Don’t shut communications down over elections. Embrace debate instead

What you need to know:

  • Recently in Congo-Brazzaville, government officials said they blocked social media to prevent the "illegal publication of results." 
  • Even Ghana, the democratic stalwart, surprised the world when the country’s police chief announced the government intended to shut down social media on voting day last November.
  • Attempting to block new media is akin to the thinking you can shut down a river.

Kenya is one of Africa’s most democratic and diversified economies. 

Although faced with many political and economic challenges, it has fared relatively well, compared with most African states. You don’t know the value of the freedom of speech we enjoy, and often take for granted, until you travel outside Kenya.

In 2014, the Central Africa Republic banned text messages because the ministry of telecommunications considered SMS a security threat to the nation. Cameroon shut down the internet in its English-speaking regions for fear it may fuel a revolt.

An increasing group of African governments is blocking social media during elections. Recently in Congo-Brazzaville, government officials said they blocked social media to prevent the "illegal publication of results." 

Similar practices were witnessed in Uganda’s recent election, where President Yoweri Museveni claimed blocking social media sites would "stop spreading lies."

COMMITTING TO DISOBEY

Even Ghana, the democratic stalwart, surprised the world when the country’s police chief announced the government intended to shut down social media on voting day last November.

He argued the shutdown was “to ensure social media are not used to send misleading information that could destabilise the country.” Other countries that limit use of social media for security concerns include Ethiopia, Chad and Zimbabwe. 

Aging President Mugabe is not particularly happy with foreign-owned and controlled social media and has urged Zimbabweans to, literally, create their own social media system. 

At the height of the 2007/2008 post-election violence in Kenya, some cabinet members mooted the idea of ordering telecommunication companies to shut down text messaging. We advised that that was not a prudent strategy, with some chief executive officers committing to disobey any such order. 

As it turned out, not shutting down SMS was a wise decision. Text messages saved the lives of many people hiding in forests. In Burnt Forest alone, more than 10 victims of violence were saved because of text messaging.

The only tool we have today to empower citizens is social media, which has given a voice to the voiceless. 

What opponents of social media don’t know, however, is that from a technology point of view, attempting to block it is defeatist.

THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT

Governments that shut down SMS often do it by ordering telecommunications companies to shut it down, but this mechanism only shuts down a very small number of people and cannot put the technologically savvy out of commission. 

Attempting to block new media is akin to thinking you can shut down a river yet we know that it always creates a new course.

It reminds one of the 1980s, when the Kenyan government was confiscating “subversive” publications at the post offices, causing people to start sending them via fax.

It's the character of the people that often stops the state from trampling on their rights. In the case of Ghana, it was protest by the people that eventually prevailed on the long arm of government not to block social media. 

Sometimes, it is important to make governments know that it is not only counterproductive to block the internet but also impossible, considering the level of technology that is easily accessible. 

There are many internet proxies, known as Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), that are easily downloaded and can go around blocked IP (internet protocol) addresses.

When the Chinese government tried to block Google, the company did not fight back. Most users in China simply used VPNs to access Google. The latest news is that the Chinese government will eventually unblock Google, a classic case of “if you can’t beat them join them.”

ONE-SIDED POLITICAL SPEECHES

It’s true some individuals may not use social media responsibly, especially during the electioneering period, which is often characterised by heightened emotions. The best way to deal with such individuals is for people of goodwill to counter divisive information with correct facts and figures. 

The worst thing to do is to do nothing and watch hate-mongers destroy the country. 

As we inch closer to Election Day on August 8, a comprehensive sensitisation exercise is needed to educate people of all kinds of opinions and what to do. Democracy thrives in civility, but rarely do we consider spreading the message as a strategy to entrench civility in society. 

It defeats logic when “civilised” men precipitate violence of the kind witnessed in Migori and Busia during the ODM nominations. Civilised people of character need to shift these public rallies into university auditoriums, to interrogate these leaders on the content of their character. In such forums, we can get balanced social media messaging.

In essence, social media can be managed positively and in a more balanced way if we create opportunity for debate and shift focus from one-sided public rallies that have become breeding grounds for hate-filled speeches from politicians. 

Social media feeds on content, and if that content is not produced in a balanced manner it becomes a recipe for disaster. 

There are endless examples of responsible and impactful use of social media, starting with Chief Kariuki of Nakuru who uses Twitter for crime prevention, to crowdsourcing funds for projects to creating social security networks. Social media has far greater impact than the threats it poses. 

LEVELS OF MODERATION

The message to African governments is that social media is a double-edged sword. Virtually everything that has some positive has its negatives, as I have explored in this article. We must never rush to block these sites under the guise of security, for doing so simply will not work. 

What matters are the levels of moderation that users embrace and what well-meaning people do. This calls for self-restraint, checks and balances, and mature thinking that can direct discourse into reality. 

It’s a sort of war where opinions must be continuously counterbalanced. We all fail if we take the view that these sites are evil, or a Godsend in order to propagate a selfish agenda.

Pope Francis said, “Each of us has a vision of good and of evil. We have to encourage people to move towards what they think is good... Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them. That would be enough to make the world a better place.”

In this coming election, let us fight hate-mongers and hope that peace triumphs in our country.

The writer is an associate professor at University of Nairobi’s School of Business. Twitter: @bantigito