When I was approached to contribute to this workshop by presenting a paper, I readily accepted because I felt, having been the National Chairman of my association for three years (1995-1998), I was adequately qualified to speak on the subject with some kind of authority. I also saw it a great honor being requested to share my views with colleagues from different parts of the world on the subject of Library Associations and Intellectual Freedom. Let me, before I go too far, make it clear that the views expressed in this paper are my personal views, and should not be attributed in any way to any institution.

In an attempt to give a picture of the Zimbabwe Library Association leadership’s position on intellectual freedom, I will give four situations that we have experienced, and then ask you to make your own judgment on the Zimbabwe Library Association’s position on libraries and intellectual freedom.

Situation 1

In the invitation to speak at this workshop, Jan Ristarp, the Executive Director of the IFLA/FAIFE Committee made it clear that presentations were expected to be "emphasizing the responsibility of the associations to promote the awareness, among their members as well as in society, of the fundamental role of intellectual freedom in performing library work".

Before presenting my own ideas, I thought it was proper to consult the current National Executive of the Zimbabwe Library Association for the current official position of the Zimbabwe Library Association on issues relating to intellectual freedom, and on 11 May 1999 sent an e-mail to members of the National Executive, requesting them to provide me with the Zimbabwe Library Association’s position. I was expecting the input of the National Executive by the second week of July. I reminded the National Secretary several times, either by phone, but when I did not get feedback by 28 July, I made a written reminder to the National Secretary, giving a new deadline of 9 August. As I had not heard from the National Secretary by 10 August, I phoned him to once again remind him of the issue, but he told me that when the National Executive last met during the Zimbabwe International Book Fair which ran from 2 to 7 August this year, there were other important issues to discuss, and that the executive had found no slot for the intellectual freedom issue. The National Secretary said he would contact the national chairman and come back to me, but as I finalized this paper on 19 August, I had not received any communication from the Zimbabwe Library Association’s National Secretary despite several telephone messages left for him to come back to me., as he was not in his office each time I phoned him on the issue.

Situation 2

In April 1998 during an official visit to Norway at the invitation of the Norwegian Library Association, I had a meeting with the Norwegian Forum for Freedom of Expression at their Oslo offices. At that time, the Norwegian Forum for Freedom of Expression were developing an international bibliographic database on censorship and freedom of expression for the new library in Alexandria, Egypt. In the discussions, I felt the project was a noble project. I arranged that a formal invitation be made for the Zimbabwe Library Association to participate in this project. I handed over this invitation to my successor when I lost the chairmanship in our annual elections on 3 May 1998, and emphasized how important it was for our association to make a contribution to this noble project. When I discovered that the issue had been shelved, I reminded the National Secretary, both verbally and in writing, that the National Executive had to look at the issue as a matter of urgency and respond to our colleagues in Norway, but the issue was never put on the agenda of the Zimbabwe Library Association. In my opinion, this could have been an ideal opportunity for the Zimbabwe Library Association to work hand in hand with other organizations pushing for intellectual freedom worldwide.

Situation 3

At the 1998 National Annual General Meeting of the Zimbabwe Library Association held on 3 May, a controversial issue was discussed, which, in the opinion of many members who contributed in a survey I carried out in preparation of this paper, needed to be openly discussed, with the two sides involved giving their opinion on the issue. The debate came to an abrupt end when after members on one side of the argument had poured out all their opinions, a member wishing to give his opinion of the other side of the story was nearly physically assaulted. In the opinions of members who took part in the survey, the Zimbabwe Library Association leadership should have protected the member whom, in the opinion of some, was intimidated by the threats of being physically assaulted. One participant in the survey had this to say "I do not think that Mr. X (Name of member who made the successful attempt to prevent another member from speaking) should have been allowed to get away with it, but I am not the chairman (thank goodness)".

Situation 4

At the beginning of 1997, a member of the American Library Association wrote to the National Chairman of the Zimbabwe Library Association complaining about the manner in which the country’s President, Comrade Robert Mugabe, had barred the gays and lesbians from participating at the Zimbabwe International Book Fair. I was the chairman then, and shared the letter with members of the National Executive, suggesting that we discuss the issue with the membership to get their views, but I became very unpopular for wanting to give the membership an opportunity to express their opinion on the issue, despite explaining to my colleagues that we should not suppress the thinking of individuals in the association.

Having given the four situations, I can safely conclude, and I am sure most of you will agree with me, that there is very little appreciation of intellectual freedom within the majority of those in the leadership of the Zimbabwe Library Association, and a lot needs to be done to bring about this appreciation. The issue of intellectual freedom is not among the top priorities of the current Zimbabwe Library Association’s National Executive, and this explains why when meetings run out of time, the intellectual freedom issue is sacrificed, even when there are deadlines to be met.

The Zimbabwean Government has just appointed a Constitutional Review Commission to re-write the country’s constitution as the current one, which was adopted at the Lancaster House Conference which brought majority rule to Zimbabwe, is said to be no longer very relevant to the country’s needs, despite having been amended several times since 1980 when the country attained independence. At the same time, another independent group, the National Constitutional Assembly, is running a parallel exercise as it does not trust the Government initiative, alleging that the government exercise is not transparent, and that the commissioners are members loyal to the ruling part. Both processes calling are calling for inputs from both individuals and organizations, and the Zimbabwe Library Association could take the opportunity to make a contribution in order to ensure that intellectual freedom is catered for. One member from the Mashonaland Branch has already raised the issue, but the dilemma has been whether to make submissions to the government initiated process, or the independent National Constitutional Assembly. If we were to respect the freedoms of the membership as enshrined in Article 19, then we may have to divide ourselves into two camps, with one submitting inputs to the government initiated process, and the other to the independent one as they wish. If we miss this opportunity, then it may take very long before we get another opportunity to have our thinking on intellectual freedom considered.

Chapter III of the Zimbabwean constitution in force deals with the declaration of rights, with clauses 19 and 20 dealing with the protection of the freedoms of conscience and expression respectively.

Clause 19 (Protection of freedom of conscience) subsection (1) states that "Except with his own consent or by way of parental discipline, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of conscience, that is to say, freedom of thought and of religion, freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, whether alone or in a community with others, and whether in public or in practice, to manifest and propagate his religion or belief through worship, teaching, practice and observance"

However, subsection (5) of the same clause says "Nothing contained in or done under the authority of any law shall be held to be in contravention of subsection (1) … to the extent that the law in question makes provision –

1. in the interests of defence, public safety, public order, public mortality or public health;
2. for the purpose of protecting the rights and freedoms of other persons, including the right to observe and practice any religion or belief without the unsolicited intervention of persons professing any other religion or belief; or
3. with the respect to standards or qualifications to be required in relation to places of education, including any instruction not being religious instruction, given at such places

Except so far as that provision or, as the case may be, the thing done under the authority thereof is shown not to be reasonably justifiable in a democratic society

Clause 20 (Protection of freedom of expression) subsection (1) states that "Except with his own consent or by way of parental discipline, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of expression, that is to say, freedom to hold opinions and to receive opinions and to impart ideas and information without interference

However, subsection (2) of the same clause says "Nothing contained in or done under the authority of any law shall be held to be in contravention of subsection (1) to the extent that the law in question makes provision –

1. in the interest of defence, public safety, public order, the economic interests of the state, public morality or public health;
2. for the purpose of

1. protecting the reputations, rights and freedoms of other persons or the private lives of persons concerned in legal proceedings;
2. preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence;
3. maintaining the authority and independence of the courts or tribunals or Parliament;
4. regulating the technical administration, technical operation or general efficiency of telephony, telegraphy, posts, wireless broadcasting or television or creating or regulating any monopoly in these fields;
5. in the case of correspondence, preventing the unlawful dispatch therewith of other matter;

or

1. that imposes restrictions upon public officers;

Except so far as that provision or, as the case may be, the thing done under the authority thereof is shown not to be reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.

I am not trying to confuse you with legal jargon, but I am only trying to present to you the situation as it is, lest I may misinterpret the message. The way I see it, the constitution gives certain rights with the right hand, and takes away the same rights with the left hand. but there are some restrictions to which these rights can be exercised as desired by the powers that be. The constitution, therefore, does not conform to Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states that "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinion without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers" . These rights have been confirmed by the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (Article 9); and the UNESCO Public Library Manifesto which, in its preamble states that "…Constructive participation and the development of democracy depend on satisfactory education as well as on free and unlimited access to knowledge, thought, culture and information…"

Any form of censorship is an infringement of article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Censorship legislation also exists in Zimbabwe, and the Censorship and Entertainments Control Act is in place ‘to regulate and control the public exhibition of films, the importation, production, dissemination and possession of undesirable or prohibited video and film material, publications, pictures, statues and records and the giving of public entertainments; to regulate theatres and like places of public entertainment in the interests of safety; and to provide for matters incidental to the foregoing". Book censorship, according to a study I carried out among members of the association in preparation of this paper, is minimal in Zimbabwe. It is now ten years since the last banned books list was published, although concern was raised that some books which were banned with the attainment of independence remain banned "for purely political reasons". Or could the non-publication of a banned books list be attributed to self censorship out of fear?

Economic restrictions

Zimbabweans are also denied access to information because of economic restrictions, especially in the communal areas, home to 70 percent of the country’s population. A Poverty Assessment Study Survey carried out by the government in 1995 defines poverty as the inability to afford a defined basket of food and non-food items which are necessary to sustain life. With a not-so well developed library system in place, the majority of Zimbabweans have no access to information. Although some librarians feel the associations has not lobbied adequately for the establishment of libraries, the truth is that government does not have the financial capacity to establish libraries to ensure that every Zimbabwean has access to information. Social services have deteriorated immensely, with the health delivery system on the verge of collapse. The Headline story in The Herald of 19 August 1999 "State seeks aid to bail out hospitals" reports "Zimbabwe’s health delivery system, which is faced with collapse, could find itself on the brink after Treasury failed to release more money to the Ministry of Health and Child Welfare". In the Education sector, government has also been frantically trying to off-load its responsibility for schools by handing over the running of schools to local authorities without providing the necessary financial support, but has faced still resistance from the local authorities who do not have the financial means to run the schools. The efforts by the Zimbabwe Library Association to press for the establishment of libraries, while very much appreciated, cannot be entertained because of the lack of resources. Ironically, a report carried in the Financial Gazette of the same day said government ministers had been awarded a salary increment of 182%.

Two of the country’s oldest libraries, the Bulawayo Public Library and the Harare City Library faced financial problems which nearly forced the institutions to close last year. The situation of the former has greatly improved after extensive lobbying by the librarian, the Matebeleland Branch of the Zimbabwe Library Association, and the general public, after which the grant that had been withdrawn by the responsible local authority was restored. The Harare City Library, however, has not been as lucky, and the Zimbabwe Library Association’s national executive has been accused of not voicing its opinion on the plight of the library. A former employ wrote in The Herald of 9 October 1998 "Libraries are represented by a dynamic and professional body called the Zimbabwe Library Association. It is any wonder that this professional body has not made a statement in support of these embattled institutions".

Political interference has also taken its toll on intellectual freedom, mostly through atrocities that have been perpetuated on media personnel. Fresh in the minds of many is the case of journalists from one independent newspaper who reported a story which government saw as subversive. An article in Zimbabwe Independent of 22 January 1999 "Journalists go through hell", one of the victims describes how he was tortured "They dipped my head in water and handcuffed me before subjecting me to electric shocks". He report goes on to say the journalist was physically assaulted all over the body, including genitals. The law that was used to treat these journalists that way is the draconian law and Order Maintenance Act which was used by the Rhodesian Government to crush the nationalist movement. Minister of Home Affairs, Dumiso Dabengwa, is quoted by the Zimbabwe Independent of 29 January 1999 saying "We have reverted back to the Law and Order (Maintenance) Act to deal with the matter and protect the security of the country". A parliamentary bill, the Public Order and Security Bill is being prepared to replace the old Law and Order Act, and in a surprising move, the president has rejected what has been approved by Parliament. In its issue of 15 July 1999 , an Independent weekly newspaper, The Financial Gazettee says the President’s decision to withhold his assent to the Public Order and Security Bill is seen as a move designed to facilitate the trial of the editors, who were finally granted bail and are still to be tired in the courts.

Interesting in the case of the journalists is that even when the courts found that the detention of the journalists was illegal and ordered their release, Government, through the ministry of Defence, rejected the order, saying, according to a report in Zimbabwe Independent of 22 January 1999, Ministry of Defence officers "are not subject to the courts".

Again, in the survey that I carried out in reparation of this presentation, some members felt the Zimbabwe Library Association should have voiced its concern over the issue, but who could risk going through the ordeal that the journalists went through, given that Ministry of Defence officers "are not subject to the courts". Some members thought this was not an issue for the association, but it was an issue for the journalist fraternity. In my opinion, this is a wrong impression because this has a direct impact on what library users read.

As a member of the IFLA/FAIFE committee, I have taken it upon myself to try and educate fellow librarians on issues about intellectual freedom. I have given talks at two public meetings of the Mashonaland Branch of the association, and have distributed copies of the IFLA/FAIFE leaflet on Libraries and Intellectual Freedom at the National Annual General meeting which took place in May this year. I have also shared the leaflet with the heads of the two library training institutions in the country to try and have the issue of intellectual freedom internalized at the training stage in one’s professional life as a librarian. That way we may have Leaders in the association who are sensitive to the issues.

The Zimbabwe Library Association has not lived to the expectations of a professional association in addressing issues of intellectual freedom. While some branches have voiced their concerns in certain cases, commitment at a national level has been lacking. This could also be a result of the lack of capacity on the part of the library association to engage in the discussion on the issues, as well as fear on the part of the leadership.

References:

1. Constitution of Zimbabwe
2. Censorship and Entertainment Control Act, Chapter 10:04, revised 1996
3. 1995 Poverty Assessment Survey Study, Government of Zimbabwe, 1997
4. Horizon Magazine, Thomplison Publishers, April 1999
5. Zimbabwe Independent, 29 January 1999
6. Financial Gazettee, 15 July 1999
7. The Herald, 9 October 1998
8. The Herald, 19 August 1999
9. The Financial Gazette, 19 August 1999