tion in the hands of government are very restrictive, as is the process. Only the heads of public bodies are allowed to respond to requests for information and in the case of the police, only two people are allowed to comment – the police commissioner or the police spokesperson. They often refuse to provide information or are simply unavailable particularly to journalists from the privately owned media. Journalists requiring information from a public body are expected to put their request in writing and the institution has 30 days in which to reply. During this period the application can be delayed or denied and the applicant can then complain to the minister – the same minister heading the ministry that refused access in the first place. There have been a number of cases where journalists submitted a request for information on a certain issue. That request was neither denied nor complied with, but often an article containing the information requested would subsequently find its way into the state controlled media. Whether access is granted or not very much depends on the person applying: whether one is seen as a supporter of government or “being against the establishment”. Journalists applying for access to official records and documents are viewed with suspicion. For example, a reporter looking for a copy of a newspaper published in 1979 could not get it from the National Archives simply because he was a journalist from the independent media and therefore perceived to have sinister motives for wanting to get hold of it. Government keeps tight control over its own publications such as the Government Gazette. Even the Hansard, the transcript of parliamentary debates, has not been published for a while. Citizens who wanted information relating to investments by a government-run social security organisation were denied the right to such information. A workers’ organisation was equally denied access. Such withholding of information also extends to normal comment from official government spokespersons who routinely refuse to speak to journalists in the private media on the basis that “you know I do not speak to your paper”. SCORES: Individual scores: Average score: 3.7 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1 1.2 (2006 = 1.1) Civil society in general and media lobby groups actively advance the cause of media freedom. ANALYSIS: Some civil society groups are supportive of media causes but as some of the issues being fought are also pursued by opposition politics, media activism is often perceived as “regime change” campaigning. The situation is worsened by the polarisation of media lobby groups into those regarded as “pro-regime” and “anti-regime” factions. Civil society groups frequently fail to speak with one voice because they compete for space and influence and most importantly for donor funding. This results in the various groups looking after their own specific causes without adopting a broader approach. Human rights and media freedom activists are “trying to fight a repressive system within the framework of the repressive system”. Despite the daunting odds, core groups of media practitioners and activists have generally been making efforts to advance the cause of media freedom, So This Is Democracy? 2008 -261- Media Institute of Southern Africa