Freedom of expression has come to the fore of debate nowadays more than it has ever appeared in our history as a nation. We are not surprised at the developments surrounding this inalienable freedom for obvious reasons.
One among many facts is clear. Botswana of 2014 boasts 20 mainstream media outfits. For a population estimated at two million, the ratio translates to 100, 000 people per media outfit, essentially. This scenario presents both an opportunity and risk where freedom of expression is mentioned. There are 13 newspapers, two television channels and five radio stations. The question should not be whether there is or no freedom of expression in Botswana; rather, what should freedom of expression be about in a democracy as ours is the question? Of course freedom of expression as enshrined in the Constitution should be about people’s opinions, beliefs, ideals, analyses, facts, reflections and so forth and should be exercised uninhibited. Freedom of expression should not be about outright insults, inciting public indecency, provoking violence or instigating hatred against others on the basis of ethnicity, sexual orientation, creed, political persuasion or religious heritage. As a plural democracy, one such hefty price that nations in this mould inevitably pay is unequivocal embrace of the freedom of expression by citizens and individuals.
God-fearing ministers can boldly declare their intolerance and apparent hatred for homosexuals, bisexuals and transgendered humans, yet preach ‘Jesus is love’ whom the Bible consistently depicts as having embraced immoral beings. What about politicians who publicly state that criminals deserve cruel deaths at the hands of security agents without a day in court, or worse still, citizens who make known their hatred for Zimbabweans to ruthlessly obliterate them with gunshots because they demanded a wage for their hard labour? These are clear examples of where freedom of expression is abused. These days, reading newspapers, listening to the radios or watching television; one realizes just how far off we have come to understand the freedom of expression in the things we say or do to others.
The truth is that all of us resent freedoms of others when their beliefs or opinions clash with ours. I remind myself whenever I listen to the phone-in shows in the morning, when the notorious voices call in and their viewpoint on any subject is a foregone guess by regular listeners. But no matter how much these callers are annoying to wear the same lens in gazing upon life in general, they are simply expressing their freedoms in an open Republic. It thus serves no purpose to show anger and intolerance of other people’s dissenting viewpoints.
In short, life will be utter boredom if everyone praised and glorified certain things and people without question or some degree of cynicism. But should our expressions necessitate enmity, or in some cases hatred to the extent that nowadays it is common to hear Batswana fearing that our nation is falling apart at the centre? Recently, the brief statement from the American Government to Botswana Government on the detention of Sunday Standard Editor Outsa Mokone made me realize how close a friend we have so much that America cared to remind Botswana of her moral high pedestal from where she probably is slipping into the darkness that defines African nations. But what came from the Government enclave was vitriolic and completely misplaced. In the exercise of our freedom of expression as a sovereign Government, we overreacted. When governments speak to one another, they are encapsulating the nation’s aspirations and beliefs.
We are likely divided on the appropriateness or lack thereof of the Government’s response, and that is to be expected; but in our freedoms of expression, we should never lose sight that we are Batswana. Weeks ago, the Btv entertainment show beamed one of our local artists with a hit ‘Ke kenta basadi fela’ and my family like many others during prime time-viewing was watching. I imagined the impact of the lyrics and sexual gestures on impressionable minds who are the primary target of the show. Not long after that, the national broadcaster played another hit titled ‘Leso la Monnamogolo le mpereketse’ and as I listened attentively, there was no ambiguity as to the glamorization of sex and promotion of sexual immorality. Both songs are about sexual intercourse and nothing about healthy relationships between men and women. They are about exploitation of the female species by the masculine males, who are edified by the many sexual escapades, whether such intimacies demean those they are in contact with is not relevant, much less important.
These two songs are examples of freedom of expression gone haywire because they depict a society that is misogynist and sexist in as far as relationships between men and women are concerned. It is thus disappointing that our broadcasters and even regulators in BOCRA do not seem to pick on such creativity to steer our composers to focus on nation-building themes. No parent wants to raise a boy-child who shall for lack of a better word, turn into a womaniser or player. Both songs run contrary to our moral ethos and botho as we know them to be fundamental pillars of this great nation. How can the death of a grandfather benefit a grandson who inherits the widow and indeed his own grandmother for sexual pleasures? It is an abomination of the worst order in our Setswana culture as this is an act of incest and violation of observance of seniority, where boys know their age limits where intercourse is concerned.
But the artist might have an argument that his composition is in fact a rendition of life in the fast-decaying moral fibre of Botswana. Haven’t we seen cases of incest in this form brought before our courts? Any person must and can exercise the freedom of expression, so long that freedom does not infringe upon others’ freedoms to express their opinions, beliefs, ideals and facts. Since we are in an election year toward the D-day, politicians’ statements are often times classic examples of how freedom of expression is put to the litmus test. Any politician who is unable to tackle the real issues of service delivery and how he can improve the lives of his voters usually finds character assassination the only weapon. Such a man or woman cannot be prevented from speaking his mind regarding the opponent, but in so doing, such a politician must make sure that whatever he says of another person is relevant, factual, fair and truthful comment. But cheap politicking across parties is what we are treated to on a daily basis and some make comments you can never figure out what fuelled them in the first place.
For example, political opponents in one constituency during radio debate disagreed on who between them as past members of Parliament can be credited for the landmark infrastructure in their area, which is the pride of the voters. One in a desperate move to score points told his opponent that he advocated for the particular development because the construction of the landmark was during a moment when his opponent attempted suicide and was hospitalized following his loss. Picking on such a painful and personal moment in someone’s life might smack of insincerity on the other party, but politicians seize every moment to score mileage, and skeletons concealed in closets come out rattling during an election year! The onus is on the one being attacked to clear his name by stating facts to defeat the disparaging remarks, or bring into focus what the attacker has done or said in the past to denounce him in similar fashion. Clearly from this case, the freedom of expression might have been overstretched to vilify another person, but the nicety about democracy is that the attacker cannot remain immune from similar disparaging remarks. It is thus morally expected to freely express one’s opinion about others because others can freely express their impressions about you.
The news article that led to the flight of Edgar Tsimane was in fact projecting President Ian Khama as a fugitive from [the] law after being reported to have had an automobile accident. Should the President not be the torchbearer when it comes to upholding the laws of the Republic? The President is the embodiment of Democracy and all values underpinning democracy, the respect of law being prominent. Should the newspaper have exercised restraint in publishing such an article with high risk of a backlash, if its truthfulness was to be doubted? Yes. But we hear from the editors that they ran the checklist of a factual story before publishing it. Like anybody who must fight to have his dignity and reputation intact, the President must not be restricted from approaching the courts to prove his innocence and seek redress in a defamation suit. But then there is a problem, we are cautioned; Khama cannot take off a layer of his office and present himself as an ordinary citizen 365 days in a given year, therefore, approaching the courts is tantamount to opening a Pandora’s box in that he shall be cross-examined like any witness! If he is immune from civil prosecution, it suffices he may not sue because he does not enjoy a personal capacity like the rest of us. So, bad things can be said about him and he cannot have a recourse? Presidency costs too dearly!
On the other hand, the matter does not need to reach the courts if the publishers were to satisfy areas that can point clearly in the direction that the article was well researched with ample evidence and proof that can be shared with the public without coercion from any quarters, for example a picture of the other vehicle involved in the accident, since our President [is alleged to have] fled immediately! I think such evidence would in fact have been the most appropriate to be splashed on the front page because it would support the story in terms of the exact location of the accident, and the owner of the vehicle would have to prove that it was not the President’s car that he hit. I think in as far as proof is concerned, the President’s office must be commended for sharing with the nation their version, where one of the fleet used by His Excellency was involved in an accident, but in Dibete, some 100 kilometres away from the capital. In journalism, it is not enviable practice to disclose news sources if they volunteered information on anonymity basis, hence the hotel employee from whom the story is alleged to have originated should not be revealed under any circumstances because of the confidentiality clause.
In exercising our freedoms of expression, therefore; creative writers, journalists, performing artists, composers and politicians must observe moral ethos over and above our professional codes of conduct to remind ourselves of the need for restraint, where in doubt of information in our possession to pass for facts. As it has been said countless times; freedoms and civil liberties do not exist in a vacuum; those in the enjoyment of such freedoms must make sure they reciprocate with high degree of responsibility, otherwise we are recycling an heirloom that is too much for us to handle in the now and future. Where we have been reckless, we must not cry foul but dance to the music, especially if we cannot humble ourselves to beg for pardon and mercy from those we have violated. After all; to err is human, to forgive is divine!
