Business Day
*This is the real threat to free speech in SA today*** *Steven Friedman, Business Day, Johannesburg, 12 December 2012*OURS may be the only democracy in the world which contains two dictatorships. South African democracy is not an illusion. We all have far more freedom than we had before 1994. But we remain a divided society; the way these divisions play themselves out means our democracy is not nearly as democratic as it could be.
About a third of us have the means and the power to take part in the national debate. In this part of the society, we may be the only country in the world in which freedom of speech is restricted not by the government but by its opponents.
The national conversation has become a competition to find nasty things to say about the government --- if there is debate at all, it is about whether to yell at the government or ignore it. The problem is not strident criticism of those who govern us --- that is an obvious sign of democratic health. It is that only one opinion is expressed and alternative views are driven from the debate.
It is becoming difficult even for government critics to be heard if they dare leaven their criticism with balance --- by, for example, pointing out that despite many government failures, more than 15-million people enjoy social grants that generate local economic activity and tens of thousands with HIV and AIDS have antiretrovirals without which they would no longer be alive.
Obviously, no one physically threatens those who try to be more balanced. Rather, they are silenced by labelling any view that does not denounce the government as slavish obedience to power. Those who express more balanced views will not be physically muzzled --- but they will be denounced as government lackeys and embarrassed into silence.
It is not even necessary to be positive about the government to be treated in this way --- often it is enough to criticise any of the assumptions that unite everyone in the debate: by, for example, suggesting that opposition politicians, the courts and the media might sometimes make mistakes. Often, these views are demonised by claims that criticising some one or something outside the government is to want it banned. It should be obvious that it is possible to disagree with how some outside the government act while respecting their freedoms.
This silencing works because it seems common sense to assume that governments wield power and that those who criticise them are being both independent and brave. But in this case, neither is true.
To label criticism of the government as a sign of independence when everyone is doing it is clearly absurd. Nor does it cost anyone anything to voice this criticism --- no one who joins in is in the least danger of being forced to make a sacrifice. So strong has the current groupthink become that it is those who challenge it who are taking risks. This subtle dictatorship in which no one is forced to say anything but only one view is possible is reality for only some of us --- the insiders. For the other two-thirds, the outsiders, pressure to conform is direct and often brutal.
One of our great current ironies is the repeated claim by some insider voices that the freedom of speech of the middle class is under threat. This raises an obvious question --- why do those who claim they are muzzled enjoy access to so many platforms that allow them to speak?
But in townships and shack settlements, there are very real threats to freedom of speech --- the pressure to conform comes not from the fear of ridicule but from the use of force by local power-holders. One feature of democracy here about which we rarely talk is the extent to which our residential areas are dominated by particular parties. The problem is not as great as it was in 1994, when parties won more than 90% of the vote in many areas, but it has not disappeared. For several reasons, this is far more of a problem in areas where the poor live: often political bosses hold sway and they do not take kindly to competition. They also often have links to local police.
And so challenging power-holders in the areas where most citizens live is likely to bring far worse consequences than ridicule --- it may mean a threat of violence, in some cases from the police. In these areas, criticising the government is indeed brave and independent.
There is a threat to free speech in SA. But it affects not those who constantly complain but those who are deprived of the opportunity to speak. For those excluded from the mainstream debate, it is the possibility that some one will use force to silence you. For those who are included, it is the likelihood that freedom is being used to impose a sameness of speech and thought --- not by people in uniform but by pressure to conform and a failure to understand that the government is not the only source of power.
We who enjoy freedom here are privileged --- a good reason not to use it to drown out the essence of liberty --- the right to hold an opposing view.
* Friedman is director of the Centre for the Study of Democracy. *From: http://www.bdlive.co.za/opinion/columnists/2012/12/12/this-is-the-real-threat-to-free-speech-in-sa-today*
** -- You are subscribed. This footer can help you. Please POST your comments to [email protected] or reply to this message. You can visit the group WEB SITE at http://groups.google.com/group/yclsa-eom-forum for different delivery options, pages, files and membership. To UNSUBSCRIBE, please email [email protected] . You don't have to put anything in the "Subject:" field. You don't have to put anything in the message part. All you have to do is to send an e-mail to this address (repeat): [email protected] .
<<inline: BusinessDay.gif>>
