Malawi mation, state of broadcasting and digital migration. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION Media-government relationship In 2017, the relationship between the media and civil society on one hand and government and government functionaries on the other could best be described as a cat and mouse affair and one of a blame game, which clearly reflects ‘the dynamics of power in politics.’1 The ruling DPP and government generally viewed the media and civil society leaders as corrupt and enemies of the state. The blame game started in January when Providence Industrial Mission (PIM) president and overseer reverend Patrick Makondetsa accused the media of “derailing the country’s development because of negative reporting.” Makondetsa was speaking during the commemoration of the life of PIM’s founder and freedom fighter Reverend John Chilembwe at PIM headquarters in Chiradzulo, southern Malawi, where President Mutharika was in attendance. Makondetsa argued that negative reporting was promoting disrespect for leaders and scaring away potential investors. Mutharika himself has, on a number of occasions, accused the media of negative reporting and “receiving bribes to publish stories.” Speaking during the elevation ceremony of Traditional Authority (T/A) Ngolongoliwa at Chonde in Thyolo District, southern Malawi on Sunday, 28 May, President Mutharika attacked the media for publishing stories that come out “because they [the report1 See So This is Democracy, Malawi Chapter review, 2011. ers] have been bribed.” Several months later, on his return from the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in October, the President told journalists to report positive stories about Malawi and not dwell on negative issues, which he said were tarnishing the country’s image. The media on its part called on the President to provide evidence of the corruption in the media, and argued that he had become “accustomed” to criticising the media for playing its watchdog role. Apart from criticising the media for publishing negative stories, MISA Malawi received reports that government had gone further, by withholding advertising from media houses deemed critical of the state. Several media outlets deemed pro-opposition or critical of the ruling DPP confided in MISA Malawi that government had stopped giving them adverts, a development that could potentially cripple the outlets concerned. The private media survives on advertising and government is the biggest advertiser in the country. Withholding government advertising is a deliberate attempt to stifle critical voices. Constitutional Rights and Legislative Environment Malawi has one of the best Constitutions in the region with clear and independent provisions of freedom of expression – Section 35, media freedom – Section 36 and access to information in Section 37. The country, however, has over a dozen archaic, anti-press laws that negate these Constitutional guarantees. As noted in our past reports, some of these laws include the Official Secrets Act (1913), the Printed Publications Act (1947) and the Censorship and Control of Entertainments Act (1968) as well as the Protected Flags, Emblems and Names Act, which past administrations have applied to silence critics. The Pro- So This is Democracy? 2017 53