Political leaders abusing freedom of expression, sowing seeds of violence

Very few political leaders in Kenya articulate policy issues systematically, let alone offer alternatives. While many just make generalised claims aimed at pandering to populist sentiments, others are at their best when denigrating their opponents and ethnic groups. The problem is worse in rallies, for two reasons.

First, the majority of our leaders are not proficient in Kiswahili, which makes their speeches incomprehensible. Second, our opposition tradition since the 1990s holds public rallies as forums for politicians to compete with each other on who can throw the worst calumny at the sitting president.

The main point, therefore, is not respect for fundamental rights and freedoms, including the right to free expression. Rather, the point is the way some politicians abuse these rights to propagate highly poisonous narratives. We all know where this took us in 2007-2008.

READ: PETER KAGWANJA: Kenya faced with wrath of unbridled liberal democracy

READ: ODINGA: We are in trouble and we owe Kenya the duty of making it better than we found it

READ: Only honest talks will unite Kenyans, say elders

Broadly, freedom of expression covers four closely related basic rights: the right to access information, the right to disseminate information, the right to hold an opinion, and the right to disseminate it. Underpinning these rights is the view that freedom of expression is the lifeblood of democracy.

Moreover, freedom of expression embraces a correlative right of reply. This means that those who feel aggrieved by opinions disseminated in public forums, including political rallies, have a right of reply. They also have the option of using legal recourse if they feel their grievances are legally actionable.

In practice, however, the right to express an opinion does not imply any obligation to do so, and the right to hold an opinion does not necessarily confer an obligation to disseminate that opinion.
In certain situations, there are limits and boundaries of taste, convention, judgment, and practical wisdom which temper the right to expression.

Following the 2007/2008 post-election violence, for example, residents of some parts of our country are still struggling to stitch back their lives together. In fact, the country in general is still struggling to exorcise the ghosts of that violence and build a diverse, multicultural society where all cultures, races, religions and ethnic groups co-exist peacefully.

THE RIGHT TO DIGNITY

Studies on recovery from violence show that individual and communal healing as well as societal reconciliation take time because they require deconstruction of prejudices and hate narratives which perpetrators of mass killings employ. Such narratives are administered in small doses over several years before the eruption of violence.

Therefore, when a society is recovering from mass violence, matters of taste, judgment, and practical wisdom demand that leaders stop propagating opinions that some groups would interpret as provocative, demeaning, abusive, or intended to incite hatred against them.

Granted, democratic systems function best when citizens and opposition parties continuously question those in leadership. This dictum does not change the argument, however. The main issue is not the freedom of expression per se. The point is to balance the right to expression with other fundamental rights, including the right to dignity and the right to life.

In South Africa, the ruling ANC and the Human Rights Court counselled against the singing of some liberation songs because they offended the dignity of some racial groups. Instead, they advised political activists to compose new songs which unite all.

Similarly, the High Court sitting in Johannesburg declared that, in the hierarchy of rights, the right to dignity outweighs the right to expression. The ruling was in a case filed by Jamiatul Uluma Islamic group against the Mail & Guardian in January 2006. The paper had republished cartoons from a Danish newspaper which had caused widespread riots in Europe.

Some would disagree with the court’s view and argue that balancing the right to expression with any other right stifles democracy. However, I doubt that anyone would contest the view that the right to life is the first one in the hierarchy.

In short, experience from conflict zones in different parts of Africa shows that it is easy for editors sitting in cosy offices in cities such as Nairobi to flaunt ideals, including freedom of expression.

To the survivors of mass violence in the countryside, these ideals mean nothing when all they see are demagogues rubbing salt into their wounds.

Mr Mbugua is a peace and conflict studies academic in New Zealand ([email protected])