Knowledge is not for knowing, it’s for cutting

A picture collage consisting of front pages of local newspapers with headlines on corruption within the Malawi Government and public institutions has been making rounds on social media (see the featured image). The headlines will not be entirely surprising for regular readers of local newspapers because such headlines are in the newspapers almost every other day.

The power of the collage, however, is that it has managed to capture the headlines in one breath, which gives a better perspective of what is otherwise covered sparsely in the newspapers. The collage has put the levels of theft, mismanagement and impunity in the government and public institutions into a much better perspective.

What is even more revealing about the picture collage is that it has exposed the fact that the media regularly report on corruption, theft, and mismanagement in government ministries, departments, agencies, and the public sector, yet nothing is done about it.

We all read the stories and reports in disgust, and we throw the newspapers away, feeling empowered that we know what is going on. We sit back and wait for tomorrow’s headlines. This is the trend; the enculturation is real and pathetically so.

I follow the media closely, and I know that there is no shortage of public criticism of the local press, sometimes rightly so.  The media is criticised for declining levels of investigative reporting, passive reporting, and, especially in electoral periods like this, suspected biased reporting towards one political party or another. The media should take public criticism positively and try to improve. If anything, such criticism shows that the public cares and values the information that the media provides.

The collage of newspaper headlines shows that amidst the public criticism of the media, the media also provides a lot of valuable content, exposing corruption, theft and malpractice in high places. It is important to remember that the media merely acts as a watchdog, informing and exposing the public on what is happening in the public and private sector, as well as within civil and political societies.

Democracies ought to have independent institutions to check on abuse of power by those entrusted with it. It is entirely up to these institutions and members of the public to act on the information provided by the media. Beyond this, there is little that the media can do.

The Council of Foreign Relations attributes the fall of the former South African President, Jacob Zuma’s heavily corrupt administration to the power of South Africa’s independent media. Notably, he states that this happened in combination with the country’s strong civil society: a “sophisticated parliamentary opposition and court judges who regularly ruled against the government.”

He notices that once the media publicised corruption to the general public, civil society did not hesitate to sue the administration in the courts, and the formal parliamentary opposition was able to delay or block unfavourable parliamentary initiatives put forth by the Zuma government. This underscores one of the essential aspects of the media, which is often overlooked: media reports are only a means to an end. It is up to the rest of us to act on it. French philosopher Michel Foucault observes that knowledge is not for knowing; it is for cutting, and indeed, knowledge is power, and power comes with responsibility.

Malawian civil society has its commendable moments, but its efforts are often thwarted by the lack of independent public institutions to complement them. Our compromised Anti-Corruption Bureau immediately comes to mind.

In 2018, we saw civil society organisations trying to do things differently. For instance, Charles Kajoloweka and his team at Youth and Society opted for the legal route in their efforts to demand accountability in public institutions. Young activists successfully initiated an online petition and stopped the Malawi Government from erecting a statue of Mahatma Gandhi in Blantyre.

Yet, these actions do not take away the fact that Malawi is generally a laid-back, if not passive, and fatalistic nation. This is especially the case when it comes to holding power to account. Malawi is politically polarised and is characterised by blind political royalty—folks see everything through political party colours. These narrow interests mean that folks cannot objectively appreciate things from the broader perspective of national interest. This is the ultimate tragedy of our democracy, and our leaders take full advantage of it. It is not surprising that media reports exposing wrongdoing are not acted upon.

High Cost of Internet vs. Fake Images

The days when people believed that pictures do not lie are long gone. We are now in the age of mass information manipulation, mass distribution and redistribution of information; new telecommunication technologies have made all this possible. Technology has significantly changed the way societies consume news and information. Unfortunately, misinformation has emerged as one of the big problems of the new information age, especially considering the importance of accurate information in all aspects of the society, particularly in democratic societies.

A study published in 2017 investigating people’s ability in identifying original and manipulated photographs has shown that “people have poor ability to identify whether a real-world image is original or has been manipulated.”The researchers, Sophie, J. Nightingale and others say the importance of the study is that it“will help to inform the development of effective guidelines and practices to address two key issues: how to better protect people from being fooled by fake images, and how to re-store faith in original images. ”

In short, genuine information matters and images form a crucial part of the information cycle— public or private. Yet, the issue of misinformation also referred to as “fake news” is not entirely new. In recent times the concern has been reignited by the perceived role of social media platforms such as Facebook in providing space for misinformation and manipulation. This has emerged as one of the critical issues post 2016 US elections for example, and thus it is seen as a global problem.

But the problem has different context in different places, and it is important to acknowledge this. Goerge Ogola observes that in Africa the problem of misinformation has always been thereway before the social media. For a long time state controlled media in Africa has been used to support and protect the interest of dictators and political elite. This is not to say social media is not a culprit in Africa, no. It is to acknowledge that the problem has always been there, in a different form – and this remains the case.

For Malawi, the issue of context is crucial, in understanding the said research. Majority of Malawians online get their information through social media, and majority of this information is in form of images—as opposed to reading written texts, say on webpages and news sites. This is not always by choice; the sharing of images has proved crucial in Malawi unlike sharing of links and articles due to high cost of Internet access.

Accessing the Internet is very expensive in Malawi and for the majority of Malawians this vital resource is a luxury they cannot afford. Lack of affordability is also one of the main reasons for the country’s low Internet usage. Telecommunication companies have settled for a seemingly convenient business model for the Internet: assorted data bundles. For various reasons most users in Malawi opt for social media bundles, mostly WhatsApp and Facebook.

These bundles obviously limit one’s Internet usage, it limits the kind of content one has access to; and it limits the kind of content one is exposed to. Sharing of images is very convenient to social media platforms, which a majority of Malawians online have access to, than the sharing of actual news website links. If anything, most people share screenshots of websites. Send a link to your WhatsApp group and very few Malawians will open, not always because they do not want to read but mostly because their data bundle limits them to WhatsApp only.

This increases people’s vulnerability to fake information and images because people’s alternative means of checking information online is limited by Internet data plans they can afford. The nature of platforms like WhatsApp is that like-minded people are likely to be in the same groups. The problem with this is that people on social media tend to trust senders of information instead of independently judging information on its own merit. Studies have shown that a lot people on social media tend to “forward” or share information they do not understand; this is done for “social validation”.

The proponents of social media bundles argue that some form of access is better than none; they also argue that once people have some access to the Internet they are driven to have and use it more. Yet, social media bundles also have serious limitation as users are confined to specific packages and plans.

This makes it difficult for people to verify authenticity of information being shared within their networks because this is as far as their subscriptions can take them. For people to use the Internet productively and be empowered to counter misinformation, it is important that the Internet is made available and affordable for all.

Malawi Electoral Commission Needs to Rethink its Position on Official Broadcaster

I read with interest a comment by Malawi Electoral Commission’s (MEC) Chairperson, Justice Jane Ansah, that MEC is not going to have an official broadcast for the 2019 elections, as it was the case during the 2014 elections.

Ansah was quoted by The Daily Times of Monday February 18, 2019 saying the decision has been arrived at because “the commission has considered that the broadcast industry has undergone a metamorphosis in the past years and the reasons that warranted the issue of official broadcaster no longer exist.”

She added: “Stakeholders should note that, during the polling and results management, if they hear announcement of results on a radio station or television by a MEC commissioner or official, then they should take that as an official communication.”

It is telling that Ansah made this comment at a meeting where Malawi Broadcasting Corporation (MBC) was rightly taken to task by various electoral stakeholders for its bias political coverage towards the incumbency. The fact that MEC has to choose an official broadcaster is a serious indictment on MBC, which by law is meant to operate as a public broadcaster and without any political bias, yet over the years MBC has made itself a partisan broadcaster in favour if the incumbency. It does so with utter impunity and it is getting worse and shameful.

Ansah is right that the broadcasting industry has matured a lot since 2014 if by so she means private broadcasters, not MBC. Private broadcasters have so far behaved more responsibly than an institution funded by taxpayers’ money and mandated by the law to be politically neutral and offer fair coverage to all political players. If Malawians are to look back on these elections and say the country’s broadcasting industry helped the electorate make informed choice in the elections we will be talking abut private media.

Yet, MEC’s decision not to have official broadcaster is a big mistake and it could prove costly. Radio remains the most important mode of mass communication in this country but it is a big mistake to overlook other forms of media. In absence of official broadcaster MEC has created a communication vacuum at a very sensitive period.

You will remember that one of the key issues that MEC had to deal during the 2014 elections was the announcement of the so-uncalled “unofficial results” – there was even a fascinating debate on the accurate Chichewa translation of “unofficial results”. Yet, MEC had an official broadcaster then – what more when there is none? Is MEC telling us that the absence of the official broadcaster will improve things? Is the decision of not having official broadcaster based on lessons learned in 2014, or failure to learn from those lessons?

Where there is no official channel of communication, people will always create one, and this is the social of social media today. It only takes a fairly literate individual with a gadget that is smart enough to do basic tasks on the Internet to create alternative information. If MEC struggled with “unofficial results” on radios in 2014, this time they will also the likes of WhatsApp to deal with. WhatsApp was there in 2014 but not WhatsApp groups and not the same number of people on WhatsApp today – the figures have grown tremendously that its reach in urban areas of Malawi it could rival broadcasting.

It is worrying that MEC is only thinking about broadcasting. Any public organisation today should consider social media in its communication strategy. The four days of presidential nomination papers submission offered a good glimpse of what to expect during the electoral results period. This time stakes will higher and there will be no pantomime villains to lighten up the tense mood, as it was the case during those four days COMESA Hall.

The catch about social media is that people tend to have more trust in information shared by friends, people they know and influential people – “influencers”. This is why information shared within these networks is more trusted and people are always eager to share such information so they remain socially relevant and they may be seen as being in the know – ozitsata.

MEC should be mindful of this, otherwise they will find themselves in a situation where it has to correct false information and rumours on social media. Once this happen then MEC has lost control of information. The good thing, from MEC’s point of view, is that it is not too late to get things right. MEC needs to identify official broadcaster or several of them and let the country know of that decision. It absence of official channel of information all information is potentially fake. MEC officials will have information but these are not communication channel; they need one to communicate to the public.

Digital Rights, Internet Accessibility, and Affordability in Malawi – Part III

This article is the third and last in a three-part series focusing on digital rights, access to the Internet, and Internet affordability in Malawi. This part specifically looks at access to the Internet, what it is and what it entails

Affordable Internet

Dhanaraj Thakur of Alliance for Affordable Internet notes that there are two factors that determine whether Internet access is affordable, namely: the amount of data and the cost for purchasing that level of access.  Internet is considered affordable when 1 Gigabyte (GB) of unbundled mobile data costs 2 percent or less of average monthly national income. Unbundled data means data that is not restricted to a specific app or social media service.

The current average monthly income for Malawians is K29 200 (about $40.96), while 1 Gigabyte of unbundled data costs is K5 000.00 (about $6.86) for 30 days. This shows just how expensive mobile data is in Malawi.

This means that Internet remains unaffordable for a majority of Malawians, and studies reveal that even though there has been improvement on Internet access, from 9.6 percent in 2016 to 13.1 percent in 2018, studies also reveal that the Internet speed in the country is getting worse, against the global average.

In 2015, the BBC reported on International Telecommunications Union (ITU) findings, which established the extent of internet cost in Malawi. The report shows that on average Malawians use more than $12 (about K8 760) a month on mobile phones, the primary means of accessing the Internet. The report indicated that [at the time] the $12 was more than half of what an ordinary Malawian earned in a month. Minimum wage was at K15 000.

Freedom House’s Freedom on the Net 2018 report reveals that Malawians have to pay up 44 percent in tax in order to access the Internet. The tax is broken down into the following: a 17.5 percent VAT [value added tax] on mobile phones and services; a 16.5 percent VAT on Internet services; and an additional 10 percent excise duty on mobile phone text messages and Internet data transfers, introduced in 2015. The report reveals that as of March 2018, a monthly data bundle for 10GB costs $22 (about K16 000) with both Airtel and TNM.

The report also reveals that for the few users who can afford the Internet, “connection speeds are frustratingly slow and have decreased to an average of 1.3 Mbps in 2017 from 1.7 Mbps a year prior, compared to a global average of 7.0 Mbps.” The slowing speeds have coincided with rising costs due to poor infrastructure management and lack of investment.

Perhaps inevitable, the report argues that the high costs of the internet have hit the Malawi’s poor the hardest—“shutting them out of an increasingly digital world of important services like mobile banking and money services that could help lift them out of poverty, as well as access to essential communications platforms.”

OSISA/ Wits University report on political economy of new media technologies in Malawi observes that there is a clear need for Malawi government to reduce taxes for ICT products so as to enhance universal access and make the Internet affordable. The report states:

“considering the harsh economic climate of Malawi and the already exorbitant costs of ICT services as a result of a poor electrical infrastructure and landlocked geography, regulatory taxes present an unwelcome addition to rising costs.”

The report makes it clear that regulatory and policy frameworks, as well as government taxes are largely responsible for the high tariff rates on mobile phones and SMs. It is then not surprising that majority of Malawians are priced out of the Internet. The amount of VAT the government is getting from the industry indicates that Malawi government is mainly interested in making money—through taxes and operating licences while ignoring the benefits of the Internet to the socioeconomic development of the country and its people.

The series of articles are made paossible by support from the DW Akademie. For more information visit http://malawi.misa.org.

Media Freedoms Should not be at the Mercy of Politicians

“I am… for freedom of the press, and against all violations of the Constitution to silence by force and not by reason the complaints or criticisms, just or unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their agents.” Thomas Jefferson

It is always good when politicians pledge their commitment to protect media freedoms, especially in emerging democracies where such freedoms are often provided in theory but cannot always be guaranteed in practice. For Malawi, it is particularly interesting to have such assurances coming from the ruling DPP presidency given the part’s chequered record when it come to media freedoms in the country.

Addressing a political rally in Ndirande, Blantyre, DPP’s vice president for Southern Region, Kondwani Nankhumwa assured the media in the country that the Malawi government would protect media freedoms. Never mind that Nankhumwa was speaking at a political rally, not a government gathering, the crucial difference difficult political party in power and government is, unfortunately inconsequential in Malawi politics.

Quoted by Daily Times, Nankhumwa said:

“We want you to know that we appreciate the work you do. During the term of President Peter Mutharika, no journalist has been arrested; this shows that we appreciate the work that you are doing.”

Malawi is in campaigning mode as the May 2019 presidential, parliamentary and local government elections get closer. So Nankhumwa’s comments should in no small part be understood from this context. One should also understand Nankhumwa’s sentiments from the background that his comments came only days after MISA Malawi issued a statement demanding justice for journalists whose constitutional right to work freely in the country have been violated in the country and no culprit has been brought to book.  This context is very important, especially having in mind Nankhumwa’s insistence that no journalist has been arrested during President Peter Mutharika’s term of office.

The Daily Times ran editorial arguing:

“… while we say thank you to the ruling party vice president for the Southern Region for such soothing words, we want to see his words reflected in deeds of ruling party politicians. We want to see journalists operating without looking over their backs.”

All good and understandable, even though the editorial missed the context of Nankhumwa’s assurances. But here is the main with Nankhumwa’s problem: media freedoms should not be at the mercy of politicians; media freedoms must be guaranteed and promoted by legal framework and necessary procedures must be in place to ensure that such laws are protected. The duty of political leaders is to ensure conducive legal framework and procedures to allow journalists to work independently and free of all forms of coercion.

These are the basics of democratic process; it is in autocratic states where media freedoms and civil liberties are at the mercy of those in power.

Politicians like Nankhumwa can be congratulated for making progressive assurances on a political podium. Yet, Matters of policy should not be discussed on the political podium – there are procedures for it. What are we going to do next time politicians use the same podium to promote populist policies that are not progressive? Democracy is about institutions, not individuals and that is the only way democracies ensure continuity as well as protection of democratic freedoms and civil liberties.

In Defence of African Bloggers’ Freedom

An African Bloggers Statement on the Situation in Tanzania

15 June 2018.

We, the undersigned bloggers , based in East, Southern, Central and West Africa, committed to the universal and continental right of all Africans to the rights of freedom of expression, access to information in tandem with the important right of all to access the internet;

Outrightly condemn the recently introduced Tanzanian government policy of exorbitantly licensing and criminalizing the democratically important work of bloggers and whistleblowers.

From an African perspective, Tanzania , long considered on the African continent as a beacon of freedom dating back from the days of our own liberation struggles against colonialism through to being at the heart of the freedom solidarity under the auspices of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU), now known as the African Union (AU), is regrettably setting an undemocratic example to the rest of the continent.

This , against the globally valued tradition of African solidarity in pursuit of not only democracy but also social and economic justice beyond its own borders and at great national sacrifice to its own people,

As African bloggers we consider it tragic and unfortunate that Tanzania has now decided to limit the same freedoms that the greater majority of Tanzanians and Africans historically value and have come to achieve.

“We therefore strongly urge the Tanzanian government to repeal repressive provisions in the Electronic and Postal Communications (EPOCA) (Online Content) Regulations, 2018 and other related online content laws which we believe only serve to undermine freedom of expression, access to information, and media freedom.”

Not only in the spirit of African liberation of old but more significantly in pursuit of a democratic future of all Africans. Regardless of age, political persuasion and ethnocentric origin.

We call upon the African Union, the East African Community (EAC) and the Southern African Development Community (SADC), Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) to strongly urge the government of Tanzania t reverse its decision. And that new policies on access and use of the internet and its offshoot become more democratic not only for bloggers but for every African citizen that already has or would have access to social media or the internet.

In the words of the legendary liberation struggle African icon, Kwame Nkrumah, ‘Africa must unite!’ As bloggers we add the following phrase, ‘Africa must unite in pursuit of democracy, human rights , social and economic justice.’

Signed

1. Takura Zhangazha (Harare, Zimbabwe)
2. Bruce Chooma, (Lusaka, Zambia)
3. Fanta Diallo, (Dakar, Senegal)
4. Jimmy Kainja, (Zomba, Malawi)
5. Anne-Marie Befoune (Dakar, Senegal)
6. Masake Anthony (Kampala, Uganda)
7. Paul Shalala (Kitwe, Zambia)
8. Prudence Nyamishana (Kampala, Uganda)
9. Daniel Ominde, (Kisumu, Kenya)
10. Blessing Vava, (Harare, Zimbabwe)
11. Fotso Fonkam, (Yaounde, Cameroon)
12. Alexandre Nhampossa, (Maputo, Mozambique)
13. Nwachukwu Egbunike (Ibadan, Nigeria)
14. Dércio Tsandzana (Maputo – Mozambique)

Inclusion Matters: Internet Tariffs Too High for Most Malawians

Those that closely follow Malawi’s telecommunication sector will not be surprised that Malawi has once again scored poorly on international ranking for poor Internet accessibility, given that access to the Internet remains very low in comparison with its regional neighbours—owing it to very expensive data tariffs by telecommunication operators, which are also subjected to punitive government tax regimes.

The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Inclusive Index Report of 2018 which was commissioned by Facebook, shows that out of the 86 countries assessed, Malawi is overall ranked 85^th in the world, only one position ahead of the worst ranked country, Democratic Republic of Congo.

On position 83 out 86 Malawi has equally scored poorly on Internet availability which “examines the quality and breadth of available infrastructure required for access and levels of Internet usage.”

Malawi has also scored poorly on affordability, ranking 84 out of 86 in the world. The affordability category examines the cost of access to the Internet relative to income and the level of competition in the Internet marketplace.

Though still poor, Malawi is ranked 79 out of 86 on Relevant content—a slight improvement from the previous positions. Relevant content “measures the availability of news, finance, health, entertainment, and business information.

The report acknowledges that the definition of relevant content can be slippery; the types of content list above are common.

Overall, Malawi has performed well on Internet Readiness. Readiness “examines the capacity to access the Internet, including skills, cultural acceptance, and supporting policy.” Under readiness other issues measured are literacy—to assess the preparedness to use the Internet; trust and safety, this measures Internet safety and cultural acceptance of the Internet. It also measures policy, to assess the existence of national strategies that promote the safe and widespread use of the Internet.

Looking at how these respective measures have been ranked, one thing that becomes clear is that Malawians are ready to embrace the Internet, both culturally and capability wise. This is why Internet readiness has ranked much higher than Internet affordability and availability. The problem is that not many Malawians can afford the cost of the Internet which is among the highest in the world for a country with one of the lowest per capita income in the world.

In 2015 the BBC reported on International Telecommunication Union which established the extent of cost of Internet in Malawi. The report indicated that on average Malawians use more than $12 a month on mobile phones. The report observed that this is more than half of what an ordinary Malawian earns in a month.

Of course, the report is on mobile phones in general but the reality is that in Malawi, like the rest of the continent, we cannot discuss Internet accessibility and affordability without considering the mobile accessibility. Mobile connectivity is by far the primary form of Internet accessibility in African countries.

A 2012 OSISA/ Wits University report pointed out that there is a clear need for Malawi government to reduce taxes for ICT products so as to enhance universal access. The report made this point “considering the harsh economic climate of Malawi and the already exorbitant costs of ICT services as a result of a poor electrical infrastructure and landlocked geography, regulatory taxes present an unwelcome addition to rising costs.”

The report further noted that Malawi Communication Regulatory Authority’s (Macra) policy taxes are largely responsible for the high tariff rates on mobile phones and SMs. “Furthermore, the taxes imposed on ISPs monthly and annually have subsequent effects on end-user costs, exacerbating the situation,” said the report while recommending that “license fees and taxes should be revisited and amounts settled should be prioritised according to a universal access motto.”

Freedom House’s Freedom of the Net 2017 reported the same observation that in large part, Malawi’s ICT sector is choked by heavy government taxes on the industry. This include “a 17.5% VAT on mobile phones and services, a 16.5% VAT on internet services and an additional 10% excise duty on mobile phone text messages and internet data transfers.” All this adds up to 44% duty on Internet and mobile phone access in the country.

Ultimately, it should not come as a surprise that the majority of Malawians are priced out of the Internet and other ICT provisions, which in this day and age should not be seen as luxury because Internet provides essential tools for socioeconomic development as well public participation and contribution to issues of public interest including democratic processes. As the Inclusive Internet Index puts it, “Internet access is a necessary condition for inclusion, even if it is not sufficient to guarantee it.”

Chavura’s Rape Song and the Pitfalls of Telecommunication Regulation in Malawi

In telecommunication regulations are meant to correct market failures in order protect and promote interests of consumers and citizens. In an ideal world, regulation is an ideal thing to have. But then ours is not an ideal world – it is a world full of opportunists and self-interested individuals. Governments and those who run its affairs are often worst offenders and therefore least trusted by the public.

Therefore it comes as no surprise in this country that regulations made in the name of protecting interests of Malawians are received with suspicion and derision, by the very same people whose interests the regulation is supposed to protect. Consolidated ICT Regulatory Management Systems (CIRMS), commonly known as “spy-machine” comes to mind. This equipment was meant to be rolled out by Malawi’s telecommunication regulator, Telecommunication Regulatory Authority (MACRA) to, among other things, help the regulator determine if Malawians were being over-charged by telecommunication operators.

Telecommunication firms in the country successfully challenged the rolling out of CIRMS in the courts. The firms argued that the public were not happy with the machine as the regulator had capacity to eavesdrop in on people’s private information.

Perhaps the timing of the CIRMS roll out was poor given that at the time there was a considerable discontent in the country against the government at the time, the tipping point of which was the 20^th July 2011 nationwide demonstrations. Given that other regulations such the 2016 Cyber Security Act also faced public suspicions, the challenge faced by CIRMS could well be because of the country’s political history, which is riddled with leaderships that have not done much to uplift people’s welfare and well-being. Trust is very important for policy implementation.

Malawians could well have genuine fears and such fears are definitely not ahistorical. Yet, telecommunication companies in Malawi could more reasons to stop MACRA rolling out CIRMS than the purported reason that Malawians were against CIRMS. Today Malawians are no longer discussing CIRMS yet some media reports suggests that some of the telecommunication companies are still not satisfied that MACRA has been cleared by the courts to roll out CIRMS. Time will be the best judge how MACRA will use this equipment.

What is known is that MCRA has not had the capacity to have the full information about the industry it regulates. This is why MACRA had to hire services of a Scottish firm in 2017 to assess the real cost of doing telecommunication business in Malawi. MACRA’s Director of Finance, Ben Chitsonga told the local media that the assessment has indicated that for a long time both Internet and phone calls have been very expensive in the country.

Chitsonga was optimistic that data prices would perhaps go gown following the study’s revelations. This shows the important of telecommunication regulation, especially where the regulator has the actual information of the regulated industry – it is the only that the regulator could work in the interest of the public. This is also crucial for MACRA to perhaps try and improve its chequered public image. MACRA acknowledges in its own 2015-2020 Strategic Plan that among its weakness is “inadequate enforcement of regulations arising from loopholes in the Communications 
Act”.

It is not surprising then that the Cyber Security Act was received with public suspicion. Of course the Act has some unambiguous and dubious provisions, which, according to Freedom House, “includes problematic provisions that critics worry will be used to silence dissent, especially as the country gears up for elections in 2019.” Such provisions include “restrictions on online communications to “protect public order and national security,” as well as vague clauses that may enable network shutdowns or blocks on communications platforms.”

These are genuine worries and I share them but then at the same time the Act is necessary in this day and age to counter the changing communication and media environment.

Robert G. Pickard and Victor Pickard in their report on Essentials Principles for Contemporary Media and Communication Policymaking noticed that “policies pursued in the past for broadcasting, telecommunications, and media are often inadequate for contemporary media and communications.” They added: “the complexities of contemporary digital systems and networks, cable and satellite operations, internet-distributed content, social media, and cross-platform activities necessitate different methods to address the issues and challenges they pose.”

The Electronic Transaction has been structured in such a way that it could address contemporary issues such as those being raised by the two authors. So when malawimusic.com allowed Mwiza Chavura to promote his song perpetuating rape, and one would say outright violence against women on their website, one would think that MACRA was going to act given that the Cyber Security Act has necessary provisions allowing it to intervene and protect the public from contemptible content and material such as Chavura’s song.

MACRA has missed an opportunity to gain some of its much-needed public trust and also to showcase that the Cyber Security Act is not merely there to muzzle freedom of expression as many fear. Instead, it is the public outcry that has forced the police in the country to arrest the artist charged under section 179(1)(a) of the penal code which penalises production of obscene material; when the Cyber Security Act has provisions in sections 24, which among other things limits freedoms of communication in order to “prohibit incitement on racial hatred, xenophobia or violence” and to “prohibit justification for crimes against humanity.”

Malawi on the Internet, It’s Getting Worse

Freedom House’s Freedom on the Net, 2017 report shows that 2017 was, as Wire.com puts it, “terrible year for Internet freedom”. The report shows that almost half of the 65 countries assessed in 2017 experienced a decline in Internet freedoms during the assessment period. Less than one-quarter of users reside in countries where there are “no major obstacles to access, onerous restrictions on content, or serious violations of user rights in the form of unchecked surveillance or unjust repercussions for legitimate speech.”

Malawi is among the countries assessed and it is categorised as “partly free”. This category was arrived at for two distinct reasons: the first one is not much different from many countries assessment in the report; it has to do with direct government interference. The assessment finds that there were few cases where online news was subjected to “government manipulation”; the arrest of three opposition MPs over a WhatsApp conversation; and various provisions in the Electronic Transaction and Cyber Security Act, 2016, which are deemed as punitive and could be used by the government to “censor online content and dissent.”

The second reason is what the report calls the “availability and ease of access”. The report indicates that average connection speeds in Malawi have decreased from 1.8 Mbps (mega bit per second) in 2016 to 1.3 Mbps in 2017 – comparing the average connection speeds to global average of 7.0 Mbps, one could argue that Malawi really doesn’t have Internet to facilitate any meaningful development. The report observes that this means that Malawi has one of the “lowest and slowest growing rates of the Internet in the world, in stark contrast to the exponential growth in access among its neighbouring countries on the continent.”

For patriotic and proud Malawians these finding are unwelcome, of course yet the real problem is that Malawi government and its policy makers still treat access to the Internet as a luxury that should be punished with punitive tax measures ignoring the fact that Internet is a key driver of socioeconomic activities and therefore, national development. In this day and age, a country cannot attract investors if it doesn’t have stable, affordable and standard Internet connection speeds. Gone are the days when Internet could be viewed through the lens of Facebook and other social media platforms where citizens go pastime, entertainment and gossip.

The only time one hears Malawi government officials talking about the Internet is when someone in the position of power, usually politically connected wants social media regulated or some aspects of banned. Do Malawians really want to start this conversation when the Internet has not really taken off in the country? Such approach only reduces the discussion to issues of social media abuse, which only begets the questions of censorship and tight control while ignoring the crucial issue of access and infrastructure development that would increase access quantitatively and qualitatively for all Malawians and not the privileged few.

The Freedom House reports notices that the poor growth rates of Internet and mobile phone access in the country are largely a result of the high service costs for consumers. This include “a 17.5% VAT on mobile phones and services, a 16.5% VAT on internet services and an additional 10% excise duty on mobile phone text messages and internet data transfers.”

If one adds this, it comes up to 44% duty on Internet and mobile phone access in the country, ultimately making Internet and mobile phone access a luxury for the majority of Malawians; and, as noticed by the report: “shutting [majority of Malawians] out of an increasingly digital world of important services like mobile banking and money services that could help lift them out of poverty, as well as access to essential communications platforms.”

It is easy to blame poverty in such cases, as the report has done to an extent, yet measuring by the amount of tariffs Malawians pay to access mobile phones and the Internet, Malawi government policies have not been helpful in trying to bring Malawians online. This is not only reducing Malawi into a disconnected country but also a tiered society between the haves and the have-notes. Unfortunately, even the haves have little to celebrate as the expensive Internet speed is “frustratingly slow” and is decreasing due to “poor infrastructure management and lack of investment.”

Interestingly, Malawi government is aware of the importance of ICT for national development, this is clearly stated out in Malawi’s National ICT Policy, 2013. In its preface the policy states out: “ICT is essential for the sustainable development of Malawi … Implementation of ICT policy is encouraged by the prevalent political will existing in the country, which has seen the ICT sector being recognised as on the priority areas with potential of turning around the economy….”

Similarly, Malawi’s telecommunication regulator, MACRA has indicated in its 2015 – 2020 Strategic Plan that its “vision” is “universal access and usage of ICT services in Malawi.” And its “mission” is “to facilitate the development of the ICT Sector through efficient and effective regulation and research.”

The irony is that access to ICTs, particularly mobile phone and Internet services has not improved since 2015 when Malawi government imposed 10% VAT on an industry. This suggests that all these policy documents on ICT are merely a window dresser. The amount of VAT the government is getting from the industry indicates that Malawi government is mainly interested in making money—through taxes and operating licences while ignoring the benefits of ICT to the socioeconomic development of the country and its people.

“Fake News” and Internet Shutdowns in Africa – What is to be Done?

In 2016 after attending my first Re:publica, a techie conference in Berlin, I wrote of a need for Africa to have what I called a “collective thinking space” where like-minded actors on the African continent would converge to share ideas and inspire each other. The Forum on Internet Freedom in Africa, 2017 (FIFAfrica17) which was held in Johannesburg, South Africa which I recently attended was the type of gathering that I wrote about in 2016.

Organised by Corroboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) and co-hosted by the Association for Progressive Communication (APC), the peak of FIFAfrica17 was the launch of two important reports by CIPESA: State of Internet Freedom in Africa 2017 and the Cost of Internet Shutdowns in Africa. The reports highlight how influential new technologies, specifically the Internet have become in African politics over the years. Speaking at the Forum, Google’s Fortune Mgwili-Sibanda, observed that not withstanding the low Internet penetration rate on the continent, the Internet today has become important to African politics in a similar way that broadcasting was in the age of coups in Africa.

State broadcasting stations were always among the first institutions to be ceased by successful coup leaders so they could announce their victories and spread propaganda. Today, noted Mgwili-Sibanda, authoritarian states are quick to shutdown the Internet to maintain power and control. The age of the Internet has arrived in Africa and it is only right that Africans engage with new technologies critically – FIFAfrica17 provided that space.

Apart from critical issues concerning security and gender equality online, cost of the Internet, freedom of expression, access to information and privacy online, there were two specific issues that stood-out for me: “fake news” and of Internet shutdown. “Fake news”, perhaps I happened to sit on its discussion panel and Internet shutdowns because for the first-time I got to meet people who have directly been affected by fake news and they spoke passionately about it.

Some thoughts on these two issues:

“Fake news”

We must first understand that the central problem with “fake news”, and this is why it matters, is the centrality of access to information in democratic societies. Information is a pre-requisite for citizen’s public participation, and meaningful public participation can only be realised when citizens have accurate and critical information. This can only be realised through free and independent media providing accurate and verified information, not “fake news”.

Of course “fake news” has always been around in various forms and guises – it is still the same today. There are “fake news” producers only using it as click-baits, the motive here is nothing more than monetising. Then there is “fake news” informed by cultural myths – in Africa, certainly in Malawi where I come from, you always have media reporting on cases such as witchcraft planes having landed somewhere, is this not “fake news”? Then the most critical one: deliberate “fake news” aimed at deceiving the audience, harming someone, maintaining or attaining power.

The first version of “fake news” is likely to drift away as society figures out this disruptive technology. The second version is harmless – societies are bound and they exist by cultural beliefs and myths. We must be worried with the third version of “fake news” as it is politically motivated and its consequences have a greater impact in society.

In some cases there is nothing that media institutions can do to stop the spread of “fake news”, and this is one of the reasons that the “fake news” phenomenon is technology specific – the Internet. Yet, this also emphasises the critical role that journalists have in ensuring that the public have access to accurate and credible information.

Verification and fact-checking in journalism have never been so important. It is also the only way that journalism is going to maintain its credibility intact. As the saying goes, it is better to be late and accurate than break inaccurate or incorrect news.

Internet Shutdowns

The cost of Internet shutdowns is colossal as indicated in the report launched at FIFAfrica17. Yet, for paranoid political leader trying to maintain control and power, there is no price that cannot be paid.

But then it is crucial to appreciate that Internet shutdowns involve two players – government and service providers. Governments are interested is shutting down the Internet to close off citizens expressing their dissatisfaction and misgivings about the government. While service providers have to abide by government orders or risk loosing operating licenses. Service providers are not charity organisations – their prime motive is to make profits.

This leaves civil society to battle for open and accessible Internet for all, against the collusion between governments and service providers. Gatherings such as FIFAfrica17, though seemingly techie niche, are thus very important for activists, civil society groups, academia etc. to bang heads, share experiences and chart the way forward.

If everything in the past has failed to bring about African consciousness and solidarity among the huge diversity of Africans then Internet is proving an exception. According to a 2015 Portland Communication study, “Africa Tweets” the political #hashtags in Africa show that there is more solidarity among Africans online – or at least on Twitter. South Africa’s #feesmustfall hashtag was more popular in Egypt than South Africa itself, for example.