May 13th, 2016
By Jimmy Kainja.
the above-pointed issues, there is also a lot that Africans have in common. In fact, the stated issues that make-up African continent are just as true within African countries. My own country, with estimated population of 16 million people has more than 12 tribes and more then 15 languages are spoken. Yet it is called it a country.
I recently reflected on this while attending Re:publica conference in Berlin, Germany along with my fellow African political bloggers, blogging at Africablogging.org and a group of wonderful Africans working with Global Innovation Gathering (GIG). We had fun; even though some of us – Africa Blogging and GIG members were meeting for the first time.
Discussions with these fellow patriotic young Africans over meals and in our hotel rooms for a week we were in Berlin got me thinking: “so Africa is a country after all.” African countries have a lot in common in terms of its socioeconomic and political make-up. I am not just talking about our shared colonial and pre-colonial period but contemporary Africa as well. Today what happens in one African country is most likely to replicate itself elsewhere.
And here is where my general reflection on Re:publica lay. I found the conference a huge collective thinking space where like-minded people converge, not just to share ideas but also to inspire each other. The diversity of a largely nerdy yet sociable group of presenters and participants at the conference was a true reflection of our own group – Africa Blogging and GIG.
Here I realised that the Re:publica-type of gathering is something that Africa needs – in Africa we need what I call “collective thinking space.” Yes, the internet has opened up discursive platforms and spaces such as blogs, Facebook, Whatsapp, Twitter etc. These decentralised networks have opened up a useful cross-boarder and trans-national interactions yet we know discussions and reflections on these spaces are very random and often lack focus, something the Re:publica handled extraordinary well.
After all, internet shutdowns are becoming common in Africa. Telecommunication companies in Africa, in pursuit of favourable deals and operating conditions are colluding with African governments, eager to strengthen their hold on power, to shutdown social media whenever they feel their grip on power is threatened.
As pointed out earlier, what happens in one African country is likely to reappear in another country. At the time of writing, Ugandan government was at pains trying to limit social media use in the country as Yoweri Museveni was being sworn in following elections, which the country’s opposition are disputing. This trend was a topic of discussion by members of Africa Blogging at the Re:publica.
Apart from individual presentations, which I hugely benefited from, as a blogger, and an academic, Re:publica has convinced me that as great as the online spaces are, they are insufficient and they are not a substitute to the old-fashioned physical gathering of like minded people determined to get things done. Spaces like Re:publica may just be what young generation of Africa needs, in order to shape its socioeconomic and political feature.
Comments Off on Africa Needs a Collective Thinking Space
March 22nd, 2016
By Jimmy Kainja.
The question of whether social media should be regulated is steadily getting traction on the continent as well as here in Malawi. Nigerian government is considering it and few weeks ago Yoweri Museni’s government in Uganda shutdown social media during a crucial elections period. Here at home the issue gained even more attention in the recent weeks following the arrest of Malawi Congress Party (MCP) members who were subsequently charged with treason over a Whatsapp group conversation.
Of course Whatsapp groups are private conversation by the nature of its setting, unlike the likes of Facebook, Twitter etc. This means the case of banning social media in Uganda is slightly different from that of Malawi. The Malawi issue raises serious issue of people’s privacy and authority’s eavesdropping on an unsuspecting citizens. On the other hand, the Uganda scenario brings questions of infringement on some of the people’s fundamental freedoms and rights, such as freedom of expression and access to information.
However different these issues may be, its aims are fundamentally the same: limiting the space of unacceptable opinion and instilling fear on people that they are constantly being watched: panopticon. The equivalent of Big Brother idea that those in the Big Brother house always have this sense that they are being watched at all times even when no-one is watching, therefore you must regulate your own behaviour at all times. It is antithesis of democracy and civil liberties – an effective weapon for authoritarianism.
The ironic thing is that among the key features that the social media has brought is the decentralised forms of communication. Social media is social equaliser, giving voice to the voiceless, letting common people whose voice is always represented in the mainstream media; the voice of the people who only make news when they are victims of hunger, domestic violence etc.
Social media has made gatekeepers of information and moral guardians of the society uncomfortable, hence pressing moral panic button: social media is harmful to the society therefore it must be regulated. What these folks will not openly say is the fact that social media actually empowers the powerless with information, means of access to it and means of disseminating it. Surely this can only be good for democracy.
Yet, it is understandable that social media is making groups of individuals, government organisations and others uncomfortable. Changes in society always threaten the status quo – it has always been the case. Those in a position of authority and power always fear change and new developments because they must protect their own privileged positions. Informed society is a very difficult society to manage and govern for those whose primary goal is to steal from the common folk.
It makes sense then when it is government calling for regulation of social media, they do not want decentralised networks of communication; they want the top-down traditional centralised systems of information flow in which they are in total control. Yet, it makes very little sense when it is journalists asking whether social media should be regulated or not. I have come across such conversation on social media. Journalists seriously arguing for social media regulations – something they should all be defending.
Never mind the important question of who is to police the social media. But you must always be careful what you wish for, you might get it. It is a world of possibilities. There is a common defence slogan when journalists and their work is under attack – often from the powers that be: “do not shoot the messenger”. Journalists calling for social media regulation argue that there are a lot of lies and false stories on platforms like Facebook and Whatsapp, yet these platforms are used by people, if anything, the blame lies with the users – not the platform. You do not shoot the messenger, remember?
People lie everyday, all the time, including those in journalism and all the gatekeepers. How do you regulate a lie anyway? There were lies before social media and there will be lies whether social media is regulated or not. There are laws protecting innocent people from such lies, you do not need to regulate the media.
History of human communication is full of inventions of which social media is part and parcel. Yet, this history tells us that the calls today to regulate social media are not new. We can go as far back as the late 1400s to 1500s when a German tinsmith, Johannes Gutenberg made the printing press a reality. Printing press sent shivers among those who controlled the flow of the information: the elite of the day, mostly the Catholic church.
This was because these elites knew that once common people had access to information, which the printing press made possible, their power would be undermined. Because ordinary folks would be able to demand justice, accountability and question authorities. Simply, the masses would be democratised. There is a reason autocrats today control the flow of information. Where would the world be today if the printing press was stopped in its tracks? Social media is the latter-day printing press. It must be protected.
Why would a journalist call for social media regulation? Surely no journalist would be afraid of enlightened society. After all, social media is media not meant to replace the existing channels of communications. If anything journalism in its traditional form of finding news, editing, fact-checking and report is important more than ever in the day of social media because those discussing issues on social media are not professional journalists. Yet, this does not mean journalists have monopoly over information. The earlier journalists realise that no-one, including them, has monopoly over information the better.
Instead of calling for social media to be regulated, we should instead be calling for more social media – it is good for democracy. If we advocate for freedom of expression then we must realise that social media is making this fundamental right a reality. Folks need a forum for that expression. Social media is internet-based and as of December 31, 2014 internet penetration in Malawi was only 7.0%. The most used social media network is Facebook; it constitutes over 80% of internet users in Malawi. Yet, Facebook has only 4.5% penetration rate.
These statistics suggest that Malawians should be calling for social media growth and not its regulation. Surely we do not want to choke the social media before we even start. Stop the fear mongering, social media is alright
Comments Off on Social Media is Alight
December 9th, 2015
By Jimmy Kainja.
Malawi president, Peter Mutharika recently appeared on BBC’s HARDtalk programme, hosted by Zainab Badawi. His appearance was in line with what has become a trend for African leaders – granting interviews to Western media and not the local media. Controlled press briefings is the closest the local media get to interview a state president – this is certainly the case in Malawi.
It shows the contempt that African leaders have towards the local media. Anthropologist, Francis Nyamnjoh has noticed that from early to mid 1990s most African countries have liberalised media laws only in theory but in practice journalists on the continent are still seen as troublemakers to be monitored and policed.
One thing that became immediately apparent in the HARDtalk interview is that Badawi had more facts about Malawi than Mutharika. For every question asked about Malawi’s poor economic growth, infinite poverty, massive corruption and poor governance, the Malawi president turned to Cashgate – a term used to refer to a systematic looting of state resources by civil servants, politicians and business persons. Of course blaming everything on Cashgate is more convenient for President Mutharika because Cashgate happened on the watch of his political rival, the former State President, Joyce Banda.
Yet, Mutharika had no answers why all the country’s economic and governance problems should be attributed to Cashgate when Joyce Banda was in power for only two of the country’s 51 years of independence. This question points to one of the biggest problems with Malawi, as a country. Those in the leadership positions are never honest with the diagnosis of the country’s problems. Wrong diagnosis means wrong prescription; wrong prescription means the problem will not go away. It is akin to wrapping a boil with a bandage – you can only hide it but it will not heal. The solution is to burst the boil and treat it.
Like a boil, Malawi is at a point where we need to open up to uncomfortable realities. The deliberate misdiagnosis of the country’s problems is convenient because majority of the country’s politicians leaders are either interested in covering their corrupt past; that of their peers or are merely interested in denting CVs of their political rivals. Short term, narrow and selfish interests are prioritised in place of bigger, long-term national interests.
It is all about political blame game, and at the moment Joyce Banda is unfairly taking all the flak. Of course Cashgate happened on her watch and she must account for it. Yet, there are also unaccounted for millions of Malawi Kwachas that went missing under Presidents Bingu wa Mutharika, Peter’s older brother, and Bakili Muluzi. The latter still has a court case, answering charges of corruption for allegedly diverting government money into a personal account.
Peter Mutharika and his government wont mention Bingu and Muluzi because UDF (Mulizi’s party) and DPP (Mutharika’s party) are now in a convenient political collation of some sort. This is something Peter Mutharika could not admit to Badawi because in the typical Malawi politics, Peter Mutharika thought Badawi was out to get him, personally, when the truth is Badawi was looking at Malawi and Peter Mutharika happened to be the unfortunate president answering her questions. I doubt very much that Badawi has any interest in Malawi’s internal politics.
Sadly, this is also the reality on the ground. Everything is personalized. Over the years, majority of unsuspecting Malawians have been indoctrinated to think and see everything through tinted political party colours, at the expense of broader national interests. Those who dare stand for national interests and question the status quo are seen as jealous, opposition elements or sponsored by westerners to “destabilise” the country.
Mutharika approached the interview with this pitiful mindset. At times it was embarrassing to watch. We can do better! But not until Malawi leaders start looking at things as they, not how they want them to be. If not, Malawi will not be able to shake-off the painful “poorest country in world” tag. Its presidents will continue moving around the Western world with begging bowl; its presidents will continue giving unprepared interviews to the likes of BBC in hope of attracting donor sympathy for grants and donations. Let us #DemandaBetterMalawi
Comments Off on Mutharika’s HARDtalk Interview: The Devil is in the Detail
November 14th, 2014
By Jimmy Kainja.
“A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody.” ~ Thomas Paine
It looks like the reality of the so-called Zero-Aid Budget is slowly sinking in; it is now at the intersection where wishes and reality collide. For the first time President Peter Mutharika has publicly appealed to Malawians and corporations to honour their tax obligations as his government is slowly coming to terms with absence of up to 40% of budgetary support, which donors are withholding due to Cashgate, and the government’s subsequent failure to satisfactorily address the issue by bringing to book all the culprits and ensuring the donors that there will be no repeat of such a systematic looting of state resources by civil servants, politicians and private business people close to the ruling elite.
President Mutharika reportedly told a public rally recently in Balaka that: “let us all pay taxes to have some money to run our country. We are now on our own there is no one who is going to give us money.” Of course Mutharika is referring to the aforementioned frozen budget support. What is also important to note here is the fact that donor countries and donor agencies continue to fund some of the country’s key programmes in health sector, education, food security and many other areas.
This is important to acknowledge because it shows that donors are not out to punish Malawians in whose name the budgetary support is given. On the contrary this shows that donors are merely demanding accountability and transparency in how Malawi government run its finances.
Cynics would have questioned whether it was a coincidence that President Mutharika’s statement was made around the same time that his government finally released the much anticipated Cashgate audit report, which was instituted by the Joyce Banda administration as a way establishing exactly what happened and who was involved in the Cashgate scam.
I find it hard to believe that the audit report has genuinely been released for the benefit of Malawians. It is a curious report that makes you wonder what was it exactly that the government was trying to hide from the public because the report has very little if anything at all that was not already a public knowledge. Perhaps the secretive culture within Malawi government is now so entrenched that the government is even happy to hide empty information from Malawians just because it can.
Successive administrations in Malawi have ruled and do things with impunity, to the extent that now Malawi government or whoever is in power feel belittled when its taxpaying citizens demand what belongs to Malawians, including information. Yet, Malawi leaders are always happy to ask Malawians to be patriotic and make whatever contribution they can towards the advancement of the country.
Curiously, Malawi government has always felt more obliged to answer or make themselves more accountable to the donors, not its citizens. Well, expect when donors stand in the line of one’s political ambitions, Bakili Mulizi’s third term and Bingu wa Mutharika’s fallout with Joyce Banda when he wanted Peter Mutharika to succeed him comes to mind. Yet donors only contribute up to 40% of the budget, Malawians make up for the rest.
Perhaps Malawi government is aware that unlike Malawians, donors have the clout to act. Malawians are only good at whining. Perhaps this is where the government’s “so what” attitude towards its people comes from? Perhaps this is the same reason President Mutharika had the audacity to ask Malawians to honour their tax obligations when his government fails to take any steps towards ensuring transparency and accountability.
If Malawi government was willing to do things transparently there could not been any problems with be donors by now. This is all the donors are asking for. I am sure it is the same thing that every honest and patriotic Malawian would ask for.
Of course paying tax is a noble duty, as painful as it is. Yet, it also has to be said that paying tax is a social contract between government and its people. People pay tax in exchange for efficient public services delivery. Taxpayers have a right to demand receipts if they feel services are inadequate or if not rendered at all. Simple. Yet, demanding this kind of openness in Malawi is a controversial thing.
So, Mr President, please improve transparency and accountability within the government before you could ask for honest from the overtaxed Malawi taxpayers. Passing access to information bill, which I understand has been gathering dust for over a decade, and opening up on political party funding and political campaign expenses is a good start point. Otherwise how can you demand from your people what your own administration is unwilling to do? It is a give and take situation, not one-way traffic.
Comments Off on President Mutharika must not demand from Malawians what his government won’t do
