When countries are hit by crises, governments tend to demand support from the media. But patriotism should not prevent the media from criticising a government's handling of civic issues, warns Mosekwa Tshikosi

Julius Malema's recent assertion, as quoted in the media, that the press is seeking to bring down the government, sadly reminded of how - in the period right after 9/11 - "patriotism" dominated virtually all discussions on how the US was to face the challenges posed by the apparent new chapter of terrorism.

It was a sad irony that some of us, who witnessed the end of the apartheid era, characterised by such terrible laws as detention without trial and blatant torture, were also in the land of Uncle Sam during the introduction of the Patriot Act.

This act read eerily like apartheid's Internal Security Act - allowing for the effective suspension of significant civil liberties, including habeas corpus (leading to effective detention without trial).

For South Africans intimately familiar with the provisions of these types of laws, it was sadder to see the apparent ease with which US society - which typically regards the government with a healthy dose of scepticism - accepted the authorities' assurances that this drastic step was necessary to combat the larger issues of terrorism.

What of the Fourth Estate? Well, once the hysteria started there were frighteningly few dissenting voices among the press corps. In fact, some in the media became cheerleaders for the sort of jingoistic analysis that gave rise to the Patriot Act. Even generally liberal national publications eschewed the usual timid equivocation, and put forth very strident support of the government's position on civil liberties and its push towards what eventually became the invasion of Iraq.

So what prompted this apparent about-turn on the hitherto sacrosanct American concept of civil liberties?

There can be no doubt that the events of September 11 2001 had a profound effect on US society's sense of vulnerability. Just as it had taken the Japanese's bombs at Pearl Harbour to bring World War 2 home to a lot of Americans, 9/11 pierced the cocoon that insulated the average citizen from the big bad world out there. And just like the South Africa of the '60s, '70s and '80s - when the government used the increasing black political activism as a means to exhort the white public to buy into increasingly repressive laws, 9/11 became the raison d'être for the US's increasing bellicosity towards other countries.

In this heated atmosphere came calls for more vigilance at home, more unity, and then outright denunciation of those who, in the words of the then US Attorney-General John Ashcroft, "gave comfort and succour to the enemy". Few in civil society were brave enough to risk being labelled "unpatriotic". Unsurprisingly in this atmosphere, a hastily drawn up Patriot Act was rushed through Congress and passed with nary a debate.

The truth finally came out, after thousands of lives were lost. The irony was that the acts of terrorism, which ostensibly precipitated the Iraq War, continued unabated.

In a sense South Africa is in a state of continuous crisis.

Trying to reverse the wrongs brought on by years of brutal misrule - saddled with the weight of expectations that are practically impossible to meet in anything less than a few generations, and bedevilled by a lack of the type of political and bureaucratic skills and experience necessary to provide a consistent plan of development - it is hard for South African society to not treat every hiccup as something of critical importance.

South Africa has much to be proud of - a functioning democracy, relatively stable economic infrastructure and a free (if somewhat hesitant) press.

But despite frequent declarations of optimism by the leaders, there is a strong undercurrent of pessimism about service delivery and the quality of life.

Part of it, I think, has to do with the depressing regularity of the bad news - rampant crime, corruption in high places, inept performance of elected officials and the glacial pace at which economic and social development is moving.

With the media providing the platform to publicise some of these issues, the tendency of the government is to increasingly portray the media as purveyors of bad news - as if the underlying issues would disappear if the media concentrated on the more Pollyannaish and less embarrassing aspects of society.

I firmly believe that the media, perhaps more so than any other group or industry, is critical to the development of this hard-fought democracy.

With the ruling party garnering a near-absolute majority in recent elections, there is an inclination towards not fully disclosing issues that do not reflect well on the organisation. It is crucial that civil society takes up the cudgels to make the government responsive to society.

Some conservatives in the US, who generally tend to be more bellicose than their brethren on the left, are fond of using the phrase "my country, right or wrong". This is, interestingly, not in the spirit of the original quotation by 19th-century US immigrant Carl Schurz, which actually goes "Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right."

I cannot think of anything that more appropriately defines the essence of what it means to be of service to one's fellow citizens.

• Mosekwa is an independent commentator based in Johannesburg