aware) the then-Labor Premier of Queensland. Premier Ryan quickly convened a meeting of local luminaries on 10 January 1916 and allowed a high profile Anglican priest Canon Garland to draw up an agenda.

David John Garland was a remarkable political operator. He was a true missionary and an organiser with a fierce reputation for getting things done. He was the perfect man for the Anzac job. Born in Dublin he emigrated to Queensland in 1886 aged 18 to follow a career in law. But he fell under the influence under a Toowoomba Anglo-Catholic rector who employed him while he prepared for ordination. Garland was a chaplain in the army prior to the Boer War and spent ten years in Western Australia he had successfully changed the rules to allow religious education in state schools. He then came back to Queensland where he did the same as well as winning a referendum to allow bibles in state schools.

Although the 10 January meeting was initially organised by the Queensland Recruiting Committee to get more men onto the frontline, it didn’t take long for Garland to get an Anzac memorial on the agenda. It was he who got a motion passed to “make arrangements for, and carry out the celebrations of Anzac Day”. The Brisbane Courier reported a day later that Garland said the war was teaching people that “their duty to God in a degree would compensate for their neglect of God in the past” and that defeat at Anzac was no disgrace.

Garland made sure the ADCC council was ecumenical and top-heavy with influential people. He used the fact he was a Dubliner to win over what would otherwise been a highly suspicious Roman Catholic hierarchy. However as Anzac emerged as an issue that did not compromise religious belief, all religions wanted to be a part of it. Together, they would ensure Anzac Day always had a religious as well as secular charter.

It was no surprise that the co-ordination should start in Brisbane. The first troops ashore at Anzac were the Queensland 9th Battalion of the 3rd Australian Infantry Brigade. The Ninth were the first to return home in coffins from Turkey in large numbers. As 1915 progressed a culture of commemoration began to grow in the city. But Brisbane was quick to get other Australian and New Zealand cities involved. Garland also arranged for marchers to get free public transport from Queensland Rail.

But his stroke of genius was overcoming the anti-ecumenical Catholic suspicions about Protestant commemorations. Garland’s solution was to include a two minutes silence which allowed everyone to quietly pray to their own God. There would also be time for speeches, hymns, the Last Post and God Save the Queen. It would be followed by a march of returned service men. The ADCC wanted the day to have a similar feel of solemnity to Good Friday (which it was very close to on the calendar – in fact in 1916, it was just four days before Anzac Day). No cinemas, racecourse, hotels or sporting venues were allowed to open.

The ADCC was helped by royal support. King George V attended the 1916 Anzac Day two minutes silence at Westminster Abbey. There he issued a rare message direct to Australians: “Today I am joining them in their solemn tribute to the memory of their heroes who died in Gallipoli. They gave their lives for a supreme cause in gallant comradeship”.

But even with royal imprimatur, it would take another 14 years for the idea of Anzac Day to be institutionalised across Australia. Garland worked assiduously to ensure that the day would keep its religious dimension. From 1921 onwards, he lobbied the Prime Minister of the day to declare a uniform celebration across the Commonwealth. New Zealand declared it a day of solemn remembrance in 1920, Queensland followed a year later and WA in 1923. Initially businesses and hotels were required to close until 12.30pm to allow for services and the march and it would take another seven years for Queensland to get everything shut down for the entire day. By now the federal government had taken over ownership of Anzac Day from Garland’s ADCC and they laid the Inauguration Stone at the National War Memorial in 1929.

At the June 1929 Premier’s Conference, Prime Minister Stanley Bruce (who was to lose the election and his seat a few months later) invited all church denominations to hold memorial services the following year and asked the Returned Sailors and Soldiers Imperial League of Australia (RSSILA) to arrange meetings of remembrance. But there still wasn’t total agreement. Unlike the churches, the RSSILA could not decide if it wanted the tone of the meetings to be solemn or jubilant. It decided on both: solemnity in the morning and carnivals in the afternoon allowing the opening of sporting venues and bars.

Most states went with the RSSILA (now RSL) model. However Garland’s own Queensland went it alone with the “sacred day” approach. It closed bars all day until 1964 when the Anzac Day act was modified to allow the opening of hotels, racecourses and other places of amusement. Australia finally had a nationally sanctified and consistent Anzac Day that appealed to both the spiritual and the worldly side of the nation’s psyche.

Fiji has a long way to go to be as bad as Burma

Last week the journalism watchdog group Reporters San Frontieres slammed Fiji’s censorship saying the island nation was heading dangerously towards a Burmese-style system “in which the media are permanently subject to prior censorship and other forms of obstruction”. However as bad as things are in Fiji and they are very bad, they would have to get a lot worse to compare with the terrible conditions Burmese media workers have had to put up with for the last 47 years.

To understand the nature of Burma’s media, it is important to understand the nature of Burma’s governance. Buddhism has long been at the heart of Burmese political culture and in pre-colonial times religion informed people’s belief that government was an evil to be endured and that kings were unaccountable to the people. A more secular polity emerged in the 19th century under the influence of European colonisation. Lower Burma was established as a British colony after the Treaty of Yandabo in 1826 and the northern part of the country was assimilated 10 years later.

Japan attempted a return to the old monarchical tradition when it ruled Burma during World War II but this idea was quickly swept away after the war. Burma gained independence from Britain in 1948 with a democratically elected civilian political leadership. In 1962 General Ne Win staged a coup under the pretext of preventing ethnic breakaway states and installed a military regime that remains in power to this day. Under his junta, Burma outlawed all other political parties and adopted a central planned economy he called the “Burmese way to socialism”. The effect was disastrous and by 1988 Burma was one of the poorest countries in the world. In 1988, the government violently suppressed a peaceful revolution. Two years later Aung San Suu Kyi (the daughter of a murdered independence hero) led the National League for Democracy to overwhelming victory in free and fair elections only for the military to declare it invalid. They created a new ruling body, the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) which later metamorphosised into the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC). The SLORC/SPDC continues to rule with an iron fist and violently put down the Saffron Revolution in 2007.

Burma remains beset by major issues today. The SPDC continues to string out Aung San Suu Kyi’s house arrest on a year-by-year basis. Major ethnic groups such as the Shan and the Karen continue insurgencies against a central administration implacably opposed to a federal style of government. All sides of the conflict use unregulated commerce including the thriving opium trade to finance their operations. And Burma is also a geo-political pawn. China wants Burma’s access to the Indian Ocean shipping lanes while both China and India covet Burma’s abundant oil, natural gas, uranium and minerals.

But the Burmese media are unable to report on any of these issues. According to Aung Zaw “the plain fact is that most Burmese have no clue what is happening in their country”. It wasn’t always this way as Burma has a long and rich tradition of journalism. Within ten years of British colonisation of Lower Burma the first western-style newspapers appeared in both English and Burmese. By 1919 Burmese language agenda setting nationalist newspapers such as Myanmar Alin (New Light of Burma) were agitating for change. At the time of independence, Burma had a vibrant network of over 30 newspapers which operated with considerable freedom in a country of much natural wealth and widespread literacy. Until 1962 the Burmese people enjoyed political and civil rights protected by the constitution, a free press and national secular education.

After 1962, the military junta clamped down hard. The new regime installed a system of press licensing that required the registration of all publications. The rulers also issued a warning that seditious news was not to be published. Ne Win soon began to act as a “tyrannical king”. In 1963 the junta closed down the prestigious Nation and began to publish its own propaganda in the Working People’s Daily. By 1966, they banned all private newspapers and expelled Reuters and Associated Press correspondents. In 1993 there remained just one permitted newspaper, the Government run Working People’s Daily, printed in Burmese and English.

Similarly, the broadcast media of radio and television remain tightly controlled by the Government. Radio was a wartime legacy and the Burmese followed the British model when they set up the Burma Broadcasting Service (BBS) after independence. Programmers on the BBS operated with similar freedom to the press until it too was abruptly ended by the military takeover in 1962. Myanmar TV began in 1980 and was supplemented by a military channel in 1990. Both channels are owned and operated by the Government and the military. But the Government doesn’t totally control the airwaves. While foreign stations such as STAR TV are officially available only to high ranking officials and five-star hotels in Yangon (Rangoon), enterprising citizens in northern towns have smuggled satellite dishes across the border from China.

In the so-called Saffron Revolution (2007), the government did not restrict the flow of international news but instead concentrated on crushing the watch-dog function of local media by censoring news sources, reporters and editors. The Reporters San Frontières report on Burma for 2006 confirmed the military had not released its grip on the military. The Press Scrutiny and Registration Division check every article, editorial, cartoon, advertisement and illustration ahead of publication. Burma also insists that all fax machines be registered and journalists can earn a seven year prison sentence for having an unauthorised fax, video camera, modem or a copy of a banned publication. The Committee to Protection of Journalists describe Burma as one of the most repressive places for journalists, trailing only North Korea on their “10 Most Censored Countries” list.

Censorship is not the only major impediment facing Burmese journalists. Even minimal attempts to report the facts are ruthlessly crushed. Reporting on detained opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi is banned as is debate about Government policy. In 2006 two journalists were imprisoned for attempting to film outside the country’s controversial new capital at Naypidaw and at least seven journalists were behind bars, making Burma the world’s fifth leading jailer of journalists. Burmese journalists cannot report on diverse activities such as natural disasters, plane crashes, student brawls, regional turmoil and activities of opposition political parties lest they lead to criticism of authorities. Last year a blogger was sentenced to 45 years in jail for daring to report on Cyclone Nargiss. In short, journalism is Burma is not so much about agenda-setting as agenda-avoiding.

Burma’s media regime is a good example of an authoritarian communication model in that the authority of power exists and limits, suppresses and attempts to define its people’s thought and expression. The Internet remained tightly proscribed as of 2002 with just 14,000 email accounts for a population of 50 million people. Yet news is stilling getting through despite intense repression. Because government news sources are unreliable, Burmese people tune in to foreign shortwave radio services from the BBC, Voice of America and Radio Free Asia. Burmese are also turning to older technologies such as videos, tapes, facsimiles, photographs, and printed materials to get messages across. Uncontrolled ideas do get out as the 2007 Revolution showed, even if it was eventually brutally suppressed. While the prognosis for Burma is not good in the short to medium term, the military can never fully defeat the power of communicable ideas.