Free Speech or Hate Speech?

This week, Julius Malema has been facing one of the biggest moments of his political career. He is on trial, charged with allegations of hate speech. It relates to his repeated singing of the struggle song, Ayesab' amaGwala. The lyrics in question, 'awu dubhul' iBhunu' translate to 'shoot the Boer/farmer/white man' in the eyes of AfriForum, the Transvaal Agricultural Union, and other Afrikaans speaking civil rights groups. The African National Congress insist that 'iBhunu' is a metaphor for Apartheid and racial segregation in general. And thus, in the confines of the Equality Court in Johannesburg, a charged political dispute between the right to free speech or the right to freedom from fear is being played out.

The argument goes that people who sing 'awu dubhul' iBhunu' are inciting others to violence against white South Africans, specifically Afrikaans speakers. Moreover, in the light of the persistent incidents of gruesome murders of farmers since 1990, and also violent crimes that have continued to blight South Africa, it has been deemed inappropriate for a song with such an explicit lyric to be sung. Moreover, the person of Malema is not exactly popular among white South Africans. He is frequently portrayed as a racist and anti-white in the mainstream media.

On the other side, it has been argued that Ayesab' amaGwala is an important relic of the fight against Apartheid. Resistance to racial segregation frequently took the form of song, structured typically around the call and response, which is a feature of southern African music, particularly choral music. Thus, the song is emblematic not just of the political struggle which took place, but also of the cultural struggle. Banning the song would amount to an attack on the cultural heritage of black South Africans.

On the face of it, there seems to be no compromise. If Malema is cleared, then white South Africans will take this as a sign that they are not welcome in the new South Africa, and that the ANC does not care for the troubles of white South Africans. However, if Malema is found guilty, it would most certainly be an affront to the right to free speech. Besides, one cannot actually ban someone from singing a song. In very few instances in history has someone been banned from singing a particular song, and adhered to that ban. One can certainly ban Malema or an ANC leader from singing the song, because they are in the public eye. But how does one regulate the singing of the song in the townships or the countryside? It is a thorny issue that seemingly has no middle ground.

In the musico-cultural history of Ireland, there are numerous songs denigrating their former English oppressors. Songs referring to the 'Huns' from Britain and others that glorify the IRA and armed struggle are well known throughout the country. But it would not be considered appropriate for Ireland's political leaders to sing such songs, considering that Ireland has international relations with Britain. There is no ban on the song, but considering that Britain is one of Ireland's most important political and economic allies, it would be frowned upon for the Irish Taoiseach (Prime Minister) to sing songs about the 'cursed' British and their 'foreign spleen.'

Perhaps that is the middle ground. Maybe the Equality Court should clear Malema of charges, but insist that out of respect for white South Africans, the ANC do not sing the song, so that the political and cultural history of resistance to Apartheid is preserved, and the sensitivities of white South Africans are acknowledged.

Besides, it would be more appropriate for the ANC to sing songs about the problems facing South Africa today, like crime and wealth divides.

ZIMBABWE'S PROSPECTS

Despite elections being due this year along with a new constitution, the current political and economic situation in Zimbabwe is unlikely to change

The phenomenon of the power-sharing government has, in recent years, become a feature of African politics. In the Kenyan presidential election of 2007, no clear winner was declared in the race between incumbent Mwai Kibaki and his rival, Raila Odinga, amidst allegations of rigging. After a year of post-election violence, a government of national unity was agreed upon and formed, with Kibaki as president, Odinga as prime minister, and members of both parties filling a cabinet of nearly 50 ministers and 47 deputy ministers.

In that same year, Robert Mugabe faced the prospect of being voted out of power after ruling Zimbabwe for nearly 30 years. The first round of election results showed that Morgan Tsvangirai was the clear winner, but had failed to get more than 50 per cent of the vote in order to avoid a presidential run-off. The run-off vote was initiated on the back of a brutal political crackdown, which saw thousands of people beaten, killed and raped by state security forces. Tsvangirai's decision to withdraw from the second run-off allowed Mugabe to win outright and cause a year-long political deadlock, which eventually resulted in the Southern African Development Community brokering a government of national unity, with Tsvangirai as prime minister and Mugabe as president.

An unfortunate situation

Two years later, and the coalition government faces a fork in the road. Elections are due soon, along with a referendum over a new constitution that has yet to be drafted. In spite of this, little has changed in terms of the political system or the economy. Basic amenities such as fuel are scarce, and the cost of living has gone up exponentially. The country continues to rely on imports from South Africa and China. Violence between supporters of Mugabe's ZANU-PF party and the Movement for Democratic Change is still widespread. And what complicates this particular matter is that ZANU-PF ministers hold most of the security related portfolios, meaning that the state security forces are largely loyal to Mugabe, and thus often turn a blind eye to violence against MDC supporters.

What next?

From this, it seems that the situation is very much doom and gloom. And unfortunately, that is the way it is. Many commentators fear political-related civilian warfare will descend upon Zimbabwe come next elections, as it did in 2008. All the indicators certainly seem to point to this conclusion. Some are even holding out on Mugabe dying. Depressingly, even this will not solve the problem. In the event of Mugabe's death, it is likely that the army, the air force and other sectors of state security, all comprising of ZANU-PF loyalists, will assume de facto control of the government in the event of Mugabe's death.

                                           Robert Mugabe, image found here

A glimmer of hope could be seen in the very north of the continent. Tsvangirai himself alluded to the Egyptian and Tunisian protests, saying that it was possible in Zimbabwe to wage a similar campaign of mass demonstrations. The minister of defence, in kind, responded that those who wished to emulate the protests would be punished. Nothing is impossible, as the people of Egypt and Tunisia showed. But unfortunately for the time being, the average Zimbabwean is forced to accept that the prospects for Zimbabwe, unlike Egypt and Tunisia, are very bleak indeed.

A NEW DAWN

The birth of Southern Sudan and the uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia signal a new beginning in Africa

It was a day that not many people believed would ever dawn. In February 1990, over two decades ago, Nelson Mandela was released from prison. His release signalled the beginning of the end of Apartheid, the racist political system that entrenched white minority rule in South Africa. Although it would take four years of bloody, civilian violence and warfare before Apartheid officially ended, that fateful day when Mandela walked free beckoned a new day in Africa.

21 years later, another seemingly ordinary February day has come, and with it, another new beginning for Africa. On Monday 7th February, 98.83 per cent of people from South Sudan voted to secede from the central government in the north. This independence vote comes after a two decade civil war between the government of Khartoum and the people of the south. The path to independence has, quite literally, been paved with blood; nearly one million people have lost their lives in fighting and the ensuing drought and starvation. Notwithstanding, of course, the death of John Garang, the charismatic leader of the Sudanese People's Liberation Army, whose passing very nearly destroyed the negotiated peace deal in 2005. As in South Africa, the road was rocky, and it promises to get rockier. But for the mean time, the people of South Sudan can celebrate their truly hard won independence. 

To the north 

The new year not only brought independence to the people of South Sudan, it also brought a wave of mass uprisings in north Africa. Across Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, ordinary citizens protested against their governments, some of them self-immolating in protest. It began in Tunisia, when Mohamed Bouazizi, a street vendor, set himself on fire to protest police brutality. What happened could not have been properly foreseen, as Bouazizi's simple act set off many more protests and brutal riots throughout the country, eventually resulting in President Zine El Abidine stepping down after 23 years in power. The unrest did not stop in Tunisia, it spilled over into Algeria and, most notably, Egypt. Not only were protests in Egypt marked by self-immolation, similar to Tunisia, but Egyptian citizens took to the streets in demonstrations and rallies, most of which were organised on Facebook and Twitter (leading to the government in Cairo shutting down Internet access) and violent clashes with the security forces, all protesting police brutality, corruption and economic mismanagement. Hosni Mubarak, Egypt's president for the last three decades, agreed to loosen his iron grip on the state by agreeing to step down by the next elections, which are due in September. Clearly, the Egyptian people are not happy, as they are still protesting. They have clearly had enough of Mubarak, and want him to go now. 

Power to the people 

The people of South Sudan, Tunisia and Egypt have effectively managed to take control of their own destinies. They have demonstrated that power ultimately belongs to the people, even in the case of an autocrat in the mould of Mubarak, who has suppressed political opposition for three decades. It truly is a new day in Africa, when ordinary men, women and even teenagers and children help to bring down their governments, or vote on their right to govern themselves. The next few months will be interesting, in that they will give us a greater idea of the direction this situation is heading. Mubarak could be forced to step down earlier, but he has agreed to step down, and that may be enough for the powers that be, even if it is not to the satisfaction of the Egyptian people. Whatever happens, the protests and secession should be taken as warnings by other African leaders, some of whom may be similar in style and rule to Mubarak and his counterpart in Sudan, Omar al-Bashir. For the ordinary people of Africa, it is a new dawn. And  it is certainly not a false dawn. Rather it is a dawn that brings with it that very rare, but very potent emotion - hope.