BY DR MASIMBA MAVAZA.
In all their rallies or press statements the CCC leadership, Always gave an incendiary speech to supporters, lamenting election fraud, urging them to march on the state house and telling them to “fight like hell. In Kwekwe where an unfortunate incident happened one of Chamisa’s lieutenant by the name Bvondo was heard encouraging the CCC youth to fight and beat up the people they believed were ZANU PF. Many people including some CCC apologists blamed the remarks for the riot which took place in Kwekwe. Sadly one person died and scores injured.
Surprisingly Chamisa does not condemn his Bvondo for inciting the violence. Instead he aims his guns on ZANU PF.
Chamisa’s speech, however, is not a unique or even rare event, especially at a time of heavy polarization in Zimbabwe and other countries. Opposition websites and opposition political leaders, especially at the national level, now regularly use violent rhetoric and demonize their political opponents. In addition, the high levels of polarization make it more likely that violent rhetoric will spread to both sides of the political debate. Already, violent rhetoric is growing on the political left.
It is often difficult to trace one CCC leader’s statement to subsequent events, and even in the case of the Kwekwe or Gokwe insurrection the Chamisa’s defenders insist on his innocence. However, what is on the ground suggests that the incendiary rhetoric of political leaders can make political violence more likely, gives violence direction, complicates the law enforcement response, and increases fear in vulnerable communities.As extremism magnifies, the likelihood of violence increases. CCC drowns its supporters in lies and blame ZANU PF for poverty in the country.
There is no direct line between violent rhetoric and political violence if the speakers are careful not to name specific targets and means, and otherwise incriminate themselves. The risk of violence is nevertheless considerable. Although any individual — even one who cites Chamisa or another leader when committing violence — may have multiple motives for acting, some sense of the problem can be traced by the correlations between increases in hostile political rhetoric and violence.
Part of the problem is that leaders’ remarks do not fade away after they are given. Incendiary rhetoric from political leaders against their political opponents, and other targets is often quickly magnified. Leaders with large social media followings will see their remarks retweeted and otherwise shared with millions of followers. Leaders’ rhetoric then drives the coverage of more traditional news outlets, which broadcast it to their viewers and listeners. Rhetoric from national leaders also serves as a cue for local figures, particularly if the national leaders have loyal personal followings. The opposition leaders’ rhetoric in turn is amplified by social media and traditional outlets. Ordinary people play an important role too in spreading the message, sharing it with their own commentary with their friends and family.
Widely shared extreme rhetoric shifts the so-called “Overton Window,” signaling that an issue is now the subject of acceptable discourse when, in the past, discussing it might have been taboo. Prejudiced elite speech, is particularly powerful if other elites endorse it, emboldening audiences to declare their own prejudices and act on them accordingly. Chamisa’s rhetoric has helped to shift discourse norms in our country such that it is more acceptable among more people to denigrate and attack other groups of human beings if they are not from Chamisa’s party. Specific tweets from the likes of Hopewell Chin’ono would lead to increases in hate crimes, with the level rising and falling depending on the prevalence of the social media activity.
Hateful rhetoric can also stir dangerous emotions. It is true that hateful speech spurs negative emotions toward the target community among listeners. Again exposure to politicians’ violent rhetoric increases support for political violence. Such rhetoric also makes political violence against the target community seem more legitimate.
politicians’ hate speech increases political polarization and that this, in turn, makes domestic terrorism more likely.
A spiral of reciprocal radicalization is a particular danger. Fringe groups in the targeted population can exploit hateful rhetoric directed against them, justifying their own violence and mobilizing additional support. The risk of reciprocal radicalization can be overstated, but even a low probability of it occurring is of concern, as it can worsen violence from both sides and empower even more demagogues.
Giving violence direction
Leaders lead. That truism highlights an obvious point when considering violent rhetoric: violence against whom? Political rhetoric not only highlights the problem but also the obstacles to solving it, often in the form of supposedly dangerous individuals and communities. Thus, if a leader targets them rhetorically, violence may increase sharply against communities that, in the past, had experienced relatively little violence. Job Sikhala made a speech promising war on ZANU PF stating that “this time tinodzorera.” This motivates the opposition youth to exercise unreasonable vigilance.
A number of the CCC arrested for political violence view themselves as foot soldiers for Chamisa Complicating the law enforcement response.
In addition to increasing the threat, intelligence and police services face several problems when leaders use incendiary rhetoric.
It is vital for social media companies to be vigilant in stopping violent rhetoric and for law enforcement to anticipate, and quickly suppress, violence before it spreads.
Given the increased likelihood of violence, the targeting of particular communities, and a possibly fitful law enforcement response, it is logical that communities may experience more fear. This fear can hold, however, even when actual levels of violence are low: The perception fueled by hateful rhetoric overcomes the reality.
There is a deceptively simple answer to the problem of incendiary rhetoric: Politicians should exercise restraint themselves and condemn their fellow leaders when they cross the line that separates inspiring their followers from encouraging violence.For now, it is vital for social media companies to be vigilant in stopping violent rhetoric and for law enforcement to anticipate, and quickly suppress, violence before it spreads. Such measures are short-term ones, however, and do not solve the deeper problem.
The greatest problem is that most of the violence spread on social media are stage managed. If there is an international event somewhere CCC will provoke a violent response.
The coming week the Americans are sitting to review the sanctions in Zimbabwe. Is it nit curious that CCC starts a violent response to the police in Gokwe. Is it not surprising that in one week CCC seems to be under attack.
There are several videos where CCC members are beating up a defenceless person because they think he is a ZANU PF spy. This incident is never condemned by Chamisa or his people. The CCC will always incite violence and then blame it on ZANU PF.
WE NEED A PEACEFUL ZIMBABWE AND PEACEFUL ELECTIONS
Comments
About Author
