State of the media in Southern Africa - 2003 individual licences (‘accreditation’) on an annual basis and are forbidden from practising as journalists on Zimbabwean soil without this licence. This includes freelance journalists and foreign correspondents - even on short visits. No Zimbabwean ‘mass media services’ may employ unaccredited journalists or operate without a certificate of registration under threat of closure and forfeiture by the state of all the assets of such media. These requirements amount to nothing else than a system of state licensing of the media. It is a repressive political instrument in terms of which the state decides through the MIC which papers will be allowed to publish and exist and who may practise as a journalist. MISA-Zimbabwe, one of the national chapters of MISA, was ordered last year to register with the state appointed Media and Information Commission. MISA-Zimbabwe has responded by applying to the courts to rule whether it falls under the definition of a ‘mass media service’ as defined by the AIPPA. Any organisation in Zimbabwe that distributes information to anyone beyond their own membership, through any means of publication - including by email and the Internet - is defined as a ‘mass media service’. AIPPA therefore seeks to control not only the media that is commonly regarded as mass media, but also the media and information activities of any civil society organisations in the country. Newsletters and pamphlets from civic organisations to the general public also cannot be legally distributed unless a civil society organisation has been registered by the MIC as a ‘mass media service’. From these illustrations it is clear that the AIPPA substantively extends its reach beyond the media, and prohibits the normal information and communication tools of democratic debate and advocacy through civil society. There is no reason for complacency in any countries of the region, however. In research that this author conducted of MISA’s action alerts during 2003 to determine the main trends of media freedom violations across the region, an important finding was that the same trends of media freedom violations that occur in Zimbabwe, also occur in many other countries of the SADC region, but not to the same extent. Vigilance is therefore required by all. The main regional trends over three years (2000 - 2002) were: 1. The arrests of journalists 2. Restricting the freedom of movement of journalists (the expulsion of foreign correspondents and the physical obstruction of indigenous journalists from covering news events in their own countries, even press conferences, and including their forced removal from some outlying districts and provinces of their countries) 3. Threats to journalists, including death threats 4. Direct censorship including the closure of publications and the cancellation of broadcasting programmes 5. Police raids on media institutions and the seizure of recording equipment from individual journalists in the field 6. Physical attacks on journalists 7. Repressive media freedom legislation 8. Frequent verbal attacks on the media by governments and politicians 9. Governments and authorities flouting the rule of law by ignoring court orders or acting in clear violation of laws 10. Attacks on newspaper vendors and the destruction of newspapers, and 11. Pressure on journalists to reveal confidential sources of information. Did things change in 2003? There appears to be a cautious note of optimism in Tanzania and in Swaziland that the future may hold better things, but in other countries like Zambia and Malawi, the situation remains much the same. The overall number of alerts has decreased from So This Is Democracy? 2003 8 Media Institute of Southern Africa