The act guarantees access to information held by the state and “by another person … required for the exercise or protection of any rights” – with the legal term “another person” applying mainly to commercial enterprises. The inclusion of information held by the private sector as subject to disclosure makes the South African legislation unique in the world. In reality the situation is not quite as straightforward. The act is not easy to grasp and prospective users will require some guidance. Applying for documents is cumbersome. Many government officials do not have a proper understanding of the act. Government departments’ recording and filing systems are inefficient. Records are often lost. If an application is rejected and an applicant wants to appeal the decision, he/she has to go the (expensive) court route. A suggestion that the Human Rights Commission – which oversees the implementation of the act – establish an ombud for complaints is only at the very early stages of consideration. Sometimes the act has a boomerang effect. Officials who fear communication and accountability are reluctant to release even the most basic information, and insist that citizens and journalists use the mechanisms of the act and apply formally for the release of even the most mundane information required. SCORES: Individual scores: Average score: 1.7 3, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3 2.3 (2006 = 2.7) Civil society in general and media lobby groups actively advance the cause of media freedom. ANALYSIS: There are media-focused groups such as the South African Editors Forum (Sanef), the Media Institute of South Africa (MISA) and the Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI). The Institute for a Democratic South Africa (IDASA), the Media Monitoring Project and Genderlinks also actively campaign to extend media freedom. There is, however, no journalists’ association or trade union. This was one of the reasons why the Forum of Black Journalists (FBJ) was revived in early 2008. The FBJ aims, among many other things, to debate the issues of “white domination in newsrooms” and news values among black journalists themselves. Critics say that it is dangerous to divide media professionals on racial terms and that the exclusion of white journalists from membership is probably unconstitutional. FXI and – to a lesser extent - MISA have become increasingly visible over the last two years and are being recognized more and more as the representatives of media interests and activists for freedom of expression. Their activities, however, are limited to Johannesburg and do not extend to other major cities, let alone rural areas. In broader society there is no clear understanding of the need for media freedom and freedom of expression and why these are such important rights. Civil society does not campaign for media freedom and the media themselves are not doing enough to link media freedom to the right of each and every citizen to freedom of expression. In part the media need to blame themselves for this state of affairs. When they talk about and fight for media freedom issues they are not able to make it clear to civil society in general So This Is Democracy? 2008 -202- Media Institute of Southern Africa