On front page of The Economist dated June 4th to 10th, 2016 there is a heading “Free speech under attack”. The commentary on page 9 states that an idea has spread that people and groups have a right not to be offended. The impression we have is that in several countries which claim to be democracies freedom to criticise is being curtailed.
Why is freedom of speech advocated? It is the sure method of improving democratic institutions. If those who run affairs of a nation are completely shielded from criticism by members of the public, Lord Acton’s dictum will be at work namely “Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupt absolutely”.
Whoever always receives praise but never criticism is heading for a fall like Humpty Dumpty. Not all those who praise him are true friends, they are mere flatterers. A flatterer is a dishonest person who tries to give the impression that whatever he says is in your interest when in fact he is seeking favours from you.
But are relentless critics always then best friends? Are we always justified? Not at all? There are some people no matter what you do or say, nothing pleases them. It seems that the only thing about you which would please them would be your disappearance from the scene.
Jesus taught those who came to hear him thus: “Don’t judge” by which he meant not to be a fault finder. A fault finder is someone who is always looking for something he can criticise about someone whether an important person like a head of state or an ordinary person with whom he is in contact.
Free speech is usually advocated in context of politics. Should citizens freely comment on those who handle affairs of the state? During the days of the Cold War between United States and the now defunct Soviet Union, I heard a joke that an American told a Russian, “You see in our country we have freedom of speech”. We freely shout at our President “Down with you Richard Nixon”. T h e Russian responded “we do that and say down with Richard Nixon and no one is punished for saying so in the Soviet Union”.
In some countries it is strictly forbidden to discuss religion. He or she who makes derogatory remarks about the founder of a religion may be stoned to death. More than twenty years ago, a British novelist Salman Rushdie, published a book called Satanic Verses. Many leaders of Islam demanded his death and he had to go into hiding. It was certainly wrong to say or write something attacking people’s religious belief or doctrine which advocate bearing children without limit and prohibit birth control or family planning. If a country is over populated there will be social unrest on a grand scale.
According to The Economist Indians can be jailed for up to three years for promoting disharmony on grounds of religion, race caste or any other ground whatever. This is a good law. We need it in Malawi if it does not already exist. Regionalism, tribalism and racism can lead to civil wars here, as they have done elsewhere, whoever says a good member of such and such a tribe is a dead one ought to be jailed for his remarks could lead to the deaths of many people.
However, all freedoms have limits. Freedom of dress for example does not entitle one to walk naked on the street, similarly freedom of speech does not entitle one whether inside parliament or outside to speak about the military secrets of the country for what he says could be exploited by enemies of the state. The right to information can only mean information that will do good to society.
The extent to which you make use of the freedom of speech will depend on the social environment where there is a lot of political tension such as in Rwanda and Burundi at present it is better to use self-retrain. Because freedom of speech was taken beyond bounds in Rwanda in 1994; genocide was the result.
Those countries which are so self-righteous about freedom of speech do curtail those freedoms when their country is at war with another. They curtail for instance the writ of Habeas corpus by which the court demands that a person detained by the police should be brought to court or else be released.
During the brief era of the Joyce Banda administration some spokesperson of the media were demanding that the statute that says a President should not be insulted should be repeated. I doubt if the matter was ever brought to parliament.
The question remains should people be allowed to insult a President? Of course not. None of us would love to be insulted by anyone else and why should a President bear insult stoically?
The problem is to determine what is an insult or not. I was in England several decades ago when I saw placards held by disgruntled nurses reminding Prime Minister Harold Wilson that one day he might be in trouble with the hernia and then he would appreciate the service of nurses. How many African President would accept this as part of freedom of speech?
Nevertheless as the saying goes ‘walira mvula walira matope’ (if you cry for rain you simultaneously cry for mud). Whoever campaigns for the Presidency must be prepared for all sorts of unfair criticism? It is to the credit of Dr. Bakili Muluzi that during his first term of office though newspapers and orators viciously calumniated him he never made use of the law to silence them. Most of the newspapers which had been provoking him just committed suicide.
Leave a Reply