Abstract
President Paul Kruger of the South African Republic had a rather strained relationship with the press. Because his political thinking was dominated by the maintenance of the Republic’s independence he regarded criticism from the press on aspects of his policy and the tenor of his administration with great suspicion. This was the case even though freedom of the press was guaranteed in the constitution of 1858. Kruger’s distrust of the press was not only confined to the English-language newspapers but extended also to critical Dutch papers such as Land en Volk, of which the young Eugène N. Marais took over the editorship in October 1890.
Kruger’s poor relations with the press had, however, existed long before that. One of the reasons was the subsidisation of certain newspapers by means of advertisements for which a sum of money was included in the annual estimates of expenditure. Government advertisements were allocated to certain papers in return for their support of government policy. One of the beneficiaries of this policy of the government was The Press and its Dutch counterpart De Pers, which had been founded in 1889 by A.H. Nellmapius with the specific aim of supporting the Kruger government. This infuriated the other Transvaal newspapers. The practice of allocating advertisements was not only fiercely criticised by other newspapers but was also denounced in the First Volksraad. Accusations of bribery and corruption were often made against the government in this regard. Fuel was added to the fire by revelations made by the first editor of The Press in a letter published in Land en Volk about special favours to the paper shown by the president and his officials. Kruger and his conservative supporters in the Volksraad nevertheless vehemently defended the practice of allocating advertisements and actually used the argument that there has to be a pro-government paper to prop up his government.
When Kruger was challenged by Eugène Marais in his paper about a claim he and the secretary of state had submitted for travelling expenses after an official visit to Colesberg in the Cape Colony in 1893 the tension between him and the press increased dramatically. The accusation that this was an unwarranted and illegal claim was disputed by Kruger and Marais was accused of libel. The resulting court case was a turning point in Kruger’s relations with the press. Marais was acquitted of libel because the charge in the warrant for his arrest was not fully proved. At the same time the court found that Kruger was not aware of the claim submitted and was therefore not to be blamed, and that although the article in Land en Volk left much to be desired it had been written in the public interest.
The president responded by having a strict new press law drafted which provided for fines for certain press actions as well as a prison sentence of a year without the option of a fine for the use of cartoons to belittle someone. A fierce debate took place on the proposed law in die First Volksraad during which strong opinions were expressed. There was a strong feeling that the bill should have been published first according to the constitution because a press law had never existed in the Republic before, all libel cases having been judged according to the common law. The more conservative members of the Raad felt strongly about unbridled attacks in the newspapers on policy and persons, but it was pointed out by progressive members that the proposed law was radical in that it would stifle freedom of expression in the Republic. Kruger, however, spoke strongly in favour of it and was supported by state secretary Leyds. Before the bill was put to the vote it was pointed out by one of the progressive members, R.K. Loveday, that it was no good to suppress the voice of the press and that proper criticism was good for the country and society. He was supported by Lucas Meyer, the member for Vryheid, who argued that the Transvaalers loved their freedom and that the proposed act would limit their very freedom of expression. However, the conservative members won the day and got their way.
Some of the articles of the act were adopted with rather small majorities, but the act was finally adopted and became operative late in 1893. It was the very first attempt in South Africa to muzzle the press since Lord Charles Somerset had closed down newspapers in the Cape Colony n the 1820s.
The press law was condemned outright by all the English-language newspapers in the Transvaal except the Standard and Diggers’ News and the Kruger propaganda organ The Press, as well as by Land en Volk, but De Volksstem defended it on the grounds that there was far too much licentiousness in the Transvaal newspapers in writing about official policy and government members. The Star declared that in a country which professed to be republican such a law was unimaginable and pointed out that when the press does its duty towards the public it is essential to sharply criticise the policies and actions of public figures because they occupy positions which affect the wider public. The Transvaal Advertiser used the opportunity to remind its readers that Kruger had narrowly beaten Piet Joubert in the presidential election earlier that year and that he therefore had reason to penalise the journalists whose criticism had nearly cost him the election.
Kruger obviously regarded the government’s right to govern and the independence and very existence of the state as one and the same thing. That is why he virtually saw strong opposition to and criticism of the government as treason against the Republic. Kruger’s attitude towards the press was therefore attributable to a phenomenon which one finds even in the case of modern democratically elected governments, namely an incapacity to distinguish between the state on the one hand and the government of the day on the other. Kruger’s strong belief in the right of the Republic to govern itself according to the wishes of the voters and his own insights and to maintain its independence at all costs was bolstered by his religious belief in the original Transvaal inhabitants as God’s own people.
Keywords: Eugène N. Marais; government advertisements; Land en Volk; libel; loyal criticism; Paul Kruger; press freedom; Press Law; South African Republic (ZAR); subsidisation of newspapers
Lees die volledige artikel in Afrikaans: Paul Kruger en die pers in die ZAR, 1890–1895
Kommentaar
Dis als goed-en-wel. Ek't egter 'n Paul Kruger-vraag wat my al jare lank kwe: Waarom word Kruger as "onbestreëde volksheld" beskryf/beskou nadat hy, met die Britse oorwinning in 2de Boereoorlog, sy platgeslaande volk letterlik in sak en as gelaat het, volspoed op vlug geslaan na Switzerland(!)? Op sy trein gelaai met al die Transvaal se goud tesaam? Wat tot vandag toe "vermis" word? Om heerlik af te tree in 'n pragtige villa op die oewers van Lake Genevè in een van die wêreld se mees eksklusiewe miljornêrsbuurte? Die feit dat die man hoegenaamd as 'n volksheld vereër word, gaan my verstand te bowe. Die teendeël blyk meer van pas te wees. Help my reg, asb!
Gegroet, Waaragtag Waar
Die idee dat Paul Kruger 'n "onbestreëde volksheld" is, soos jy dit stel, is nie korrek nie. Daar was nog altyd kritici van Kruger, selfs voor die 1899 - 1902 oorlog, en soos wat ook hier bo geskets word, het Kruger amper die verkiesing verloor. Let op die woord "narrowly". Dit beteken iets soos naelskraaps. Baie naby dus. So ampertjies. Let ook op die kritiek vanuit die media teen Kruger en sy regering voor die oorlog al, in die besonder van die koerant "Land en Volk" se Eugene Marais, maar daar was ook andere.
Wat betref Paul Kruger se vertrek na Europa tydens die oorlog, dit is, na my wete, nie 'n besluit wat Kruger self geneem het nie. Sy regering het besluit dat Kruger na Europa toe moet gaan. In Europa sou Kruger veel meer simpatie vir die Boere se saak kon wen, maar daar het maar min van gekom. Hoewel Kruger goed versorg was tot en met sy dood, dink ek nie dit was vir hom maklik om daar in die vreemde te sterf nie. Persoonlik is ek geen vreeslike aanhanger van Kruger nie, maar ek sien maar so in my geestesoog die prentjie vir myself in my kop. Van wat ek al gelees het, was Kruger lief vir Suid-Afrika en sy eie volksgenote. Hoewel ek geen aanhanger van Kruger is nie, dink ek nie dit kon vir hom lekker of aangenaam gewees het om onder sulke omstandighede sy laaste dae te slyt nie.
Met betrekking tot Kruger se blywende status as volksheld. Ek dink dit sluit aan by die laasgenoemde en dit wat Kruger alles verteenwoordig het. Die populêre beeld van Kruger in die harte van mense: Kruger, die Voortrekkerkind. Kruger die 'volksplanter'. Kruger, wat die wêreld 'mak' gemaak het. 'n Man onder die manne. Kruger, die seun van Suid-Afrika. Maar bowenal, Kruger, die vegter teen die onregte van Britse imperialisme asook die idee van Kruger as vaderfiguur van die Boere. Hy was 'n populêre figuur onder baie Boere (maar nie onder almal nie) weens sy hartlikheid, sy kennis van en liefde vir sy eie volk, sy hardkoppigheid en verset teen dreigende volke en idees, en veral ook sy geloof in God het vele Boere bekoor. Paul Kruger is, net soos Jan van Riebeeck, nie bloot 'n historiese figuur nie, nie bloot 'n leier nie, hy versinnebeeld die Afrikaners se strewe na onafhanklikheid en hulle nasionalisme.
Persoonlik sien ek gladnie nie vir Kruger of Van Riebeeck as helde nie, maar dit wat ek hier genoem het, dink ek, antwoord in breë trekke jou vraag.
Daar is ook baie interessante ooreenkomste tussen Kruger en Jacob Zuma. Beide was grootliks ongeskool, beide het president geword, beide het korrupte regerings gelei, en nogtans geweldig gewild gebly onder populiste.
Ek huldig die nederige opinie dat Paul Kruger ons eerste "staatskaper" was, wat met "baantjies vir boeties" sy neopotisme/regstellende aksie en geselekteerde wit bemagtiging bevorder het as staatsgesag. Die ZAR was nie net goed gewees nie, dit het nooit arm blankes se krisis aangespreek nie.
Gegroet Hans
Politici is politici. Die regering, nes die kerk, is per slot van sake 'n besigheid. Paul Kruger was nie die eerste korrupte politikus nie. Die VOC wat die Kaap gekolonialiseer het, was ook maar korrup, soveel so dat die "vryburgers" in opstand gekom het teen die leiers van die kolonie. Politieke partye het almal een groot kenmerk in gemeen. Of dit nou die pienk party, die blou party, die groen party, die mielistronkparty, die daggablaarparty, die sonsopkomsparty, of welke party ook al is, hulle is almal gewoonlik:
1) demokraties na buite en die tweede wat daarmee gelykstaan;
2) outokraties na binne.
Daar is wel uitsonderinge, soos Suid-Afrika se baie bekende rooi party, wat sommer op die oog af duidelik geen liefde vir demokratiese norme toon nie, en dit spreek ook tot 'n sekere soort mens, en sit gelukkig baie andere af.
Ongelukkig is die tyd voor die VOC in die kaap nie gedokumenteer nie. Ek twyfel egter min dat ook daardie jare 'n ruim oes van korrupte politici sou oplewer.
Ek seg altyd, oudominee was oor baie dinge verkeerd, maar een van sy waarneminge was werklik in die kol: Ons lewe in 'n stukkende wêreld.
Dit moet ons natuurlik egter nie verhoed om joviaal te lewe nie. Daar is darem genoeg positiewe dinge ook. Die lewe draai gelukkig nie rondom politici nie, al dink baie mense, en veral die politici self, graag so.
Oor Paul Kruger probeer ek genuanseerd dink. Vir sy volgelinge het hy iets beteken. Daarby, was hy ook 'n mens van sy tyd. Ek vra my af, sou ek beter as iemand anders gevaar het, as ek in daardie skoene gestaan het? En die gevolgtrekking is gewoonlik, deur die bank, nee.