VETERAN journalist and The Nation Magazine Editor Bheki Makhubu says a generational shift in the kingdom’s leadership has changed the way public responsibility is understood, with some leaders now treating media scrutiny as a personal attack rather than an opportunity to account to the public.
Makhubu made the observation during an interview with Eswatini Observer Acting Managing Director Mbongeni Mbingo on the 5 Questions podcast, reflecting on nearly four decades of observing political power and its relationship with the media.
Asked what he understood about power today that he had completely misunderstood as a young journalist, Makhubu said one of the biggest changes was not simply the people occupying positions of authority, but the generations that had replaced one another.
When he entered journalism, he said, many of those in power were of his father’s generation. Today, many people in positions of authority are from his own generation.
He said this transition had exposed a significant change in how leadership and public responsibility were understood.
Makhubu said the generation of leaders he encountered early in his career had been shaped by the politics of the pre-independence and post-independence periods, including regional liberation struggles and exposure to South African politics. Those experiences, he suggested, had created a stronger culture of debate and encouraged leaders to consider what public leadership meant and the responsibilities that came with it. “There were certain philosophical processes that were going on: what is leadership and the responsibility?” he said.
According to Makhubu, that understanding gradually dissipated as the political environment changed and later generations came to the fore. He said this had had a profound impact on the media, particularly in the way leaders responded to criticism. “Today, to say to a leader something is wrong in what you are doing, it triggers not a discussion, not a debate, but an anger and a feeling of a personal attack,” Makhubu said.
For Makhubu, the fundamental question was whether people entrusted with public office understood that their positions came with an obligation to explain themselves to those they served. He said earlier politicians understood that holding public office did not place them beyond question. Instead, they regarded their positions as a responsibility and accepted that members of the public, including journalists, had a right to challenge their decisions.
Makhubu said there was also a greater willingness among the older generation of politicians to educate journalists about the country’s political and traditional systems.
Reflecting on his early years in journalism, he recalled that politicians could challenge a young journalist’s understanding of an issue without necessarily viewing the journalist as an enemy.
“They were willing to teach young journalists like me, for instance, how this country works,” he said. He recalled occasions when journalists could write critically about the king and politicians would respond by explaining why they believed the reporting or criticism was inappropriate.
For Makhubu, such exchanges were an important part of journalism because they allowed journalists to learn about the country’s political system while giving leaders an opportunity to explain their positions.
He now questions whether that relationship still exists to the same extent.
Makhubu said he sometimes wondered whether some of today’s political leaders fully understood the country’s dual system, the pillars that sustain it and the respective roles of government, traditional structures and the media.
He argued that leadership should not be understood as a position that automatically places its occupant beyond questioning. “The others understood that it’s not divinity that brought them there,” he said. Instead, he said, those leaders understood that being entrusted with authority was an honour that came with responsibility and required an open mind.
“You come from these people and they have a right to differ with you,” he said, arguing that leaders who make decisions should at least be prepared to defend and explain them. Makhubu said this principle appeared increasingly threatened by a culture in which questioning authority could be interpreted as jealousy or hostility.
“When somebody says, ‘Why are we doing this?’ the response and the feeling you get is, ‘Who are you to ask me?’” he said. He identified what he described as a “morbid fear” of the media among people in leadership as another manifestation of the changing relationship.
According to Makhubu, this fear has made it increasingly difficult for journalists to engage people in authority, even when questions concern matters falling directly within their portfolios. He contrasted this with the approach of some politicians of an earlier generation, who saw journalists as an avenue through which they could communicate directly with the public.
Makhubu recalled one of the last politicians of that generation who, while serving as prime minister, would attend breakfast meetings with journalists, take questions without preparation and engage openly with the issues raised. The difference, Makhubu suggested, was that such leaders understood that the media could serve as a vehicle for explaining government decisions to the public.
He, however, noted that such engagement required leaders to be sufficiently confident about their decisions to explain and defend them. The changing relationship between political power and journalism, therefore, was not merely a media issue, Makhubu argued. It was ultimately a question of how public office itself was understood.
For Makhubu, the media’s role remains tied to a basic responsibility, which is asking those in power why they were doing what they were doing and ensuring that the public receives an explanation.
…Says media has folded under pressure from power
VETERAN journalist and The Nation Magazine Editor Bheki Makhubu says the country’s media has gradually “folded” under pressure from political leadership, losing sight of its fundamental responsibility to question those in power and tell the public what is happening.
Makhubu made the admission on the Eswatini Observer 5 Questions podcast.
He said the deterioration in relations between political leaders and the media had affected journalists and newsrooms to the point where the media had begun accommodating tensions with those in authority instead of holding firm to its watchdog role.
“We folded as a media to try and accommodate the tension and in the process have also lost our purpose. Why are we here, what is our job and should we tell the public what’s going on?” Makhubu said.
The change had occurred alongside what he described as increasing hostility towards the media from people in positions of authority.
He contrasted the current environment with his early years in journalism, when being summoned by a minister could result in confrontation, but was generally an opportunity for engagement and education.
Makhubu also questioned whether newsrooms still subject stories to the same level of scrutiny that characterised journalism when he worked at The Times of Swaziland. He recalled an environment where journalists underwent extensive training and stories were rigorously interrogated before publication, with editors prepared to hold back stories where information required further verification.
He said this internal scrutiny was essential to producing journalism that served the public responsibly.
His comments came after he reflected on the contrasting relationship that some older politicians had with the media. Makhubu recalled that one of the last politicians of that generation while serving as prime minister, would attend breakfast meetings with journalists and take questions from the floor without preparation. He said the politician viewed the media as an opportunity to communicate directly with the public. According to Makhubu, such engagements required leaders to be comfortable explaining their decisions and defending them when questioned.
