The Framing of Devolution of Power Debates in the Newsday (Southern Edition) During Zimbabwe’s Constitution Making Process

ABSTRACT

Journalists are unable to provide reports that are entirely true and objective as they deploy rhetorical strategies aimed “at persuading others to adopt [their] same point of view” (Thomson 1996 cited in Richardson [2007]. Analysing Newspapers: An Approach from Critical Discourse Analysis. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 65). Using one of Zimbabwe’s leading daily newspapers, NewsDay (Southern Edition), this article analysed the framing of the contentious issue of devolution of power provided in the country’s constitution drafted in 2012. The underlying assumption being that understanding how the issue of devolution was framed “is of vital importance to how the public and policy makers will respond to this kind of governance” (Agwu and Amu [2013]. “Framing of Climate Change News in Four National Daily Newspapers in Southern Nigeria.” International Conference on Climate Change Effects, 1–8, Impact World 2013, Potsdam, 1). The paper used discourse analysis to analyse the 10 purposively selected stories published between June 2010 and July 2012. Positioned within qualitative approach, the paper concludes that the NewsDay Southern Edition actively participated in the debates on devolution as a political actor through various techniques such as argumentation and rhetoric, thereby putting it on the public agenda. In particular, the publication pursued a pro-devolution agenda to galvanise readers to embrace this administrative framework as the best available model in the place of a unitary system, which was blamed for stifling development and democracy.

KEYWORDS:

• Devolution of power
• framing
• NewsDay Southern Edition
• discourse analysis
• argumentation
• rhetoric

Introduction

Between 2010 and 2013, Zimbabwe’s Government of National Unity (GNU) embarked on a constitution making process. The drafting of the people driven constitution started through an outreach programme, a stage where citizens were consulted to suggest what they wanted enshrined in the new supreme law (Dzinesa 2012). The process was long and full of squabbles among the three political parties in the GNU, that is, Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic Front (ZANU PF) and Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) formations led by the late Morgan Tsvangirai and Professor Arthur Mutambara. The GNU was formed through facilitation of the then South African President Thabo Mbeki following disputed June 2008 presidential elections between Robert Mugabe representing ZANU PF and Tsvangirai of MDC-T (Magaisa 2012). One of the sticking issues that derailed the process was devolution of power, as parties could not agree on the nature and form of this proposed system of government. ZANU PF was mainly skeptical of devolution of power treating it as a threat to national unity the country enjoyed (Dube 2011). On the other hand, the MDC formations argued devolution was the best available model with potential to set Zimbabwe on a democratic path. The dispute was despite the fact that the majority of Zimbabweans had expressed desire for devolution of power as a system of governance during the constitution outreach programme prior to the drafting process (NewsDay 2010).

It is important to note that as debate on the nature and form of devolution of power system raged on, the media as social institutions mediated. According to the constructivist media effects model, audiences rely on “a version of reality built from personal experiences, interaction with peers and, above all, interpreted selections from the mass media” (Scheufele 1999, 107). Goffman (1974) argues an examination of the media’s framing trends can potentially highlight how news sources are able to influence public perception. These insights motivated this textual analysis of a privately owned newspaper, the NewsDay Southern Edition, on how it framed the contentious issue of the devolution of power in Zimbabwe during the constitution making process between 2010 and 2012 (Dzinesa 2012). While previous studies have explored devolution of power, most of them approached it from an administration and governance point of view (Ndlovu-Gatsheni 2012; Roschmann, Wendoh, and Ogolla 2010; Mhlanga 2012). This current study, therefore, takes a media centric position to show how the media talks about social issues and in so doing promote certain frameworks for understanding the events and issues. This newspaper is relevant because it gave extensive coverage of debates on devolution during the constitution making process, as indicated in a 2012 survey conducted by the Media Monitoring Project of Zimbabwe (Matenga 2013). This study analysed the ways this paper framed news stories and assessed the likely implications of such frames.

Motivations, background and social context

Historical and personal observations influenced this paper. Firstly, this paper is motivated by Zimbabwe’s multi-layered crisis that generally speaks to economic and political problems (Hammer and Raftopoulos 2003). They further argue that

it is a crisis generated by and generating political ensembles of politics and practice related to at least three interweaving themes and empirical arenas: the politics of land and resource, reconstruction of nation and citizenship band the remaking of state and modes of rule. (Hammer and Raftopoulos 2003, 3)

Now, literature on Zimbabwe’s crisis can be located within two schools of thought. On the one hand is the liberal reformist located in the ideas of democracy, human rights and notions of civil society (Ndlovu-Gatsheni 2013). Their main argument being that nationalist leadership post-independence failed to entrench democratic practices but engaged in authorianism, militarism and corruption (Raftopoulos 2002; Coltart 2016). On the other hand, is the Afro-centric nationalist school. Their primary standpoint is that Zimbabwe is a classic case of victim of coloniality of power at the hands of imperialists, with erstwhile colonisers wanting to continue influencing domestic affairs of their ex-colonies (Moyo 2012). Mhiripiri and Ureke (2018) also argue that Zimbabwe has experienced a protracted crisis since the beginning of its controversial land redistribution programme in the late 1990s. Consequently, it was not by surprise that calls for change of government and a system of governance started to gain momentum post-2000.

Secondly, the study was also motivated by the fact that while the 2013 constitution of Zimbabwe recognises the devolution of power as a system of governance, the current administration has not shown commitment to implement it. Over the years, people of Matabeleland region in Zimbabwe have complained about social, political and economic marginalisation (Mhlanga 2012). They have accused the national government of pursuing policies that deliberately disfranchised the region and its inhabitants. It is not by accident that ever since Zimbabwe attained independence in 1980, and the subsequent Gukurahundi scourge mainly in Matabeleland and Midlands provinces between 1983 and 1986, most people from these regions, particularly those inclined to the Ndebele speaking ethnic group, have complained about the unitary system of government, citing marginalisation and inequitable distribution of resources (Mhlanga 2012).

Mhlanga (2012) notes that the discontent among these provinces is fuelled by the fact that after the Gukurahundi genocide in 1987, the government only electrified the railway line from Harare to Gweru, despite the fact that the National Railways of Zimbabwe is headquartered in Bulawayo, a move which was condemned for impeding development of the transport network and heavy industries in the region of Matabeleland. Secondly, Mhlanga also cites the continued relocation of heavy industries from Bulawayo to Harare, which is blamed for causing economic suffocation and limiting employment opportunities in the city and the region at large, as the reason for discontent (2012). Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2011) argues that the relocation of industries is due to failure by central government to commit itself to the completion of projects like the Matabeleland Zambezi Water Project (MZWP) to end water problems, a critical resource for most manufacturing industries.

However, the formation of GNU and the subsequent constitution making process, gave the people of Matabeleland a chance to suggest a system of governance they desired. Having been given the opportunity to give their opinions through an outreach programme, pressure groups and political parties based in Matabeleland—Ibhetshu Likazulu, Mthwakazi Republic Party and Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU)—pushed for devolution of power to be included in the new constitution. The notion of devolution became a site of struggle, a terrain of competing ideas and contestations. On the one hand were those in favour of devolution as the best available model of enhancing democracy and on the other those that dismissed it as nothing but a divisive system of governance, which threatened the foundations of national unity (Dube 2011). This research assessed the NewsDay Southern Edition’s framing of debates on devolution since there were different understandings of the concept, in order to make inferences about the potential influence the media might have had on policy makers and the public in respect of this issue.

Since this article complements scholarship on debates around devolution of power, albeit from a communications perspective, it is important to cast context on Zimbabwe’s media landscape. Zimbabwean media landscape is divided between the state-controlled and the privately owned, thereby creating some kind of polarisation. Since independence, state media publications have in many cases acted as propaganda apparatuses of the ruling party (Saunders 1999; MMPZ 2000; Chuma 2008). On the other hand, the privately owned media has claimed to be free from political ties or outside influence. Within the context of covering Zimbabwe’s crisis, media has framed it in terms of binaries of good and evil. In his study demonstrating media polarisation, Chuma (2008, 38) argues that in their coverage of 2000 elections, “‘oppositional’ journalism championed the cause of the MDC and change, while its ‘patriotic’ opponents framed the election in terms of a tried and tested incumbent ruling party engaged in a patriotic fight against opposition traitors backed by foreign powers.” He also argues the coverage of the 2000 elections through the different prisms shows that media framing of political life is not a neutral and objective process, confirming assertions that media frames are products of broader relations of power between media and other social institutions, some of which it is embedded with, and some of which it is hostile to (Chuma 2008). Due to its claim to be independent from government influence, the NewsDay Southern Edition was important as the object of the study in that it provided an interesting platform for the discussion of devolution mainly in the southern region.

Devolution of power and practice of democracy

The system of devolution of power is closely related to the practice of democracy and it is, therefore, necessary to assess how it was talked about in and by the media, as this could have had an effect on policy makers in particular and readers in general. This research investigated the framing of devolution by the NewsDay Southern Edition based on the understanding that the media’s framing of issues can potentially lead to strong attitudinal effects among audiences although these are shaped by other variables as well (Scheufele and Tewksbury 2007). Thus the significance of this article lies in the fact that it assesses the media’s treatment of critical issues in democratic development given its potential power. Crook and Manor (1998) conceptualise devolution of power as the transfer of natural resources management, rights and assets and governance responsibilities to local individuals and institutions located within and outside of central government. The close link between devolution and democracy made it necessary for this article to look at how the media, another important pillar of democracy, framed the former as a function of the latter in the context of various debates on options for devolution of power in Zimbabwe.

Devolution of power is so much linked to democracy to the extent that the proponents of this model cannot imagine democracy without devolution. Mugoya (2011) argues that devolution of power provides a platform for the recognition of the rights of communities to manage their own affairs and to further their development and also to protect and promote the interests and rights of minorities and marginalised communities. Similarly, Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2012) states that devolution of power is seen as a credible means for searching for democratic constitutionalism and the panacea to governance problems characterised by concentration of power and centralised institutions without appropriate checks on those powers. Moyo (2013, 146) expands on this view that “devolution of power has recently re-emerged as a fundamental goal in democratic governance and as an important condition for achieving equitable and sustainable socio-economic development.” These insights are important for this study looking at the Zimbabwe, which is arguable, a fragile democracy.

In Zimbabwe, the debates on the concept and implementation of devolution spawned considerable confusion and contesting interpretations of what really constitutes devolution. Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2012) notes that the major confusion was between notions of devolution, decentralisation, federalism and even secessionism. Norman and Massoi (2009, 33) submit that administrative de-centralisation is the transfer of decision-making authority, resources and responsibilities for the delivery of a “select number of public services from central government to other levels of government.” While Crook and Manor (1998) note that the term federalism is used in political science to describe a system of government in, which sovereignty is constitutionally shared between central government and constituent political units such as provinces and states. Within the discourse of devolution of power in Zimbabwe, there were some groups who called for the outright separation or the secession of Matabeleland from the rest of Zimbabwe. Secession is here understood to mean a state or a country declaring its independence from the central government (Mhlanga 2013). The import of this analysis is to clear the definitional problems surrounding devolution of power and also establish how this deconstruction manifested in Zimbabwe’s constitutional reform agenda.

Theoretical underpinnings

Since this research is concerned with the framing of debates on the devolution of power during the constitution making process, it draws from framing theory, discourse theory and Christians et al. (2009)’s conceptualisation of the media’s normative roles in democratic societies. Firstly, issues of framing can only make sense if juxtaposed against the expected normative roles of the media in a democracy. Framing is used in media and communication studies in order to find out how issues and discourses are constructed and meanings developed (Scheufele 1999; Reese 2007). Further, Entman (1993, 53) argues “frames highlight some bits of information about an item that is the subject of a communication, thereby elevating them in salience … making a piece of information more noticeable, meaningful, or memorable to audiences.” This is important for this study because it helps unravel the major themes within the discourse of devolution debates as framed by the NewsDay Southern Edition. Entman (1993) argues that frames call attention to some aspects of reality while obscuring other elements, which might lead audiences to have different reactions. In addition, Scheufele (1999) contends that within the realm of political communication, framing has to be defined and operationalised on the basis of social constructivism. The importance of this theory lies in the fact that it enables the researcher to establish media’s role and agendas in the manner it framed devolution of power.

Concerning normative theory, Christians et al. (2009) suggest four roles for the media to play in a democracy based on its relation to dominant political economic powers on one hand and citizens on the other. In modern society, Christians et al. (2009) argue, the media are seen as playing the following roles: the monitorial, facilitative, collaborative and radical functions. In their performance of the collaborative role, media are seen as serving the state and powerful institutions where the distance between the media and centres of power is minimal (Christians et al. 2009). Further, Christians et al. (2009) argue that through their performance of the monitorial role, the media are supposed to see themselves as neutral observers who report objectively about the state of affairs prevailing at any given point. Further, in playing their radical role, “the media focus on exposing abuses of power and aims to raise popular consciousness of wrongdoing, inequality, and the potential for change” (Christians et al. 2009, 126). Lastly the media can play a role of providing citizens with a platform for expressing themselves and participating in the political process. Significantly, this conceptualisation further allowed the researcher to think about the role(s) the media ought to play in a democracy.

Finally, the article is also premised on discourse theory, which is useful in finding out “what and how” language communicates when it is used purposefully in a particular instance and context (Jorgensen and Phillips 2002). This theory has its roots in the poststructuralist idea that discourse constructs the social world in meaning, and that, owing to the fundamental instability of language; meaning can never be permanently fixed (Jorgensen and Phillips 2002). This dimension of discourse theory is useful in the analysis of the broader force field shaping the NewsDay’s framing of debates on devolution in Zimbabwe.

Methodological procedures

The paper is a document review where devolution debates are brought to the fore, ultimately with a view of determining the agenda(s) that were set by the NewsDay Southern Edition. For this reason, argumentation and rhetoric a form of discourse analysis is applied as a primary data analytical method (Richardson 2007). Purposive sampling is used to select stories for discourse analysis. The NewsDay is privately owned daily newspaper published by Alpha Media Holdings (AMH) and was launched in June 2010. In September 2010, the southern edition was introduced to cater for the interests of the Matabeleland and Midlands readership (NewsDay 2010). At the launch of the paper’s southern edition, Trevor Ncube, AMH Chairman, said they realised that events in Harare, Zimbabwe’s capital city, were not of interest to the people in Matabeleland. The southern edition’s objectives were to provide a platform for the people from this region to talk to each other and its goal was to be the pulse of the nation for those in authority. Due to its editorial policy, which is independent from government influence, the NewsDay Southern Edition is important as the object of the study in that it provides an interesting platform for the discussion of devolution mainly in the southern region. Below I explain how the final 10 articles of the NewsDay Southern Edition published between June 2010 and July 2012 were selected using the intensity strategy of purposive sampling.

The period under study translates to about 562 issues of the newspaper and a preliminary reading of these issues showed that there were over 1300 articles—ranging from hard news, opinions and editorials—about the constitution making process. I therefore, decided to focus and select from hard news stories on devolution of power on the basis that they follow journalistic conventions of news gathering and writing, which places some social responsibility on them to be objective (Schudson 2003). The next step was to purposively sample the kind of hard news stories suitable for the study in terms of page placement and length. As such, stories from the front page up to the third page were selected. The reason being that the front page usually “flags and foregrounds the importance of an issue being covered” (Tuchman 1972, 663). However, front page stories significant as they are, face the accusation of “elitism” in terms of their sources (Schudson 2003), hence the decision to include stories on page two and three for a balance of views.

The preliminary reading showed that views of activists and ordinary citizens were included in stories that appeared on pages two and three. Therefore, stories placed on page two and three were considered for the reason that they tend to “complement” issues in stories placed on the front page in terms of importance and detail (Tuchman 1972). To further limit the number of stories and subsequently the size of the sample, long stories which gave much detail were selected. As a result only 10 stories, as indicated in Table 1, were selected and subjected to discourse analysis. While reading the headlines and lead paragraphs, consistent themes were identified. Here a theme is understood to be that which “ … captures something important about the data in relation to the research question and represents some level of patterned response of meaning within the data set” (Braun and Clarke 2006, 82). Subsequently, the following themes emerged: “democracy”, “national unity” and “development and marginalisation.”

Table 1. The final sample of 10 stories that were subjected to discourse analysis.

Theme	Democracy	National Unity	Marginalisation and Development
Stories	1. Devolution will emancipate women (17 October 2011)	1. Devolution way to go—PM (1 November 2010)	1. Vox Pop: what do people think about devolution (28 July 2010)
	2. WOZA join push for devolution (06 June 2012).	2. Mugabe rejects devolution (7 March 2011)	2. Devolution is the answer (13 August 2010)
	3. Devolution no longer debatable (19 March 2012)	3. Devolution critics scaremongers (5 April 2012)	3. Devolution of power necessary (9 April 2012) 4. Ncube calls for Devolution (21 February 2011)

Method of analysis: argumentation and rhetoric

This paper deployed argumentation and rhetoric analysis for more nuanced analysis of the texts. Van Eemeren (1996, 5 cited in Richardson 2007, 155) defines argumentation “as a verbal and social activity of reasoning aimed at increasing (or decreasing) the acceptability of a social standpoint for the listener or reader by putting forward a constellation of propositions intended to justify (or refute) the standpoint before a rational judge.” On the other hand rhetoric is defined as “the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion” (Aristotle 1984, 27–28). Aristotle’s rhetoric is divided into three categories: forensic or legal rhetoric; epideictic or ceremonial rhetoric; and deliberative or political rhetoric (Richardson 2007, 157). He contends that forensic rhetoric (concerned with the past) covers arguments that either defend or condemn someone’s past actions, while epideictic rhetoric (concerned with the present) aims at proving that something or someone is worthy of admiration or disapproval, and finally deliberative rhetoric (concerned with the future) is used to urge the audience to do or dissuade them from doing, something based on the expediency or the harmfulness of a proposed course of action (Richardson 2007). There are three modes of persuasion available to an arguer: persuading an audience through the character of the arguer (ethotic argument), wherein someone of good character, expertise or experiential knowledge is seen as standing a good chance of convincing an audience (Richardson 2007, 159). The second mode of persuasion uses a pathotic argument which uses emotion implicitly or explicitly as a persuasive tool. Pathotic arguments can anger people, instil in them fear, pity or even calm them down (Richardson 2007, 160). Finally, an audience can be persuaded through logos, or the logic and the structure of the argument itself.

Findings and discussions

After reading and subjecting the sample stories to analysis, the following key observations are made. Devolution of power system of government was framed by the NewsDay Southern Edition as the answer to: development and marginalisation concerns, democracy calls and national unity problems bedeviling Zimbabwe as a country. The newspaper also played facilitative and radical roles in its framing of devolution of power discourse. The newspaper achieved this by distancing itself from the political centres of power and instead associated itself with civil society. Through sourcing patterns, the paper constructed a strong pro-devolution frame. Finally, the NewsDay Southern Edition actively participated, more or less as a political actor, in the debates on devolution. In this section, it is argued that the paper adopted mostly the deliberative and partly ceremonial forms of argumentation in the framing of devolution of power. The three modes of persuasion—pathotic, ethotic and logic—were also deployed by the paper in its promotion of devolution of power.

Framing of devolution: the role of the NewsDay Southern Edition

Based on evidence gleaned from sample stories, the NewsDay Southern Edition was more inclined towards the facilitative and radical roles of the news media (Christians et al. 2009). Under the facilitative role, “the deliberation facilitated by the press frames the democratic process in normative terms as interactive dialogue in which citizens engage one another on both practical matters and social vision” (Christians et al. 2009, 159). In a way the paper facilitated efforts by civil society by actively supporting and strengthening “ … democratic participation … outside the state and market” (Arato 2000, 2005; Cohen and Arato 1992; Edwards 2004; Sandel 1998; 2005 cited in Christians et al. 2009). The fact that the NewsDay Southern Edition is a privately owned newspaper might have influenced the paper in playing the facilitative role “where it did not simply report on civil society’s activities and institutions but sought to improve and promote them” (Christians et al. 2009).

Furthermore, the facilitative and radical roles were evident in all the stories covering the three thematic areas (marginalisation and development, democracy and national unity). An assessment of stories under the theme of “marginalisation and development”, shows that the publication effectively played the radical role because reporters overtly made efforts to influence and galvanise support for devolution. This was done in two ways. Firstly, sourcing patterns significantly defined the paper’s radical role in the devolution discourse. Reporters of stories under this thematic unit shunned conventional government sources but went for ordinary, civic and cultural voices described by Christians et al. (2009) as “voices outside the market and state”. In the story “Vox pop: what do people think about devolution?” (July 28, 2010), ordinary voices that are normally excluded in the mainstream media, (Tuchman 1972), were loudly expressed and the bulk of these sources were individuals who supported devolution of power. One gets a sense that by suppressing—through back grounding—the voices skeptical of devolution of power, the paper in a way overtly signposted to readers that devolution of power is what Zimbabweans desire as expressed by the number of people supporting it. In this way, the publication flagged some bits of information about devolution of power “thereby elevating them in salience … making a piece of information more noticeable, meaningful, or memorable to audiences” (Entman 1993, 53).

Secondly, the news media managed to play a radical role through glaring political bias. The news slant of this paper clearly exposed the reporters’ political preference and perhaps that of editors and owners. Its coverage was centred more on civil society, wherein the paper subjectively represented the views of civic society groups and all voices that advocated for devolution of power in place of a centralised government. For example, the story “Devolution of power necessary” supports this supposition. The story argues “Some civic groups accuse the central government of robbing resource-rich regions to develop. Notable victims of this arrangement (centralised government) include Matabeleland and diamond-rich Manicaland which lags behind in terms of development” (April 9, 2012). I, thus, argue that the newspaper framed devolution of power as the panacea to development and marginalisation problems facing some provinces owing to the centralised system of governance. Further, premised on the Khayisa Arts Group play on devolution, the story is building a case for devolution at the same time exposing those who are dismissing it as “divisive”. The reporter used a pathotic mode of persuasion in the construction of deliberative rhetoric wherein through this play, the desirability of devolution of power is highlighted. In this story and as in the play, “an old woman travels from Lupane to Harare to acquire a passport” (April 9, 2012). This may invite readers to pity her for travelling all the way to Harare or get angry over the need for her to travel to Harare for a passport instead of getting it in her provincial capital Lupane should devolution of power be implemented. The net effect of this framing is that NewsDay Southern Edition used the Khayisa Arts Group’s play (in this instance representing pro-devolution voices) to influence “schemata of interpretation” (Goffman 1974, 22) and make this administrative system as a panacea to Matabeleland’s socio-economic and political marginalisation.

In addition, stories in the democracy thematic strand confirm that the NewsDay Southern Edition played more of a radical than facilitative role. In fact, the kind of reportage prevalent in this thematic area is one characterised by bias towards devolution of power. For instance, the story titled “Devolution will emancipate women” evidently promoted a one sided pro-devolution narrative. To begin with, the story is based on Precious Gombera the Director of Women’s Trust (a non-Governmental Organisation). She is dedicated much of the space to pronounce the benefits of devolution of power to women in as far their participation in a democratic polity is concerned. The newspaper quoted Gombera saying “Devolution of power from the existing male-dominated system to place women in the forefront will make sure their voices are heard and would be a big step towards their emancipation and democracy” (October 17, 2011). Consequently, devolution is highlighted as the key to democracy that is lacking in Zimbabwe. This view is also shared by pro-devolution scholars who see this system of government as a direct function of democracy (Hayland 1995; Held 2007; Ndlovu-Gatsheni 2012). Also, this story indicates that “Gombera made the remarks during a women’s discussion forum organised by Bulawayo Agenda at Entumbane Hall … ” (October 17, 2011). Thus the paper played a facilitative role by getting into the communities (in this case Entumbane a high-density residential area in Bulawayo) to cover and report on deliberations by ordinary citizens as opposed to relying on elite sources in the form of politicians (see Christians et al. 2009).

Finally, the national unity thematic category deployed mainly the radical role but with some elements of facilitative functions. In the story headlined “Mugabe rejects devolution” (March 7, 2011), the reporter used voices in support of devolution to attack Robert Mugabe who is rejecting devolution of power. The reporter portrayed Mugabe and ZANU PF officials as liars who are misleading Zimbabweans in the process thwarting the growth of democracy. To be specific, Mugabe was ridiculed as a power hungry leader hiding behind the notion of national unity. This is evidenced in the paragraph citing ZAPU spokesperson Methuseli Moyo saying “Under devolution, we will still have one flag, one national anthem, one Parliament, one national team in all sports and one President. Perhaps he needs to hear that we will still have one Commander-in-Chief and Head of State” (March 7, 2011). The story insinuates that Mugabe’s reluctance to embrace devolution is not founded on a genuine desire for national unity but feelings of insecurity over a possible loosening of his grip on power. It should be stated that this nature of discourse is not merely restricted to spoken and written language but also contributes to the creation of reality (Jorgensen and Phillips 2002; Torfing 2005). Clearly, the paper advocated and supported the alternative views, which favoured devolution and also made frantic and brazen efforts to attack anti-devolution voices.

Devolution debates: building an agenda through language

Concerning discourse, Jorgensen and Phillips (2002) argue that language use is not a mere representation of the world but also contributes to the construction of reality. This perspective is useful for this study in assessing the agenda(s) set by the NewsDay Southern Edition in its framing of devolution of power debates. From the nature of frames and discourses discussed at the beginning of this article, it can be argued that the NewsDay Southern Edition was actively involved in setting the agenda for devolution of power by placing it on top of the public agenda. Starting with the thematic category of “marginalisation and development”, two points can be made. On the one hand devolution of power was promoted as a solution to the problem of marginalisation as evidenced in stories titled “Devolution of power is necessary” (April 9, 2012) and “Ncube calls for devolution” (February 21, 2011). In the story, Devolution of power necessary, the newspaper, citing a play by Khayisa Arts Group, writes that “The play touches on health, education and citizen participation in policy formulation in the current dispensation and the would-be situation in a devolved model of governance” (April 9, 2012). It is apparent the newspaper pushed devolution of power agenda by presenting it as something that is for the people by the people—an empowerment mechanism. The agendas were set within the “narrow linguistic sense of textual unit and the (broader) semantic aspects of spoken units” (Torfing 2005, 6).

In setting the agenda of devolution as the solution to the region’s marginalisation problems, the paper restricted the discourse on devolution to pro-devolution voices. For example, in the story entitled “Devolution is the answer” the paper deployed a reification strategy, where the story makes reference to the past government policies that have not yielded results, “The answer to the problems of Matabeleland doesn’t lie in indigenisation and empowerment, tampered with greed, but lies in the true devolution of power” (August 13, 2010). Thompson (1990) argues that this strategy represents that which is transitory or historical as if it were permanent a natural state of affairs outside time. The newspaper also refers to land reform (farm grabs that occurred in Zimbabwe in year 2000) as a reminder to the Matabeleland region that several policies have been pursued by the government but have had negative results especially on the region’s development and the country at large. It goes further to discourage people from pinning their hopes on the government’s indigenisation and empowerment programme “that has been riddled with greed” (August 13, 2010). Further, sample stories within this category have variously argued that devolution of power is a true empowerment mechanism. In a story, “Devolution of power necessary” (April 9, 2012) the paper condemned the centralised system of governance for causing “bottlenecks and red tape” (April 9, 2012) and suggested that devolution will eradicate all these problems.

Broadly speaking, sample stories within the democracy thematic category set devolution as a democratising agenda. The publication argued that Zimbabwe has not experienced democracy and that devolution will usher in a new era characterised by equal representation and self-governance. Two elements of discourse theory, that is, discourse extends to a wider set of social practices and discourse draws attention to the rules of formation that regulate what can be said, how it can be said, who can speak and which name and what kind of strategies are deployed (Torfing 2005; van Dijk 2006), are here useful in showing how the paper constructed this agenda. An analysis of the stories suggests that there was a careful choice of voices to speak on devolution. The story headlined “Devolution will emancipate women” (October 17, 2011) singled out Gombera from all the participants present at the meeting she addressed and was given the opportunity to pronounce the benefits of devolution of power to women. In another story, “Devolution no longer debatable” (March 19, 2012) the reporter used Godwin Phiri, a high ranking official in civil society, to limit debate on devolution of power thereby making devolution the overarching agenda in the democratisation of Zimbabwe’s body politic. Phiri is quoted as saying “over six [out of 10] provinces were clear on their desire for devolution and that closed the debate on whether or not Zimbabwe should adopt it as a system of governance” (March 19, 2012), which is a majoritarian discourse strategy of closing debate on the issue.

Finally, on the agendas that were set by the NewsDay Southern Edition, stories in the national unity category show that all the voices opposing devolution of power were misplaced and illegitimate. In the story, “Mugabe rejects devolution” (March 7, 2011), the reporter used all of the three modes of persuasion—ethotic, pathotic, and logetic—in the construction of ceremonial argumentation. The headline sets the tone for this supposition. It says Mugabe is rejecting devolution and this is put in the context of the outcome of the outreach process of the constitution where the majority of citizens expressed their desire to have devolution enshrined in the constitution (March 7, 2011). However, Mugabe in this story is framed as exercising some veto over what the people of Zimbabwe said concerning devolution of power. The impact of this pathotic persuasion, which pits Mugabe as an individual against the majority of Zimbabweans is aimed at angering those who expressed their interests for devolution of power. The paper also influenced preferred readings through placement strategies. Mugabe and Zanu-PF are always back grounded. This discursive strategy allowed the pro-devolution advocates to dominate the discourses on devolution.

Media and political activity

Having argued that the NewsDay Southern Edition played mainly the radical and the facilitative role and set devolution of power on the socio-economic and political agenda, it is the intention of this article to conclude by looking at the active role played by the paper in constructing the discourse of devolution of power. As the debates on devolution escalated, the paper, which was supposed to be a neutral mediator between the political players and citizens (Tuchman 1972), became an active political player through various forms of argumentation (Richardson 2007). The effect of the paper’s active role is that, through framing techniques, the paper argued for devolution of power as the best redemptive mode of governance given the patterns of unequal development in the country with Matabeleland and the Midlands provinces at the worst receiving end. To further appreciate the active role played by the paper this section refers to the various modes through which ideology operates to show how the paper worked ideologically in favour of devolution of power. These modes include legitimation; unification and fragmentation (Thompson 1990).

Basically, the sample stories indicate that the paper actively legitimised the views of those who advocated for devolution. Thompson (1990) argues that as a mode of operation of ideology, legitimation works by presenting the views of particular groups as legitimate and worthy of support. For example in the story “Devolution is the answer—Zapu” (August 13, 2010), ZAPU’s spokesperson’s views are presented as legitimate. The party is given authority in this story to declare that while government is attempting to empower people through the indigenisation and empowerment model, the real solution lies with devolution of power. What ZAPU is pronouncing is presented as reflecting the truth and the party is even authorised in the story to contradict a cabinet Minister (Francis Nhema) and accuse him of misleading the people on the benefits of the indigenisation policy.

In addition, the paper also deployed unification and fragmentation strategies to garner support for devolution of power. Thompson (1990) argues that unification seeks to unite and join the audiences to achieve an ideological effect; it establishes a collective identity yet fragmentation attempts to divide people in order to make them easy to rule. Voices that were critical of devolution of power are discursively marginalised and fragmented. This is evidenced in the story “Mugabe rejects devolution” (March 7, 2011), where there is an apparent overwhelming deployment of pro-devolution voices that are used to undermine Mugabe’s position against devolution of power. These unification and fragmentation strategies may have influenced readers to support the seemingly popular voices. In all this political activity, the paper constantly made use of organic intellectuals to bolster arguments in favour of devolution of power.

Conclusion

This article has shown that the NewsDay Southern Edition through its reportage on devolution of power debates performed political roles. The publication drove attention towards the merits of devolution of power to the extent that it framed this system of governance as the best available model to unify and deepen democracy in the country. Essentially, by advocating for devolution of power, through argumentation techniques, NewsDay Southern Edition played both facilitative and radical roles (Christians et al. 2009). This research, therefore, concurs with Entman (1993, 53) that through framing techniques, media “highlight some bits of information about an item that is the subject of a communication, thereby elevating them in salience … making a piece of information more noticeable, meaningful, or memorable to audiences.”

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).