Abstract
Although our impression of the media’s role in a democracy and democratising societies is fairly stable, the situation is fundamentally different under unstable and ever shifting conditions of political crisis. To explore dynamics in the latter scenario we analyse the coverage of Zimbabwe’s 2018 elections by the country’s daily newspapers. This allows us to examine the newspapers’ active role in shaping the conditions of crisis through their interpretation and evaluation of issues and events during the period under study. We use frame and rhetoric analytical tools to analyse front-page stories and editorials, which enables us to explore the dimensions of news media’s agency during the context of crisis and assess the nature and direction of such agency using normative theories of the media in a democracy. We argue that a political crisis can easily polarise news media and subsequently induce them into assuming an active partisan posture in their reportage of political issues and events by using rhetorical discursive strategies not only to persuade the audience to accept their standpoint, but subsequently, to influence their political action in the future, with consequential implications for their functional performance of received normative roles.
Introduction
It has become axiomatic that political crises disrupt the ‘normal’ socio-political order while creating ‘a context of fundamental ambiguity, confusion, and speculation’ that eventually surprise, if not disorient, different social actors including leaders and the media, as they struggle to comprehend the unfolding events (Boin et al., 2005: 87). As the crisis unfolds, the media interpret and evaluate these ambiguous events, in line with their normative roles and political standpoints, while leaders are expected to make urgent life-changing decisions as they try to defuse the crisis. However, reporting, interpreting and evaluating a crisis, simultaneously, can pose serious challenges for daily newspapers since journalists will be expected to keep up with arising, yet, fast-changing events and issues, interpret them in real time, and evaluate their implications in the long-term while chasing tight deadlines under limiting operational conditions (Farberman, 2013). Given the substantial role of the media in assigning meaning to political crises and informing decision making, the article uses the case study of Zimbabwean daily newspapers’ reportage on the country’s 2018 elections, to interrogate the media’s agency in shaping not just the parameters of crisis, but also the audience’s interpretation of, and response thereto. Analysing these dynamics allows for an examination of journalism’s efficacy as a function of democratic processes and practices under conditions of crisis.
The 2018 election in Zimbabwe constituted a political crisis as it was marred by uncertainty, which significantly threatened the existing socio-political order (Nkala, 2018). For instance, the main opposition party MDC Alliance, was contesting without its long-standing and highly respected leader Morgan Tsvangirai. On the other hand, the ruling party Zanu PF was also contesting the election for the first time without its long-standing and respected leader Robert Mugabe. Furthermore, the legitimacy of these parties’ contesting candidates, that is, Zanu PF’s Emmerson Mnangagwa and MDC Alliance’s Nelson Chamisa, was in question owing to circumstances attendant to their rise to power. Moreover, in the immediate post-election period, the delayed announcement of election results led to protests that were suppressed by the army, which killed six people sparking widespread outrage both locally and internationally (Nkala, 2018). This article investigates the interpretation, evaluation and framing of these events by Zimbabwe’s daily newspapers in the context of an unfolding political reality (Entman, 1993). It analyses editorials and front-page stories published by the state controlled The Herald and Chronicle, and the privately owned NewsDay and Daily News, about Zimbabwe’s 2018 harmonised elections. These news media were selected for rhetorical analysis because of their conspicuous role in framing events, issues and their potential to shape the public’s understanding of such events and issues, and based on these understandings, their actions as well.
Zimbabwe’s 2018 elections qua political crisis
Our premise is that Zimbabwe’s 2018 elections constituted a political crisis albeit one that was embedded within the context of the country’s overarching and protracted socio-economic crisis whose origins can be traced back to colonial times (see Muzondidya, 2010; Raftopoulos, 2003, 2009). The central elements of this crisis include the violent repression of ordinary Zimbabweans, harassment of opposition political and civil entities, poor economic management, dysfunctional public services, neo-patrimonial state institutions and rampant corruption among other things (see Compagnon, 2011; Moore, 2003; Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2011; Raftopoulos, 2009, 2003). In addition, the ZANU PF government’s history of violently repressing political opponents resulted in the immediate post-independence massacres of largely isiNdebele speaking people in southwestern Zimbabwe with perduring and dangerous consequences for ethnic relations in the country (Msindo, 2012). Nonetheless, government has argued that the crisis emanated from its expropriation of land from white farmers who continued to benefit from colonial patterns of land mal-distribution in Zimbabwe (Muzondidya, 2010). Some have also argued that following the fast track land reform programme of the early 2000s, most Western countries assumed a hostile stance towards Zimbabwe, which may have exacerbated the country’s economic challenges following sanctions imposed by the European Union, Australia and the United States among others (see Mamdani, 2009). It is in this context that polarisation in politics and Zimbabwe’s news media emerged and intensified (see Moyo, 2010; Mabweazara, 2011). These political fissures and contests tend to manifest themselves intensely during election times throughout the country’s post-independence history, and the 2018 election is no exception to this proclivity.
A crisis manifests in three stages – pre-crisis, crisis and post-crisis (Coombs, 2007). The pre-crisis or incubation stage consists of a sequence of latent events signaling the ‘early warning stage of the occurrence of a potential crisis’ (Yu et al., 2012: 94). During Zimbabwe’s 2018 elections, the pre-crisis period arguably started before May 2018 when Zimbabwean president Emmerson Mnangagwa announced 31 July 2018 as the date for harmonised elections, which triggered conflict between opposition parties and the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) over the printing of ballot papers (Nkala, 2018). This culminated in the MDC Alliance threatening to withdraw from the election, as the ruling Zanu PF remained steadfast in its support for ZEC. The crisis stage or point of no return, which starts with a trigger event (Bloch, 2014), was triggered when the main opposition party, MDC Alliance, rejected the official results, sparking a chain reaction that resulted in post-election demonstrations and a challenge against the official results at the Constitutional Court. The post-crisis stage begins when the crisis has been resolved (Coombs, 2007). Although the idea that the crisis in Zimbabwe has ended or not is still a matter of debate, we treat the post-crisis stage as beginning shortly after Mnangagwa was sworn in as the president on 26 August 2018 as this has been the status quo since then. A crisis can also be thought in terms of its attributes. For instance, some have argued that it has three components, the sense that there is a threat, uncertainty and a significant degree of urgency (Boin et al., 2005). A threat can be viewed as occurring when ‘the core values or life-sustaining systems of a community’ are in peril or perceived as such (Boin et al., 2005: 2). A crisis is also marked by uncertainty, which leads to a contest for the privilege or authority to interpret events and issues in terms of the desired outcomes (Boin et al., 2005). As such, the questions that remain at large, center on the nature of the role(s) assumed by the media under these circumstances, hence the need to examine the nature of the media’s agency in times of political crisis and the implications of this to democratic politics.
What makes news media narratives indispensable during a political crisis is the enormous pressure on leaders to make urgent decisions about possible ways of terminating the crisis (Boin et al., 2005). This means as crisis events unfolded from post-electoral demonstrations to the constitutional court challenge, leaders were expected to urgently work out and act on measures to deal with the crisis. However, leaders ‘do not have perfect, complete, and uncontested information about the potentially escalating challenges facing them’ (Boin et al., 2005: 38). As such, they also have to make sense of the unfolding events before making urgent decisions, under the welter of ever-changing circumstances and demands, to say nothing of the competing interests at play. The arising paradox is that the media, which are caught up in the same vortex of crisis under specific limiting operational conditions, are one of the major sources of information for besieged decision makers pursuing the neutralisation of crisis.
Journalism’s normative posture and political crisis
Political communication revolves around three nodal points – political actors, channels of mediation and citizens (Santos and Ndhlovu, 2016; Blumler and Gurevitch, 1995). Of the three, the news media are generally expected to assume the fundamental role of interpreting and evaluating events in a balanced and judicious manner (Christians et al., 2009). However, as most scholars writing within the rubric of political communication have shown, there is always a disjuncture between what is expected of news media and how they actually operate (Blumler and Gurevitch, 1995). Our task here is to examine the nature of such a disjuncture and trace the ways through which it emerges especially in times of political crisis when normatively functional media are required the most.
The four daily publications under scrutiny represent the extremes of Zimbabwe’s polarised media landscape (Ndhlovu, 2020; Moyo, 2010). The Herald and Chronicle, which are publicly owned but controlled by the government tend to take a ‘Pan Africanist’ and conformist posture towards the status quo which is dominated by the ruling party Zanu PF while the NewsDay and Daily News, which are corporate entities, favour opposition parties and western style liberal democratic politics (see Santos and Ndhlovu, 2016; Chuma, 2005). Ranger (2005) has described journalism practiced by The Herald and other state media as ‘patriotic journalism’, since it seeks to advance Zanu PF’s hegemonic position in Zimbabwean politics (see also Chuma, 2005). This form treats the critical journalism practiced by corporate news media and opposition politics as treacherous and laced with neo-colonial tendencies (Ranger, 2005). On the other hand, corporate news media such as NewsDay and The Daily News provide a platform for the expression of dissenting views from opposition politicians and civil society although such views remain particularly elite (see Chuma, 2005; Mabweazara, 2011; Moyo, 2005). Although these trends have been established in extant scholarship on the media in Zimbabwe, at least in terms of the effect of ownership patterns on content, the discursive strategies that drive the media towards and reinforce these polarities have not been significantly explored hence our concern with news media’s assumption of rhetorical agency as a politically consequential posture.
The socio-political and media context outlined above enables us to assess the implications of news media’s interpretive dynamics during a political crisis to democratic politics. This is done through a rhetorical and frame analysis of editorials and front-page stories from the selected newspapers given the discursive significance of these pages. For instance, as McNair (1999) observes, newspaper editorials reflect the stance of the publication and are seen as the voice of the newspaper. Arguably, the editorial has a strong agenda setting effect as it expresses a newspaper’s ‘distinctive normative view on issues of public concern’ (Pfetsch et al., 2010: 151). Moreover, the editorial’s ‘objective is to advise, evaluate, comment, rebuke, and imagine the world as the newspaper wishes it to be’ (Pfetsch et al., 2010: 151). The argumentative nature of editorials thus, renders them an ideal platform for newspapers to offer interpretations and evaluations directly addressed at conflicting parties and audiences. The front-page, on the other hand, is viewed as the most significant page of a newspaper (Shams, 2013). Newspapers place the most important news of the day on this page although the circulation of competing narratives, at once, may complicate such decisions during a political crisis (Boin et al., 2005). Under these circumstances, the placement of particular stories on the front-page may betray the newspaper’s biased interpretation and evaluation of the unfolding events. The politics surrounding the placement of news stories on the front-page and the angling of editorials thus, provide a productive site for studying the construction of news frames and news media’s role in society.
Christians et al. (2009) aver that normative roles of news media in democratic societies can be summarised in terms of the monitorial, facilitative, collaborative and radical roles. Nonetheless, we are more concerned with the news media’s monitorial and facilitative roles as they are often invoked in discussions on democratic politics (Habermas, 1989). Christians et al. (2009: 140) argue that the monitorial role places news media at the core of analysing and interpreting events in a balanced and judicious manner, ‘guided by criteria of relevance, significance, and reigning normative frameworks for the public arena’. This role implies the media assuming a watchdog role, scanning the complete social environment, and providing society with relevant information (Christians et al., 2009). However, during a crisis news media may find themselves negotiating ambiguous events, conflicting sources and a confused public (Boin et al., 2005). We interrogate how news media negotiate their monitorial role during a political crisis when consensus is non-existent, public anxieties are high and democratic institutions and practices are vulnerable using the case of Zimbabwean daily newspapers’ coverage of the 2018 election. The facilitative role, on the other hand, entails the news media promoting dialogue between different actors. In their performance of this role, news media are not expected to side with any actor but provide vent for a plethora of views and opinions as well as allowing audiences to make judgements (Christians et al., 2009). However, considering that political crises tend to be emotionally charged, they present a challenge for journalists and editors who are normatively expected to remain balanced, fair, informative and accommodative. Given that most democratic entities are founded, among other things, on the premise of active citizenship and participation thus, it is imperative to scrutinise how news media play the role of a facilitator during a political crisis when stakes are high and emotions run deep.
Considering newspapers under study are diametrically aligned to state and commercial interests, it is also important to consider the implications news media’s performance of the collaborative role. News media perform this role when they operate closer to and sometimes in complicity with centres of power be they political, commercial or defined by other special interests (Christians et al., 2009). The nature of collaboration may be normative if it is consonant with issues of social justice, human development and in the service of the public interest (Christians et al., 2009). It can also assume a negative posture when it involves coercion, and voluntary submission to or acquiescence with authority at the expense of what is the public interest (Christians et al., 2009). This framework enables us to examine the nature and direction of journalism’s agency in times of political crisis, as well as to make judgments about the normative status of news media’s posture in such contexts. Although it has been extensively argued that Zimbabwe is not a democracy (see Mutsvairo and Muneri, 2020), this theoretical framework is still useful for a normative analysis precisely because it allows us to show, at a discursive level, the specific ways in which journalism in Zimbabwe fails to support or enhances processes of democratisation in the country. Moreover, this is a fundamental concern since the resolution of political crises is arguably contingent on normatively functional news media.
Framing theory
Framing involves selecting ‘some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition’ (Entman, 1993: 52). Entman (1993) has also argued that news media frames have four functions – to define problems, diagnose causes, make moral judgements and suggest remedies. When defining problems, news frames outline exigent issues in society while at the same time explaining the broader implications of those issues. Here, the news media might decide to make some problems salient while neglecting others to promote expedient narratives, understandings and actions (Entman, 1993). This is most likely done explicitly through the placement of stories on the front page and the selection of issues for discussion in the editorial page. The news media go further to examine the roots of these problems and propose ways of addressing them. In so doing, they can actively shape not only public perceptions but also action, which speak to news media’s agency in the escalation or resolution of political crises.
News frames can also function as moral references through making judgements about people, events and issues (Entman, 1993). Here, news media offer interpretations and evaluations of events, actors linked to these events and issues intrinsic to such events. The editorial, unlike other sections of the newspaper, best performs this role as it enables a publication to assertively state its position on the issues of the day (McNair, 1999). The front-page also highlights the news media’s preference since it reflects what the publication deems as most important on any given day (Shams, 2013). As such, the article analyses the editorials and front-page stories published by Zimbabwean dailies during the 2018 elections to understand the moral judgements they offered and their implications to democratic politics in the country. News frames also suggest remedies through offering and justifying ‘treatments for the problems and’ predicting their likely effects (Entman, 1993: 52). The article thus, examines narratives and evaluations of the events and issues attendant to the 2018 elections in terms of their framing by Zimbabwean daily newspapers as this allows us to unpack the dimensions and normative implications of media agency during times of political crisis. An analysis of framing and rhetoric allows us to show, at the politically consequential macro-discursive level, the actual political work of newspapers that get immersed in the political environment they are supposed to perspicaciously report on. Our approach is not so much about deeper linguistic analysis of such reportage but an explication of how political crises constrict political discourse in terms of the political contestations playing out in society, and how these get shaped and amplified by news media in turn.
Methodology and methods
This paper is informed by Blumer’s (1969) conception of symbolic interactionism. Consistent with Blumer’s (1969) view, we see news media not as passive chroniclers of events and issues as they play out in society, but also as generative actors whose actions are based on their interpretations of what is going on around them, and who in turn, prompt other social actors to act in specific ways. Symbolic interactionism sees human beings as always engaged in action, interactively (Blumer, 1969). As such, to study human action is to study society. For Blumer (1969), it is useful to also study human action as interactive since people act based on their interpretations of other people’s actions or indicators. Based on this view, the news media must be seen as generative social agents, which proffer interpretations of the social world and based on these interpretations, persuade audiences to accept their interpretations and act in particular ways. Social actors whose actions news media seek to influence include among others, politicians, policy makers and ordinary citizens. The agency of news media in times of political crisis thus, must be seen in terms of Blumer’s (1969) observation that human action is ‘built on the basis of what they note, how they assess and interpret what they note, and what kind of projected lines of action they map out’ (p. 16). This applies both to the news media and those addressed by such media in equal measure. To unpack the news media’s agency in times of political crisis, we use analytical methods that enable us to examine the mechanics through which such agency is occasioned. We are concerned thus, with news media’s framing of issues, which demonstrates their active role in shaping the public’s understanding of such issues and their subsequent actions. We also use rhetorical analysis to show the sorts of understandings and actions the two newspapers under study promote. We go further to examine the normative implications of the newspapers’ persuasive moves using Christians et al.’s (2009) framework as outlined above.
Rhetoric is a form of argumentation which has been defined as ‘the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion’ (Aristotle, 1355b: 27–28 cited in Richardson, 2007: 156). As Richardson (2007: 156) avers, rhetoric is not just a matter of persuasion but is also aimed at convincing an audience and ‘provoke them into an immediate or future course of action’. This can be done using ethotic, pathotic and logetic modes of persuasion. Ethos is when the character of the persuading agent such as news media, plays a major role in persuading the audience (Richardson, 2007). The persuader’s goodwill, authority, expertise and experience may form the core elements of a persuader’s appeal in this regard (Richardson, 2007). The news media can also implicitly or explicitly use pathos or appeal to the emotions of an audience as the basis of persuasion (Richardson, 2007). For instance, an editorial or news story may ‘move an audience to anger (or pity, fear etc.)’ or bring them to calm, as well as make them happy as the situation may demand (Richardson, 2007: 160). Logos involves the use of facts, figures and other forms of empirical evidence in rational argumentation to persuade an audience (Richardson, 2007). Depending on the political goal(s) of the writer, these modes of persuasion can be mobilised in terms of three rhetorical types, forensic rhetoric, epideictic rhetoric and deliberative rhetoric. Forensic rhetoric is concerned with a subject’s past actions and involves accusation or defence of the subject (Richardson, 2007). Epideictic rhetoric is concerned with a subject’s present character or reputation and involves praise or censure of the subject depending on their character/reputation, real or perceived (Richardson, 2007). Deliberative rhetoric is concerned with future actions and involves inducing or dissuading audiences to or not to do something (Richardson, 2007). By studying these aspects of news content, one can establish the actual ways through which news media actively seek to influence not only social action but also its direction. To operationalise our study, we had to work with a manageable set of data. We arrived at our final sample using quota and purposive sampling methods as discussed below.
Between July and August 2018, The Herald published 77 front-page stories and 36 editorials while the Chronicle published 62 front-page stories and 29 editorials. The Daily News published 69 front-page stories and 31 editorials while NewsDay had 56 front-page stories and 33 editorials. Using quota sampling, these stories were divided into three categories (pre-crisis, crisis and post-crisis). During the
Findings
A frame and rhetorical analysis of the sample stories shows that the four newspapers took an overtly active and partisan posture in their coverage of and commentary on issues, showing a radical departure from the conventional model of journalistic practice. Although they differ in terms of political standpoints, the salient leitmotif across the four newspapers, both in terms of the front-page stories and editorials, is the question of legitimacy before, during and after the July 30, 2018 elections. In other words, all stories and editorials analysed address this question – implicitly and explicitly – across the three phases of crisis during the election period in Zimbabwe. The four newspapers speak to the question of legitimacy regarding the main political players in contest, institution(s) responsible for superintending the elections, the process of conducting the elections, and the outcome of the elections inter alia. All the stories analysed, at one point or the other, use forensic, epideictic and deliberative rhetorical types. For instance, using epideictic rhetoric, The Herald and Chronicle exalt Mnangagwa as a reformist who is tolerant of divergent views and responsible for creating the prevailing ‘democratic atmosphere’ in the country. In contrast, the same newspapers represent Chamisa as a hooligan that lacks democratic credentials as he is both inciting his supporters to engage in violence and is not prepared to accept the results of an election which The Herald and Chronicle see as largely free and fair. The deliberative rhetorical effect sought is to induce Zimbabweans to vote for Mnangagwa/Zanu PF and dissuade them from voting for Chamisa/MDC Alliance. On the other hand, the NewsDay and to a lesser extent Daily News, deploy forensic rhetoric to use Mnangagwa’s past association with the Mugabe regime, which was/is largely regarded by opposition forces as autocratic, to discredit his democratic credentials in the present. The same goes for institutions such as ZEC, the police and army, which the papers see as predisposed to favour Mnangagwa and Zanu PF. The NewsDay uses these rhetorical devices to dissuade Zimbabweans from voting for Mnangagwa/Zanu PF and induce them to vote for the MDC Alliance and Chamisa. By so doing, the newspapers became active political players during and after the crisis. In the ensuing exposition, we show how these newspapers engaged the question of legitimacy using ethos to persuade the audience to vote for either the ruling party’s Emmerson Mnangagwa or opposition leader Nelson Chamisa.
Pre-crisis
The partisan posture of The Herald, Chronicle, Newsday and to some extent Daily News is clearly marked out in the papers’ reportage of events and issues in the immediate period before elections. The Herald and Chronicle’s reportage clearly privileges the incumbent Emmerson Mnangagwa and his party Zanu PF, whereas the NewsDay is evidently sympathetic towards the main opposition candidate Nelson Chamisa and his coalition, the MDC Alliance. The Herald and the Chronicle endorse and legitimise Mnangagwa and Zanu PF as progressive, transformative and people driven political entities. This is noted in The Herald editorial titled ‘We won’t tolerate anarchy: President’. The editorial deploys forensic rhetorical techniques to position Mnangagwa’s government as ‘committed to peace and tolerance’ unlike the previous government that engaged in ‘toxic politics’. Similarly, the two publications steadfastly defend the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission as a credible, independent, accommodative and incorruptible organisation despite questions about its integrity, impartiality and credibility. Reference is made to the Chronicle editorial titled ‘stop exerting unwarranted pressure on ZEC’, which dismisses criticism against the electoral body as ‘beginning to sound outrageous and ridiculous’.
This picture counterpoises the NewsDay’s and Daily News’s reportage of the pre-election period. The NewsDay highlights misgivings raised against ZEC by opposition political parties and civil society to suggest a flawed electoral process and illegitimate outcome. For example, in its editorial titled ‘ZEC must address voters’ roll anomalies’ it argues: We find it strange that ZEC chairperson Justice Priscilla Chigumba is the one who is leading the fight to resist any changes, casting doubts about her own impartiality. Zimbabweans in general and the voting public in particular owe it to themselves to hold ZEC accountable. They have a right to demand accountability and be able to answer. And at the rate irregularities are being unearthed, the electorate should be able to answer the question: What if the July 30 election is stolen again as was the case in 2008?
The cumulative effect of its reportage is that it puts the legitimacy of ZEC as an independent, non-partisan and fair authority on the election process, in question. Consequently, this implies that even the outcome of the election is already in question and should be rejected. The paper makes frequent reference to Mnangagwa’s age and his association with Robert Mugabe partly to question the legitimacy of his claims as an agent of transformation. In contrast, Chamisa and the MDC Alliance are represented as fresh and youthful paragons of democracy. However, this outright anti-Mnangagwa and pro-Chamisa/MDC stance is only but slightly evident in the Daily News’s reportage. The Daily News follows the conventional journalistic model that adheres to the idea and practice of journalistic objectivity (see Tuchman, 1972). In other words, comparatively speaking, the Daily News goes to the furthest extent possible, in offering as many views on any of the issues covered as possible, staying as detached as possible and using evidence to speak to the many sides accommodated in its stories. The story entitled ‘Outcry over Ballot Paper’ published on 20 July 2018, includes the voices of most stakeholders in the election and does not privilege any of these voices.
Crisis
During the crisis phase, The Herald’s reportage promotes the view that the election was free, fair and credible as evinced by a significant number of candidates for both parliamentary and presidential posts. Using ethos as a mode of persuasion, it attributes this scenario to the ‘progressive’ efforts of Zanu PF’s presidential candidate Emmerson Mnangagwa who had been in office since the November 2017 coup on an interim arrangement. To support this frame, The Herald reports on voting routines and the expectations and experiences of various presidential candidates highlighting the general contentment of most of the less prominent candidates serve for those generally characterised as habitually negative, that is, MDC Alliance’s Nelson Chamisa, Joyce Mujuru and Nkosana Moyo. Following the violence in Harare, The Herald largely follows the government’s frame and blames the MDC and its leaders for the violence. It undermines Chamisa’s moral standing by highlighting his culpability for the violence based on what he had said prior to the elections, itself an ethotic technique of persuasion. For example, in its editorial titled ‘MDC Alliance, there is a limit to mischief’, The Herald notes: The MDC leadership has refused to acknowledge the political and economic reforms undertaken by President Mnangagwa since assuming office. They have accused him of being another Mugabe or worse. The deliberate acts of violence are meant to provoke the authorities to act so the MDC can “prove” to the world that nothing has changed in Zimbabwe and therefore no reason to endorse this week’s electoral outcome. They need to be warned that there is a limit to this mischief. Chamisa and Tendai Biti should not be allowed to become a law unto themselves.
The same frame is extended to Chamisa’s court petition, which The Herald frames as subterfuge against the will of the people.
The Chronicle’s framing of issues and events during the period of crisis cultivates the impression that the election was legitimate. Its reportage framed the MDC leaders and supporters as merchants of violence, which undermines their credibility and social standing. Using pathos as a persuasive technique, The Chronicle describes the incidents of violence in greater detail to evoke feelings of resentment against the MDC. For instance, its editorial titled ‘Harare mayhem. . . MDC Alliance supporters go on rampage’ asserts that the: MDC Alliance’s propensity for violence came to the fore yesterday after its supporters went on a rampage destroying property, torching vehicles, blocking roads and attacking pedestrians in Harare’s Central Business District. Some pedestrians were robbed of their possessions. The rowdy supporters went into the streets around 10am and continued disturbing the peace into the afternoon.
The paper also uses ethos to promote Mnangagwa by claiming that he enjoys overwhelming support, which elevates his social standing and invites the opposition to accept electoral loss as inevitable. As with The Herald, The Chronicle’s reportage seeks to drive the audience’s focus from the contentious elections and accept the election and constitutional court-hearing outcome. Both The Herald and Chronicle argue that Chamisa’s petition emanated from a realization that he was unlikely to win the election. Ultimately, the two papers shift their focus away from the election, and instead, highlight the need to focus on the economy, unity and invite stakeholders to provide productive criticism.
The NewsDay’s reportage during the period of crisis is a counter-narrative to the state-controlled media’s representation of issues. In a nutshell, the paper’s reportage questioned the credibility of the election and its outcome. Using forensic rhetorical techniques, it focused on the contentious issues raised by the opposition, criticised Mnangagwa and ZEC as remnants of the old autocratic system, and censured government for its penchant to use extreme violence to suppress dissension. The paper’s claim that there is continuity between the Mugabe and Mnangagwa regime, feeds into its general thrust of de-legitimizing his electoral victory. Its reportage on the violence that broke out in Harare emphasizes the army’s excesses and ignores, obscures or understates the violence of the protestors. A good example of this is in the lead of a story published on the 2nd of August 2018 titled ‘6 feared dead as military shoots protestors’: AT least six people were feared dead last night, while several others sustained gunshot injuries after soldiers and police in Harare used brute force to suppress MDC Alliance activists protesting against alleged electoral theft of their vote by Zanu PF and the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC). The city centre resembled a war zone, as soldiers drove in their armoured vehicles and indiscriminately fired live ammunition at anyone they found in the central business district, with several passersby caught in the cross fire.
Reference to the protestors’ violence is mostly presented deep in the story after trenchantly criticizing the government, ZEC, the police and the army. The paper bolsters its narrative on the elections’ lack of credibility through repetitive reference to the MDC’s misgivings about the election process and resonant reports by international observer missions such as the commonwealth. The NewsDay’s predisposition towards Chamisa over Mnangagwa is also manifested through constant reference to their respective ages. Chamisa who was 40 years old then, is presented as the future of the country and Mnangagwa who was 75 then, is presented as part of the old guard that is largely seen as having failed to drive the country towards prosperity. Election results statistics are only provided after sustained criticism of the electoral process and those running it, a strategy meant to invite the audience to treat such statistics with suspicion. The paper’s reportage on Chamisa’s court petition is framed as a test against pillars of Zimbabwe’s democratic institutions and promotes the view that a negative outcome affirms the patrimonial nature of such institutions. Some of the stories are exclusively based on MDC sources and civic organizations that share the same views. Although the paper condemns violence, its focus is mainly on state violence, and not that instigated by non-state actors. Upon realizing the country’s political configuration had been finalised, at least in the interim, by a court outcome that favoured Mnangagwa, the NewsDay shifted to calling for a political solution and stakeholder consultations, which is more or less the frame that The Herald and Chronicle adopted at this stage of the crisis.
Nonetheless, in contrast to the overt partisan posture assumed by The Herald, Chronicle and NewsDay during this crisis, the Daily News largely remained detached and objectivist. However, there are instances of subtle partisanship that betray the paper’s disposition towards the main opposition presidential candidate, Nelson Chamisa. For instance, the Daily News, as with the NewsDay, makes reference to Mnangagwa’s and Chamisa’s age. This implies that the former has nothing new to offer Zimbabweans in comparison with the latter. The paper also associates Mnangagwa’s current status to the 2017 military coup but ignores Chamisa’s questionable rise to power within the MDC. It also highlights misgivings about the electoral process raised by opposition parties, which undermines the legitimacy of Mnangagwa’s election victory. However, this does not significantly change the paper’s general orientation towards ordinary citizens which is evident in its call for politicians to focus on the economy, its criticism of the intensifying polarization following demonstrations, the violence in Harare and Chamisa’s petition. For instance, on the 13th of August 2018, The Daily News, in a story titled ‘Zim economy burns as parties fight’ reported: It is a crying shame that Zimbabwe’s political stalemate, in the wake of the hotly-disputed July 30 presidential poll, has pushed the urgent need for the country to fix its ailing economy on the back-burner – as price hikes and severe shortages of cash, foreign currency and fuel continue to bite. . . And to add to the misery of Zimbabweans, the country continues to experience severe cash shortages, as well as erratic supplies of petrol and diesel at most garages – amid conflicting statements from authorities.
The paper also points to the implications of colonial legacy to contemporary politics in Zimbabwe and calls for a just and egalitarian society.
Post-crisis
The Herald and the Chronicle report on the post-election period and post-constitutional-court outcome in ways that represent Mnangagwa’s presidency as decidedly legitimate. Mnangagwa is presented as a listening servant leader, whose government would not tolerate corruption and unnecessary bureaucracy in service delivery. The papers legitimise Mnangagwa’s presidency on the basis that his inauguration was attended by many Zimbabweans and African leaders. The Chief Justice who presided over the post-election court hearing that endorsed Mnangagwa as president is represented as a ‘darling’ of the people, which suggests that he had protected the people’s will against those aimed at subverting it. His stature thus, is used to legitimate Mnangagwa’s presidency. Both the Chronicle and The Herald invite Zimbabweans to shift their focus from politics to the economic challenges facing the country.
The NewsDay retains its anti-Mnangagwa/Zanu and pro-Chamisa/MDC frame in the post crisis phase and represents Chamisa as a crusader for democracy fighting the intransigence of a venal and illegitimate government led by Mnangagwa. It highlights, among other things, Chamisa’s appeal against the election and court outcome to the African Commission for Human and People’s Rights (ACHPR) describing African leaders as part of a patrimonial network that is highly unlikely to take seriously the MDC Alliance’s grievances. The paper notes is its editorial titled ‘MDC Alliance fighting a losing battle’: The decision by the MDC Alliance to ratchet up pressure to overturn President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s victory confirmed by the Constitutional Court (ConCourt) last week in reaching out to the African Commission for Human and People’s Rights (ACHPR) might be a lost cause in light of the nature of African politics, which are usually run by an “old boys” club. While the ACHPR provides a channel for aggrieved political players on African soil to raise their grievances and seek redress, chances that the MDC Alliance will exert any influence that can change the outcome of the ConCourt are almost zero.
Lastly, the Daily News consistently frames its stories using the objectivist template despite its evident but subtle preference for the opposition. Although it acknowledges Mnangagwa’s victory, it also highlights that the election outcome was disputed and that there was deadly violence in Harare. The paper also approvingly reports on Mnangagwa’s calls for unity but criticises his choice of vice presidents. For the Daily News, the appointments evince continuity with the past. As with the NewsDay, the Daily News implores Mnangagwa to pick his cabinet outside his own party. However, the primary concern for the Daily News is economic revival rather that political preference.
Discussion
Our discussion of the three newspapers’ framing of the political crisis in Zimbabwe during the 2018 elections focuses on the democratic implications of such framing, and the rhetorical strategies used by these newspapers at a critical time in a country struggling to democratise. These newspapers’ coverage of the political crisis during Zimbabwe’s 2018 elections shows the potency of news media in defining the scope of coverage and interpreting social events as well as issues chosen for salience. To begin with, despite the fact that there were about 23 presidential candidates including three serious contenders, these newspapers chose to focus on only two of the candidates. This severely polarised and narrowed political discourse not only to the framing of social issues by the privileged candidates, but the interpretation of such framing by these newspapers. Reading through the four major newspapers under study, one is left with the impression that the only contesting candidates and political parties were Mnangagwa/Zanu PF and Nelson Chamisa/MDC. This represents an extreme case of narrowing political discourse at a time when it should and could have been expansive, diverse and deeper.
Secondly, the partisan posture taken by The Herald, Chronicle and Newsday meant that their performance of the monitorial and facilitative roles, which are critical during election time (see Christians et al., 2009), was severely undermined. The Herald and Chronicle failed to play an oversight role over the excesses and failures of the electoral body ZEC, the government and armed state instruments to the same extent that NewsDay failed to expose the opposition’s malfeasance. Their partisan posture also made it difficult for these three newspapers to provide a platform for diverse voices to find vent. They conveniently chose sources that reinforced their frames rather than expand the scope of political discourse beyond the preferred voices. This scenario can arguably be attributed to their chosen frame and leitmotif, the question of legitimacy. Since The Herald and Chronicle chose to endorse their favoured candidate Emmerson Mnangagwa, his government and its institutions, they ended up amplifying those qualities that they presented as evidence of his magnanimity and legitimacy as the rightful presidential candidate. State-controlled newspapers also defended institutions such as ZEC, the police, and the army, as they were associated with Mnangagwa by virtue of his history and incumbency. The questionable behaviour of these favoured individuals and institutions was understated if not completely ignored. Likewise, the NewsDay’s pre-occupation with the opposition disarmed it from questioning the latter’s failures and fairly assessing the enabling political environment that had been put in place by the post-coup government which was desperate to be seen as reformist and different from that of Robert Mugabe. The Daily News is the only paper whose reportage was consistent with the received normative roles of the news media in a democracy (see Christians et al., 2009). Not only did it provide richer and wider reportage on the political issues and actors prominent during the election period, it also accommodated the widest range of voices in its coverage. However, its discursive weight could not match the pressures imposed by the political environment and its louder but partisan peers, The Herald, Chronicle and Newsday.
Although it is fairly clear that three of the main news media failed to effectively perform the monitorial and facilitative roles during the election period in Zimbabwe, it is difficult to conclusively attribute the fallout that led to the military’s intervention, which resulted in six people dying, to the media’s coverage of issues and events during this period of crisis. Nonetheless, it is clear news media in Zimbabwe were so polarised and discordant in their reportage of issues and events such that the audiences were left with no clear sense of what was going wrong and how best to respond to these problems. It is also possible that the news media’s polarization fed as much into the political polarization that had gripped the country, as the broader polarised political environment amplified polarization of the news media. If this explanation is remotely close to accurately representing what actually happened, then the political crisis in the country was as much a media creation as it was a political creation.
Conclusion
The cases analysed above have shown that a political crisis can easily drive news media into assuming a partisan posture in their reportage of political issues and events. Once this has happened, news media quickly use the ideological square as a default framework for covering events. This involves, on the one hand, emphasising the bad things done (or perceived as such) by the opposite side while understating any good associated with them. On the other hand, it involves overstating the good done (or perceived as such) by the favoured side and understating any bad things associated with them. It is also arguable that by assuming a partisan posture, the news media would have taken a deliberate decision to influence political activity in a specific direction. To successfully do this, they use rhetorical discursive strategies not only to persuade the audience to accept their standpoint, but subsequently to influence their political action in future. Also, as the analysis above shows, this has a manifestly negative impact on the news media’s ability to perform received normative roles in democratising societies such as Zimbabwe.
Footnotes
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
