Zimbabwe In fact, the government demonstrated its determination to close the democratic space through a slew of threats to clamp down on, among other repressive measures, social media and those who are alleged to abuse it. This came at a time as government ramped up its drive to enact the Cybercrimes and Security Bill, which culminated in the establishment of such ministry late in 2017. Named the Ministry of Cybercrimes, Threat Detection and Mitigation, its lifespan was short-lived as its responsibilities were incorporated into that of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) upon President Mnangagwa’s ascension to power. In a press statement issued on 24 September 2017, then Minister of Home Affairs, Dr Ignatius Chombo, made clear government’s intentions in that regard. He accused the press and social media of spreading alarm and despondency warning that government would take “decisive action to deal a telling blow” to the perpetrators of such ‘crimes’. The minister’s statement was seen as a blatant threat against the exercise of freedom of expression on the part of both citizens and the media as provided for in Sections 61 and 62 of the Zimbabwean Constitution. PRINT MEDIA As the print media struggled for survival and solutions against the background of unfolding technological advances, compounded by dwindling advertising revenue in an unfavourable economic environment, it also came under the spotlight following accusations of its capture, particularly in the context of the ruling Zanu PF succession fights. Both the public and private media were accused of being factional, biased and partisan in their coverage of the Zanu PF succession story. Though unsubstantiated, there were also accusations that some journalists were in the pockets of high-ranking politicians, businesspersons and prominent church leaders. During a meeting convened by MISA Zimbabwe and the Zimbabwe National Editors Forum (ZINEF) on 9 September 2017 in Zimbabwe’s second city of Bulawayo, journalists in attendance acknowledged there were, among them, journalists working in cahoots with politicians across the political divide to the detriment of media professionalism. They maintained ‘media capture’ in the form of interference with editorial independence by government officials especially in the public-owned media. The ‘capture’ was not only restricted to public media but was also evident in the private media where certain journalists were accused of being under the control of influential politicians. Concerns were expressed about appointments of editors along political lines, some of them without journalism experience, which was also contributing to the lowering of standards as well as erosion of ethical practice and conduct. Other journalists were seen to be ‘moles’ for political and business gurus, making it difficult for colleagues to work on sensitive stories without risk of being spied on and reported to either corporate or business paymasters. Media capture also came in the form of intimidation by big corporates threatening withdrawal of advertising revenue in the event of what they perceived as negative publicity. So This is Democracy? 2017 139