South Africa Moving to Muzzle the Messenger

By William E. Smith.

Who can believe a government which says it is protecting democracy by destroying it?

-- The Johannesburg Star

A"revolutionary onslaught," which was sweeping the country, amounted to a "coordinated attempt to overthrow the government." With that piece of hyperbole by an information official, South Africa last week imposed one of the most draconian censorship policies in the non-Communist world. Only six months after it had decreed a harsh emergency rule in an effort to quell rising racial unrest, the government of State President P.W. Botha now sought to shroud the country's apartheid-torn society in a veil of secrecy and intimidation. Though the move was aimed principally at curtailing the domestic and foreign press, its overall intent was to cut off South Africa, its people and its fate from the eyes and concern of the outside world.

South Africa's national and international editors and correspondents were summoned to Pretoria to hear the presidential proclamation invoking the sweeping new regulations. There, while a warm summer sun bathed the administrative capital, they were handed a 24-page document whose terms were to go into effect on Dec. 11. The new regulations prohibit journalists from being "on the scene, or at a place within sight of any unrest, restricted gathering or security action" without permission of security officials. They forbid the reporting of "subversive" comments by those advocating a wide range of antigovernment actions. They ban the photographing of dead people, property damage or any other "visible signs" of unrest. Violations of the tough new restrictions can be punishable by suspension of operations for as long as three months at a time, jail terms of up to ten years and fines of up to $9,000.

The country's English-language newspapers were stunned by the severity of the new regulations. Declared the financial newspaper Business Day: "Government today unceremoniously dumps this country into the totalitarian camp." An editorial in the Pretoria News began with the comment, "Well, that's it," and concluded, "This is a desperate action by desperate people who demonstrate that they are unfit to govern." Said Cape Times Editor Tony Heard bluntly: "We are clearly on the road toward being a police state." Overseas, the reaction was almost uniformly critical. The U.S. denounced the South African action, as did most of its allies. The British Foreign Office described the new regulations as "entirely contrary to the Western values that the South African government claims to espouse."

The plight of the press in South Africa was already bad enough. Ever since June, journalists had been prohibited from visiting trouble spots. Newspapers had been prevented from publishing photographs of unrest or reporting "subversive" statements by anyone advocating strikes, boycotts or other disruptive activity. Despite such limitations, however, the foreign press still managed to print a good deal about events in South Africa, and domestic publications continued to run critical editorials and articles.

The latest regulations are designed to close those loopholes. They significantly broaden the range of news that cannot be published or broadcast at all. Proscribed is news of or comment on acts or movements of the security forces, as well as reports of "restricted gatherings" and politically inspired boycotts. Also prohibited are the publication of statements by people whom the state regards as security risks and information about detainees.

All statements defined as subversive by the government are banned. The only real exemptions are statements by Cabinet ministers, deputy ministers and government spokesmen, as well as accounts of parliamentary and completed judicial proceedings. Even critical comments on security matters by M.P.s speaking outside the halls of Parliament may now be forbidden. In a blatantly Orwellian rule, publications are even prohibited from printing any blank space within a story, lest such a deletion of text or photograph suggest that the article had been censored.

To enforce the new system, the government's Bureau for Information established a Media Operations Center, whose job will be to examine all news copy and film before it can be published or broadcast. Equipped with only six telex machines, the cumbersome censorship operation will make the work of journalists vastly more difficult -- and often impossible. South African papers will be obliged to submit editorials on sensitive subjects to the censors. Though that requirement obviously cannot apply to foreign publications, spokesmen said the government would be taking note of editorial comment about South Africa by foreign publications. Indeed, last week Los Angeles Times Correspondent Michael Parks became the fifth foreign journalist to be expelled from South Africa since June, reportedly because of his paper's antiapartheid stance.

Despite the furor at home and abroad, Pretoria seemed determined to press forward with the new restrictions. At week's end the government said it had detained several activists, including union members and at least one journalist, allegedly to prevent a wave of violence planned by the outlawed African National Congress. But if South African officials believe their country's race problems will disappear if a free press is unable to report them, they are only confusing the messenger with the message -- and may be underestimating their own people. As the Boston Globe observed last week, "Despots throughout history have found that the lust for freedom dies hard."

With reporting by Christopher Ogden/Johannesburg, with other bureaus