Social media is playing a critical role in lending and amplifying citizen voices in Kenya today, contributing to what has been termed a ‘networked fifth estate’.
Citizens are finding and amplifying their own collective voice; we no longer have to wait for the media, the opposition, civil society, religious institutions, the government or any other ‘intermediary’ to ‘speak on our behalf’ or to represent our views while we passively watch or listen.
There is no shortage of issues and problems plaguing Kenya today, heck, it’s like a cruel game of whack-a-mole. Coupled with the politicisation of virtually all discourse on any issue in any sector, it is no mean feat to be a diligent Kenyan, practicing one’s constitutional right to public participation.
Our country, for all its misfortunes and blunders has one interesting tool whose impact we are just realising: the Internet. We have Internet Freedom (the efforts to curtail them, though, are a discussion for another day).
TWEETING AT JOURNALISTS
Coupled with the proliferation of Internet-enabled mobile devices at increasingly affordable rates for an increasing percentage of the population, we are well on our way to writing an interesting chapter in world history on the use of these devices and tools to shape our democracy.
Take the discussion on the controversial Security Laws (Amendment) Bill, for instance. Public discourse began with news pieces from our media that were shared online. The interaction and reactions that ensued largely entailed demanding access to the draft bill that only journalists initially seemed to have access to.
Relentless efforts by vigilant citizens who tweeted at journalists and legislators to make the draft available saw it uploaded online for wananchi to read and scrutinise for themselves.
Problematic clauses in the draft have beenhighlighted and discussed at length on Twitter for instance, arguably with more depth and diversity of insight and contribution than on traditional media’s coverage.
Pressure to allow for public input to the draft, when it was noticed public input had not been allowed for, has largely come from the online community.
RETHINK PUBLIC FORUMS
The turnout at the public forum earlier this week was low, despite the flurry of online engagement on the issue. This is where critics of social media’s impact come alive and scorn the poor translation of online activity into offline action.
However, it must be noted that different times call for different strategies. Traditional forms of turning up – such as physical rallies, street protests and town hall meetings – while significant, are no longer the only forms in which we can exercise civic engagement.
We need to be open to the fact that they may no longer be relevant. Besides, don’t we have a ‘digital government’, in the home of the ‘Silicon Savannah’? This, to me, says that it’s time to rethink public consultation forum models.
Responses to newspaper announcements for sessions that are held at impractical times during the week should not be simplified to indicate apathy. In this case, one afternoon session in one location, Nairobi, on a law that would affect all Kenyans cannot be counted as representative by any stretch of the imagination.
Pressure must be mounted on government, at both county and national levels, to rethink effective ways of facilitating citizens’ public participation in governance issues given the various contexts in which they operate.
KENYANS TRANSCENDING BOUNDARIES
Online consultations have been leveraged before, and flaunted as a success by the government. I refer to the famed crowdsourcing of contributions to the National Budget by President Kenyatta back in 2011 when he was Minister of Finance.
Though we never got to know how citizens’ contributions contributed to the final budget, the approach taken heralded new thinking that shouldn’t be abandoned now.
Yes, social media use is not representative of the population. Yes, we have a long way to go before we can talk of all Kenyans being represented online. But this should not give cause to dismiss what is playing out in the online spaces that Kenyans occupy.
I contend that these spaces are perhaps even more democratic than ‘offline’ barazas or whatever predated social media as a means for congregating citizens and having them engage in discussion.
I contend that for the first time, more Kenyans are transcending physical boundaries and engaging with fellow Kenyans and the rest of the continent and the world, through these online social networks.
NAMING AND SHAMING
We have, for a long time, been trying to figure out what national cohesion and integration in Kenya means. Some form of it is being practiced on social media. Frictions abound, as they would offline. Insults are hurled, and every so often, dangerous speech (with potential to catalyse violence) rears its ugly head. However, it doesn’t carry the day.
Kenyans online must be applauded for the self-regulation they engage in to minimise toxicity in their online space. They ‘cuff’ hate by naming and shaming such speakers, countering such messages, and even drowning them with more speech, something observed by the Umati Project that monitors online public conversations to better understand hate speech dynamics.
What is interesting about this trend is that it primarily stems from the citizenry. Calls by media, civil society and even government to ‘stop hate speech’ cannot be said to be the most impactful in easing any online tensions that arise. The ‘traditional authorities’ do not always hold sway in the online space.
It would be unwise to underestimate the significant role social media is playing in aggregating citizens’ voices on issues affecting them. So dear Kenyans, tweet on! Let your voices be heard on your own terms.