1963 makes it entirely the government’s prerogative whether to release information or not, and there is no means of appealing against government decisions. There are no formal procedures for obtaining public information and requests often get caught up in bureaucratic red tape. Information that should be in the public domain, such as the defence budget and the budget of the King’s office, is never disclosed. There is an attempt to introduce freedom of information legislation in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Draft Bill 2007. However, there are concerns that the draft bill contains too many restrictions on accessing information and, in fact, “turns the whole idea of FOI on its head” by opening up ways for the government to access private information, rather than opening up the public’s access to public information. SCORES: Individual scores: Average score: 1.7 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 1.1 (2005=1.3) Civil society in general and media lobby groups actively advance the cause of media freedom. ANALYSIS: Civil society and other lobby groups are not doing enough to advocate for media freedom. The little activism that is done is not cohesive and often not visible. Weak relationships between the media and civil society organisations (CSOs), where both sides often fail to support the other, are partly to blame. There is no sense of solidarity and shared purpose. When the Times of Swaziland was recently forced to issue a front-page apology for publishing an article critical of the King, civil society was silent. The response from one political lobby group, angry that the Times would not give them more coverage was, “Serves you right.” There is also pervasive apathy and lack of leadership (“It’s like building a castle on the sand”). Fear is another factor in the failure to react to media freedom violations. Most media institutions and many CSOs are financially dependent on government and fear falling out of favour with the authorities if they are too vocal. The Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) - Swaziland chapter has found media owners are more concerned about protecting their business than fighting for media freedom. Often MISA Swaziland’s attempts to receive coverage on media freedom issues get rebuffed. The media itself is not presenting a united front. It is a fractious industry and the media associations are ineffective and do not garner wide support. The most well-known group, the Swaziland National Association of Journalists (SNAJ), was described as a “toothless dog”. The existing media organisations are: Swaziland National Association of Journalists (SNAJ); MISA Swaziland; Media Workers Union of Swaziland (MWUS); and Gender and Media Swaziland (GEMSWA). SCORES: Individual scores: Average score: 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3, 2 2.3 (2005=2.1) Overall score for sector 1: 2.0 (2005 = 1.9) So This Is Democracy? 2007 -230- Media Institute of Southern Africa