A Call for Policy Interventions to Support Journalism in Zimbabwe
Two weeks ago, I had the opportunity to attend belated World Press Freedom Day commemorations hosted by Zimpapers in Harare. The event brought together a diverse audience, including staff members, executives, school pupils, and journalism students. The guest of honor was Mangaliso Ndlovu, who was acting as the Information minister, accompanied by Nick Mangwana, the ministry’s permanent secretary.
During my two-minute speech, I shared a message of solidarity with the media community. I expressed my concerns about the Digital Withholding Services Tax (DSWT), which I believe places an unnecessary burden on citizens already struggling with high taxation. My opposition to the tax is rooted in the fact that companies like Apple, which I frequently use for apps, do pay taxes in Zimbabwe. For instance, when I purchase an app priced at US$11.99, Apple pays a 15.5% VAT rate, retaining US$10.38 and allowing the government to receive US$1.61.
However, the situation becomes problematic when banks process these transactions. They apply the same 15.5% tax to the full amount, adding an additional charge of US$1.86. This results in an effective tax rate that far exceeds what is legally set. Instead of paying US$1.61 in VAT, I end up paying US$3.47. When this happens across multiple apps, it adds up significantly over time.
While I acknowledge that double taxation may be morally questionable, I leave the deeper philosophical debate to economists and political philosophers. I have been informed that I could approach the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority to claim a refund, but the effort required might not be worth it.
Despite my reservations about the DSWT, I proposed that the Information ministry should advocate for a portion of this tax to be directed back into journalism and media in Zimbabwe. It’s not an ideal solution, but if life gives you lemons, maybe try making lemonade—making the best of a difficult situation.
The DSWT is intended to tax big tech companies that are allegedly avoiding tax in Zimbabwe. However, these companies, such as Facebook, Google, and Apple, have contributed to the decline in traditional media consumption globally. If we are paying taxes for using these platforms, it only makes sense that they also support the sustainability of local journalism.
I argued that no matter how innovative media companies become, they will struggle to achieve sustainable profits without policy interventions. The answer lies in collaborative efforts rather than isolated approaches to monetization in a technology-driven world.
I know it’s a long shot, but if the Information ministry could lobby for even a small percentage of the DSWT, this money could be used to fund public interest journalism. This includes reporting on critical issues like climate change, health, and gender.
Public interest journalism is essential for informing citizens, holding power accountable, and promoting transparency. UNESCO defines information as a public good, emphasizing its reliability, accessibility, and importance for societal development. It argues that information must be protected from censorship, monopolization, and misinformation.
Styli Charalambous further highlights that we accept public funding for education, healthcare, and infrastructure, yet we often neglect the need for similar support for journalism. Industries like banking and film production receive subsidies, so why not journalism?
I am not proposing an additional tax, but rather advocating for the Information ministry to make a case to finance officials about how policy interventions can save an industry that is vital to governance and civic engagement.
However, I am aware that this government has a tendency to exert control. To prevent compromising editorial independence, structural arm’s-length mechanisms could be implemented. These include distributing funds through independent agencies, ensuring non-partisan indirect subsidies, and supporting multilateral or pooled funds.
For example, Australia passed a law requiring Facebook and Google to negotiate content deals with media outlets, resulting in significant investments in journalism. Canada followed a similar approach. Zimbabwe’s DSWT could serve as a different mechanism to achieve the same global objective.
I am aware that the Mass Media Trust was attempted in the early 1980s, but it ultimately failed due to government interference. However, it provides a starting point for future initiatives.
Unfortunately, I was misunderstood by Mangwana, who seemed more focused on defending the DSWT rather than exploring how it could be used to support journalism. He took offense to my direct critique of the tax and jokingly suggested increasing it. His argument that big tech companies were taking money out of Zimbabwe is valid, but he overlooked the fact that some of these companies already pay taxes in the country.
He also claimed that these platforms were blocking access to local content, which I found confusing since consumers have choices. The real issue lies in the economic dominance of big tech, which redirects advertising revenue away from local media regardless of consumer preferences.
My focus was on media viability, not the specifics of the tax itself. There is no harm in suggesting that the revenue from the DSWT could be used to fund public interest journalism and improve access to information.
While the government has made progress in improving access to information, it means little if citizens lack access to accurate, verified news. The media plays a crucial role in providing this, and the government has a central responsibility in ensuring its sustainability.
