One of the most important qualitative characteristics of the modern world is neo-colonialism. This phenomenon permeates practically all aspects of the life of the world civilization: politics, economy, law, social relations, information space…
Africa has become the main arena of both colonialism and neo-colonialism. Most countries on the continent experienced a ‘traditional’ form of colonialism (which, however, had different models[1]). However, the Republic of South Africa[2] had a significantly different history of colonialism. It is not by chance that it is labelled as colonialism of a special type. Whereas in most states on the continent, colonialism was imposed by European states from the outside, in South Africa the colonialists lived in the territory they occupied permanently, that is, they implemented the policy of colonialism from within. In South Africa, this took on particularly ugly manifestations, most notably the introduction of the apartheid system.
The collapse of the apartheid system in 1994, however, was neither a complete nor final decolonization of South Africa. For obvious reasons: the population that had implemented colonial policies (Boer descendants and other Europeans) remained in the country. General elections placed political power in the hands of the African majority. However, economic power remained in the hands of the former “owners” of South Africa. Today, the country’s main opposition party, the Democratic Alliance (DA), is formally the successor to the former apartheid-era opposition party. However, it is no secret that after the collapse of apartheid, the main party of the regime, the Nationalist Party, was transferred to the Democratic Alliance and became its foundation. However, the main thing is not even this, but the fact that today the DA is the main representative of the interests of big monopolistic capital. Thus, modern South Africa inherited a “special type” opposition. One can even speak of the double “specialness” of this opposition. Firstly, it is the presence of colonial big monopoly capital inside the country and, secondly, the transnational (i.e. external) character of this capital.
In addition to economic power, the South African opposition of a special type has retained full control over the country’s information field. Moreover, this control has been strengthened. Whereas during the apartheid era, the media were exclusively pro-government, in today’s democratic South Africa there is a paradoxical situation: there is not a single … government-owned newspaper or television channel in the country! There is a so-called state-owned channel SABC, but its “statehood” manifests itself only in budgetary funding, not in the implementation of the ruling party’s policies. As for the financing of opposition media of a special type, among them are well-known “foundations” of transnational capital, in particular, Soros’ Open Society Foundation, Luminate and others.[3]
Thus, one of the most important features of modern, formally democratic South Africa is the complete and undivided dictatorship of a special type of opposition in the information space. The transnational character of this opposition determines the agenda of the information space. Hence the constant (for thirty years now) anti-government rhetoric of the South African media. The media fiercely criticised virtually every decision of the government and parliament, daily forming a sharply negative attitude towards the ruling party, the African National Congress. At the same time, the degree of severity of this criticism has long since crossed all boundaries of decency and even the law. The “popular” cartoonist Shapiro, whose cartoons are printed in all major newspapers, can quite rival the lowliness of the infamous Charlie Hebdo. Yet he has a strange “immunity” from criminal jurisdiction …
The nature of the South African media has been most pronounced recently in relation to Russia and the Middle East conflict.
From the outset, the South African government took a cautious stance on the conflict in Ukraine. This was largely due to the colonial opposition and its dictatorship. Although both the African National Congress and the Communist Party of South Africa, which is part of the triple government coalition, have clearly defined the conflict in Ukraine as a proxy war by NATO against Russia. During his address to the South African Communist Party Congress, the country’s president Cyril Ramaphosa bluntly stated that external forces have not only pressurized but blackmailed the government into condemning Russia. However, these external forces have a permanent presence inside the country, but the president diplomatically kept silent about the internal reasons for South African “neutrality” …
Despite the fact that formally the government of the RSA declared neutrality with regard to the conflict on the territory of Ukraine, the South African media unleashed a real hysteria against Russia. The Ukrainian ambassador was given unlimited access to the country’s TV channels (including the “state-owned” SABC). On several occasions, the ambassador even publicly denounced the South African leadership, including President Ramaphosa.
However, the demonization of Russia in the RSA media is not only related to the events in Ukraine, but also to the very fact of South Africa’s cooperation with our country. Thus, the South African media are launching vilification attacks on every aspect of Russian-South African relations. Unbridled anti-Russian campaigns have been launched in connection with rumours spread by the US ambassador to the RSA about South Africa allegedly selling arms to Russia since December last year; in connection with joint naval exercises of the RSA, Russia and China in April this year, in connection with the BRICS summit in August this year…..
A special mention should be made of the BRICS summit. From April to August of this year, the author had the opportunity to observe the hysteria unleashed in the media against Russia and the Russian head of state personally. During this period, every issue of weekly newspapers was published with portraits of the Russian president on the front pages with defamatory headlines. The main idea promoted by all media outlets, as if on cue, was the thesis: “The Russian head of state should be arrested upon his arrival at the BRICS summit”. In some issues up to five or six (!) anti-Russian articles were published simultaneously.
The Russian ambassador in the RSA media was several times given the floor on the “state” channel SABC, but the specific weight of his appearance on the country’s TV was in no way commensurate with the appearance of the Ukrainian ambassador there. The active work of the Russian Embassy in South Africa to combat lies about the conflict in Ukraine has only a limited effect, as the country’s media simply refuse to publish refutations of their false publications.[4]
The reflection of the ongoing conflict in the Israeli-occupied territories of Palestine also requires special consideration. The support of the democratic government of South Africa for the people of Palestine occupies a special place. The main reason is that the ruling party, the African National Congress, regards Israel’s actions towards Palestine as apartheid. That is why the Palestinian problem for the RSA is a matter of principle and a principle of particular importance. It is not by chance that the first President of the Republic of South Africa, Nelson Mandela, said: “Our freedom is incomplete until Palestine is free”. It would seem that the gross violations of international humanitarian law that are taking place in the Gaza Strip these days should be given special prominence in the South African media. However, nothing of the sort is happening. On 6 November, the RSA government withdrew its diplomats from Tel Aviv. Moreover, the government instructed the Department of Foreign Affairs to “address the issue” of the behaviour of the Israeli ambassador in Pretoria. However, until the last day, the Israeli Ambassador to the country, E. Belotserkovsky, did not leave the TV screens and gave detailed “explanations” of the crimes against humanity against the Palestinian civilian population.[5]
The situation with the absence of government media in South Africa is not a voluntary policy of the RSA government, but the result of a rigid dictatorship of a special type of opposition. This was very clearly demonstrated in relation to the former President of the country, Jacob Zuma. It will be recalled that J. Zuma was removed from office in February 2018. One of the main accusations against J. Zuma (which was never proven in court) was the creation of ANN7 TV channel and New Age daily newspaper by the Indian businessmen Gupta brothers. These two media outlets were not created by the government, but primarily (though not exclusively) carried the government’s position. J. Zuma was accused that both he and the Gupta family were involved in corruption. Both the TV channel and the newspapers were not just shut down: the term “destroyed” is more appropriate, as the level of hysteria against the TV channel and the newspaper was simply off the scale. It was this demonstrative and clearly inadequate reaction that should have unambiguously demonstrated that the country’s information space is an area under the total control of a special type of opposition and that no one else, including the government, can be allowed in.
By the way, both the ANN7 TV channel and the New Age newspaper were highly professional and were in clear competition with the entire RSA media system. The author had to appear on ANN7 on a number of occasions, particularly at the International Criminal Court. Whereas the South African media only praised the ICC, ANN7 allowed, among other things, critical commentary on this institution of legal neo-colonialism. However, this incursion into the “territory” of the opposition of a particular type provoked such fury that the channel and the newspaper were not just closed down, but destroyed (neither the change of ownership nor the rebranding helped). But most importantly, there was a demonstrative massacre of J. Zuma, who was jailed. The fact that it was a reprisal is evident from the fact that not a single accusation against the former president was not only not proven, but not even a regular criminal trial was held! J. Zuma was simply “sentenced” to imprisonment by the country’s Constitutional Court for “contempt” of court.
The defeat of the timid attempt to change the information space in favour of the government, as if as an admonition, was supplemented by new opposition media of a special type: a new newspaper and a new TV channel were created: The Daily Maverick newspaper and the Newzroom Afrika channel. Both “new” media outlets are intended to create the effect of expanding the media community, but in terms of content, these publications not only brought nothing new, but became particularly rigid agents of informational neo-colonialism….
The most important contradiction in contemporary South African political life is the progressive programme of the ruling party on the one hand and the interests of big monopoly capital represented by the opposition. This contradiction is antagonistic, as the ANC’s programme is aimed at achieving the country’s economic sovereignty, while South Africa’s big monopoly capital is transnational in nature and its interest lies in the (neo)colonial exploitation of the country’s resources in the interests of external actors.
The total control of a special type of opposition over South Africa’s information space represents a crucial element of the neo-colonialism of transnational capital. There is no doubt that the offensive will escalate with the general elections scheduled for next spring. The ruling party, the African National Congress, is weaker than ever and therefore the special type of opposition will be making its maximum bets in the information space.
Alexander Mezyaev, Doctor of Law, Professor, member of the World Association of International Law (member of the Human Rights Committee of this Association), the Foreign Policy Association of the Russian Federation, the Russian Association of International Studies, the Russian Association of Africanists, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
[1] The best known such models are considered to be the French and British models, direct and indirect control, respectively.
[2] Until 1994 – Republic of South Africa.
[3] Singh A., Palm R., Manufacturing consent: How the United States has penetrated South African media // https://mronline.org/2022/08/08/manufacturing-consent-how-the-united-states-has-penetrated-south-african-media/ [Posted Aug 08, 2022].
[4] See, for example, a post dated 26 October 2023 on the Telegram channel of the Russian Embassy in South Africa.
[5] Israel-Hamas Conflict. ‘We cannot have peace with terrorists’ : Ambassador Eli Belotserkovsky // https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uz1XMrpjrU8 ; Palestinian group Hamas launches attack on Israel – Israeli Ambassador to SA Eli Belotserkovsky // https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eUzFiEenvg ; Hamas-Israel conflict I In conversation with Israeli Ambassador to SA Eli Belotserkovsky // https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLKDvwpOCEM&t=10s ; Israel-Hamas Conflict | Israel Ambassador to South Africa, Eliav Belotsercovsky on ANC picket // https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeGWjH-xfSY ; Israel’s ambassador in SA Belotsercovsky on the Hamas conflict, protests and diplomatic relations // https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJA8pDsm6Qc .
