Maravi

Let Mpombo speak

Let Mpombo speak
By Editor
Tue 27 Oct. 2009, 04:00 CAT

The disruption by MMD thugs of a public discussion organised by the Press Freedom Committee of The Post and featuring George Mpombo ought to make those who boast about their right to stay in power in 2011 ponder over their suitability to govern this country.

There is no person who respects the constitutional rights of others who can organise unemployed youths of low literacy, load them in three buses and order them to go and disrupt a discussion that is fully authorised by the laws of this country. But this is the type of leadership we have in the MMD of Rupiah Banda.

Tolerance and respect for our fellow citizens makes us allow our critics to express their opinion about our views without inhibition, whether these seem to be unpalatable or not. At the same time, we expect the same treatment or privilege when our turn comes. This is not something we achieve instinctively. Rather, we develop it consciously and respectfully.

For, our very instincts would drive us to throttling our opponents in arguments, or, better still, smack them with a deadly blow. This is familiar to all those who have seen the manner in which MMD thugs have gone on the rampage against citizens opposed to the decisions, actions or practices of their dominant leaders.

Those thugs did not organise themselves; they were organised by the leadership of the MMD and unleashed on Mpombo. Clearly, what is distinctly lacking among the MMD leadership is a culture of tolerance and humility which places the humanity of others before self and accepts that all citizens have the right to participate in the shaping of their destiny directly without fear of reprisal.

Intolerance belies the fact that our pre-colonial societies had evolved this quality to a degree which makes us look like veritable primitives fit only to be seen in suits and neckties.

If you are in doubt, attend any ritual or chief’s court and observe how every child, every fool, every lord is governed by a sophisticated system of human interaction which accords every opinion a hearing, every human being a place in the ritual line. The occasion is dominated, not by the chief, but many councillors and common people waiting for their turn to throw in a question or a view to establish the guilty party. Our leaders of today are everywhere the trouble-shooters.

Yet history tells us that the greatest epochs in mankind’s weary journey are characterised, not by subjugation nor downgrading of the critics. So we are really stuck in a culture of zealous worship of those in power, a culture which would look primitive in the eyes of our ancestors. We have established a reputation for intolerance that is difficult to match.

As we can see from Mpombo’s case, people are dissuaded from criticism in several ways. First, the rulers make loud pronouncements against critics and criticism – traitors and treason, in their eyes. Should this fail, they resort to harassment and intimidation. Harassment takes many forms, and one of them is what we saw against Mpombo on Sunday.

It is quite true that acceptance of criticism implies the highest respect for human ideal, and that its denial suggests a conscious or unconscious lack of humanity on our part. Intolerance must surely rank as one of the worst forms of immorality in human affairs.

We can’t continue to have a situation where all critics in the nation – inside and outside the ruling party or government – are crushed. To agree with everything those in power say is divine, but to disagree is a crime. Citizens must belong to them or be condemned. And no regard is ever had for the patriotism of critics, unless they happen to die.

Why is this so? We think this is so because those in power and their political party consider themselves as the government and government as the state. Any denigration of these institutions and their leaders is tantamount to high treason. You may be punished by stoning, harassment and so on and so forth.

They may not like Mpombo and what he says. But what Mpombo says or does is within his constitutional rights. The greatest right in this world is the right to be wrong, that in the exercise thereof people have an inviolable right to express their unbridled thoughts on all topics and personalities, being liable only for the abuse of that right.

Freedom of speech and expression is the lifeblood of any democracy. To debate and vote, to assemble and protest, to worship, to ensure justice for all – these all rely upon the unrestricted flow of speech. It is said that democracy is communication: people talking to one another about their common problems and forging a common destiny. Before people can govern themselves, they must be free to express themselves.

Citizens of a democracy live with the conviction that through the open exchange of ideas and opinions, truth will eventually win out over falsehood, the values of others will be better understood, areas of compromise more clearly defined, and the path of progress opened. The greater the volume of such exchanges, the better.

But what should those in power do in cases where there is abuse of freedom of speech? The answer, by and large, is: nothing. It is simply not the business of those in power and their political party and cadres to judge such matters. In general, the cure for speech is more free speech.

It may seem a paradox, but in the name of free speech, a democracy must sometimes defend the rights of individuals and groups who themselves advocate such non-democratic policies as repressing free speech. Citizens in a democratic society defend this right out of the conviction that, in the end, open debate will lead to greater truth and wiser public actions than if speech and dissent are stifled.

Furthermore, the suppression of speech that we find offensive today is potentially a threat to our exercise of free speech tomorrow – which perhaps we or someone else might find offensive. It is said that all people are harmed when speech is repressed. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth, if wrong, they lose the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth produced by its collision with error.

The freedom of speech enshrined in our Constitution was not meant to protect those in power from critics. It was meant to protect people, those not in power, from those in power. Full and free discussion keeps a society from becoming stagnant and unprepared for the stresses and strains that work to tear all its achievements to pieces.

But we should never forget the fact that freedoms or liberties like that of free speech and expression lie in the hearts of men and women; when they die there, no constitution, no law, no court can save them. For this reason, those in power, those in leadership positions should teach themselves and others to respect such freedoms or liberties, they should endeavour to plant them in their own hearts and in the hearts of their followers and supporters.

It is in this light that we criticise the barbaric attack and disruption of the discussion that was featuring Mpombo. He may be an irritant to those in power and their supporters, but Mpombo has every right to say what he is saying.

And those trying to force him know this very well and probably that’s why they have not set the police on him and taken him to court. All that they can do against him is to set hired hooligans on him and allow them to escape the law. This is not the way to run a democracy. This is not a recipe for governing well.

Labels: CADRES, GEORGE MPOMBO

posted by MrK @ 8:26 AM