Protests, it seems to me, don't last;
not as long as many may want, or fear.
But violence and killings can, and have.
Are the post-election street marches
across America now
going to fizzle according to this script,
or are there, here, the makings of the Mother
of All Protests?
Showing posts with label Violence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Violence. Show all posts
Saturday, November 12, 2016
Friday, August 21, 2015
Nigeria Just Banned Some 18 Pop Songs
The Nigerian Broadcasting Corporation (NBC) has just censored some 18 songs, many of them hits, on what it seems to perceive to be ethical/moral/legal grounds. More specifically, songs have been banned if deemed to contain or promote: vulgar lyrics, obscene scenes, violence, ostentatious lifestyle, drug trafficking and indecent exposure. They now cannot be played on TV or radio stations across the country.
But the degree of vulgarity, obscenity, violence or indecency (based on widely agreed-upon metrics) should matter when such decisions are made. On the other hand, promoting drug trafficking, inadvertently or otherwise, should always be discouraged, perhaps via rules of engagement crafted jointly with artistes and producers. Freedom of expression should always be doubly and even trebly ring-fenced against hollow zealots.
All forms of ostentation should be left to the public to judge and frown upon and jeer, in its own sweet time and time-tested ways; not a bunch of hyperactive public servants seeking, perhaps, to impress the party newly in power.
The specific songs affected include:
1. In My Bed - Wizkig (Puerile Wizkid shows his faults, is all. I prefer Ojuelegba any day)
2. Fans Mi - Davido ft Meek Mill (Davido did go overboard here. Remains a great artiste, sans this)
3. Shakiti Bobo - Olamide (Q: Is the fault in the words, which some of us can't quite get?)
4. Gift - Iyanya and Don Jazzy (Prudish NBC! I've seen a more self-adulating Iyanya in another vid)
5. Oyari - Dr. Sid and Tiwa Savage (NBC goofed by drawing attention to this ugly, harmless song)
6. Yayo - Phyno (What was Phyno thinking? Yayo's just too violent. Very vulgar too. Wasn't going to score big anyway)
READ: Why Nigerian Government banned Fans Mi, Shakiti Bobo, 16 other songs Bans
But the degree of vulgarity, obscenity, violence or indecency (based on widely agreed-upon metrics) should matter when such decisions are made. On the other hand, promoting drug trafficking, inadvertently or otherwise, should always be discouraged, perhaps via rules of engagement crafted jointly with artistes and producers. Freedom of expression should always be doubly and even trebly ring-fenced against hollow zealots.
All forms of ostentation should be left to the public to judge and frown upon and jeer, in its own sweet time and time-tested ways; not a bunch of hyperactive public servants seeking, perhaps, to impress the party newly in power.
The specific songs affected include:
1. In My Bed - Wizkig (Puerile Wizkid shows his faults, is all. I prefer Ojuelegba any day)
2. Fans Mi - Davido ft Meek Mill (Davido did go overboard here. Remains a great artiste, sans this)
3. Shakiti Bobo - Olamide (Q: Is the fault in the words, which some of us can't quite get?)
4. Gift - Iyanya and Don Jazzy (Prudish NBC! I've seen a more self-adulating Iyanya in another vid)
5. Oyari - Dr. Sid and Tiwa Savage (NBC goofed by drawing attention to this ugly, harmless song)
6. Yayo - Phyno (What was Phyno thinking? Yayo's just too violent. Very vulgar too. Wasn't going to score big anyway)
READ: Why Nigerian Government banned Fans Mi, Shakiti Bobo, 16 other songs Bans
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Gallup Poll: Latest Numbers From Kenya
Results of the most recent Gallup poll in Kenya -- conducted between June 19 and July 9, 2008 -- were released to the media on Monday, September 8th. Though the poll covered a fairly wide range of issues, the two leading newspapers ( Daily Nation and The Standard) headlined the poll results with the public's verdict on the President's and the Prime Minister's performance. So let us start with that.
President Kibaki's approval rating stands at only 63%, while Prime Minister Raila Odinga has a rating of 85%. This large, 22 percentage-point, advantage for the PM is surprising only in its magnitude and not in its skew. It reflects the general perception that the PM has been more visibly active in public affairs than the President, since March. The President's laid-back approach to things (all things considered) is well known, if not legendary. Has it not often been claimed that he never found a fence he didn't (wouldn't?) sit on? In the end, though, he seems to always have it (have things go) his way, doesn't he?
In contrast, Raila thrives on media attention, and is patently indefatigable. Moreover, while the President's role is clearly defined in the constitution, so that Kibaki does not have to endeavour to carve a niche for himself, or to prove himself, the PM's role continues to lack clear definition, and one suspects that Raila seeks to define it, in the public's eye, by word and deed -- on a day-to-day basis -- if those (including him!) who should do so constitutionally are dragging their feet.
In the process, though he is supposed to coordinate, he ends up seeming, or falling to the temptation, to take over the roles he was supposed merely to coordinate. He has been learning on-the-job, without much of local experience to draw on. Jomo Kenyatta's 12-month stint in the PM's seat so long ago (from December 12, 1963 to December 12, 1964) has not been much of a help in the absence of written memoirs and in view of the dramatically different or changed circumstances.
He has, in other words, been learning by doing -- and ruffling some feathers in the process. But the public sees all this as hard work. At least two ministers (Uhuru and Mwakwere) and/or their supporters have publicly complained that the PM is encroaching on their ministerial turf. I suspect that several other ministers have had their feathers just as ruffled -- though the public sees all this as whining, and the whining as not being in the public interest. That's just one step away (isn't it?) from being reshuffled, if it were not for the "letter" of the Grand Coalition agreement.
The truth of the matter, however, is that the PM has a habit of appropriating ministers' shine and basking in their limelight -- and he sucks out all the oxygen from the room. And the point is that he should give ministers a chance to get some credit for work well done, for that is a major component of what motivated public servants thrive on. It would be worrisome, long-term, if, in the structure of our politics, the PM should be the only minister who should shine. It would be worrisome because it would distort our politics and the structure of our public administration.
Let us now turn to other issues covered in the poll. When asked to identify "the most pressing problem that the coalition Government must address", the respondents mentioned the following (the figures in parenthesis represent the percentage of all respondents who mentioned a given problem):
Poverty (17%)
Inflation (17%)
Creating Jobs (11%)
Constitutional Reform (9%)
Unemployment (7%)
Resettlement of Internally Displaced Persons (7%)
Land Reform (7%)
Food Shortage (6%)
Education (3%)
Tax Reduction (2%)
Violence (2%)
Insecurity (2%)
Prosecution of Those Implicated in Post-Election Violence (1%)
Health Care (1%)
Road System (1%)
Water (1%)
Electricity (1%)
Other (1%)
Don't Know or No Response (2%).
[The percentages do not add up to 100]
Nominally, then, the top ten problems are: poverty, inflation, an insufficiency of jobs, constitutional reform, unemployment, IDPs, land reform, food shortage, education and taxation. But we need some aggregation here. That is to say, certain problems can be "collapsed" to give us a shorter list.
The need to create jobs arises only because there is unemployment, and when the two problems are combined into one (say, unemployment) we get to (18%). Poverty and unemployment are twins, and these two give us a "super problem" (even before we include food shortage)accounting for 35% of all responses. In a similar vein, the IDP problem is directly intertwined with the land reform problem, violence and insecurity (which are not in the nominal top ten) and the problem of dealing with perpetrators of post-election violence. Taken together, these five problems account for 19% of the responses.
Based on this re-aggregation, we get the following top 5 problems, which account for 86% of all responses:
1. Unemployment and Poverty (35%)
2. Land Reform, IDPs and related Insecurity and Violence (19%)
3. Inflation (17%)
4. Constitutional Reform (9%)
5. Food Insecurity (6%).
It is surprising that the water problem ranks so low. It would likewise be surprising that constitutional reform is among the top five problems, except that, in the eyes of Kenyans, a successfully concluded constitutional reform agenda would provide a consequential answer to two other problems in the top five: Land Reform... (19%) and Food Insecurity (6%). Inflation compounds unemployment and poverty, as well as food insecurity. It is an ever-present challenge to those who must govern -- and to those who struggle the most, daily, against hand-to-mouth existence.
On top of the list of Kenyan's problems "right now", unquestionably and expectedly, are the twin problems of unemployment and poverty (35%). It would have been surprising if the Gallup poll had found otherwise. But, in that case, did the Gallup poll set out to establish the obvious? Far from it. What is important in the poll result is the relative magnitudes of the problems, as seen by Kenyans at this time. So, we now have a kind of baseline, from which we will track future trends. Who knows: the water problem may begin to rise in subsequent polls, and likewise the health problem. On the other hand, the IDP and land reform problems might decline -- but hopefully only in step with their proper resolution, rather than due to official neglect and a diversion of public attention.
President Kibaki's approval rating stands at only 63%, while Prime Minister Raila Odinga has a rating of 85%. This large, 22 percentage-point, advantage for the PM is surprising only in its magnitude and not in its skew. It reflects the general perception that the PM has been more visibly active in public affairs than the President, since March. The President's laid-back approach to things (all things considered) is well known, if not legendary. Has it not often been claimed that he never found a fence he didn't (wouldn't?) sit on? In the end, though, he seems to always have it (have things go) his way, doesn't he?
In contrast, Raila thrives on media attention, and is patently indefatigable. Moreover, while the President's role is clearly defined in the constitution, so that Kibaki does not have to endeavour to carve a niche for himself, or to prove himself, the PM's role continues to lack clear definition, and one suspects that Raila seeks to define it, in the public's eye, by word and deed -- on a day-to-day basis -- if those (including him!) who should do so constitutionally are dragging their feet.
In the process, though he is supposed to coordinate, he ends up seeming, or falling to the temptation, to take over the roles he was supposed merely to coordinate. He has been learning on-the-job, without much of local experience to draw on. Jomo Kenyatta's 12-month stint in the PM's seat so long ago (from December 12, 1963 to December 12, 1964) has not been much of a help in the absence of written memoirs and in view of the dramatically different or changed circumstances.
He has, in other words, been learning by doing -- and ruffling some feathers in the process. But the public sees all this as hard work. At least two ministers (Uhuru and Mwakwere) and/or their supporters have publicly complained that the PM is encroaching on their ministerial turf. I suspect that several other ministers have had their feathers just as ruffled -- though the public sees all this as whining, and the whining as not being in the public interest. That's just one step away (isn't it?) from being reshuffled, if it were not for the "letter" of the Grand Coalition agreement.
The truth of the matter, however, is that the PM has a habit of appropriating ministers' shine and basking in their limelight -- and he sucks out all the oxygen from the room. And the point is that he should give ministers a chance to get some credit for work well done, for that is a major component of what motivated public servants thrive on. It would be worrisome, long-term, if, in the structure of our politics, the PM should be the only minister who should shine. It would be worrisome because it would distort our politics and the structure of our public administration.
Let us now turn to other issues covered in the poll. When asked to identify "the most pressing problem that the coalition Government must address", the respondents mentioned the following (the figures in parenthesis represent the percentage of all respondents who mentioned a given problem):
Poverty (17%)
Inflation (17%)
Creating Jobs (11%)
Constitutional Reform (9%)
Unemployment (7%)
Resettlement of Internally Displaced Persons (7%)
Land Reform (7%)
Food Shortage (6%)
Education (3%)
Tax Reduction (2%)
Violence (2%)
Insecurity (2%)
Prosecution of Those Implicated in Post-Election Violence (1%)
Health Care (1%)
Road System (1%)
Water (1%)
Electricity (1%)
Other (1%)
Don't Know or No Response (2%).
[The percentages do not add up to 100]
Nominally, then, the top ten problems are: poverty, inflation, an insufficiency of jobs, constitutional reform, unemployment, IDPs, land reform, food shortage, education and taxation. But we need some aggregation here. That is to say, certain problems can be "collapsed" to give us a shorter list.
The need to create jobs arises only because there is unemployment, and when the two problems are combined into one (say, unemployment) we get to (18%). Poverty and unemployment are twins, and these two give us a "super problem" (even before we include food shortage)accounting for 35% of all responses. In a similar vein, the IDP problem is directly intertwined with the land reform problem, violence and insecurity (which are not in the nominal top ten) and the problem of dealing with perpetrators of post-election violence. Taken together, these five problems account for 19% of the responses.
Based on this re-aggregation, we get the following top 5 problems, which account for 86% of all responses:
1. Unemployment and Poverty (35%)
2. Land Reform, IDPs and related Insecurity and Violence (19%)
3. Inflation (17%)
4. Constitutional Reform (9%)
5. Food Insecurity (6%).
It is surprising that the water problem ranks so low. It would likewise be surprising that constitutional reform is among the top five problems, except that, in the eyes of Kenyans, a successfully concluded constitutional reform agenda would provide a consequential answer to two other problems in the top five: Land Reform... (19%) and Food Insecurity (6%). Inflation compounds unemployment and poverty, as well as food insecurity. It is an ever-present challenge to those who must govern -- and to those who struggle the most, daily, against hand-to-mouth existence.
On top of the list of Kenyan's problems "right now", unquestionably and expectedly, are the twin problems of unemployment and poverty (35%). It would have been surprising if the Gallup poll had found otherwise. But, in that case, did the Gallup poll set out to establish the obvious? Far from it. What is important in the poll result is the relative magnitudes of the problems, as seen by Kenyans at this time. So, we now have a kind of baseline, from which we will track future trends. Who knows: the water problem may begin to rise in subsequent polls, and likewise the health problem. On the other hand, the IDP and land reform problems might decline -- but hopefully only in step with their proper resolution, rather than due to official neglect and a diversion of public attention.
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Kenya's Vernacular Radio Stations: To Ban Or Not To Ban?
Kenya’s ex-President, Daniel Arap Moi, wants the Government to ban the country’s “mushrooming” crop of vernacular radio stations, according to Saturday Nation of May 31, 2008. His reasons for this are that they are giving rise to “tribal chiefs”, and are fanning ethnic animosity by serving as vehicles for divisive politics. He justifies his call with the example of Rwanda in the early nineties, when broadcasts from such stations prompted anarchy and a genocidal orgy. The catalytic factor there, however, was not the existence of the stations per se but rather the assassination of the Rwandese President, Juvenal Habyarimana, when his plane was downed as it approached Kigali. The culprits remain at large still; as well camouflaged now, perhaps, as when they carried out their murderous act in 1994.
Still, the ex-President has a valid example. This is reinforced by Kenya’s own experience in January and February of 2008, particularly in the expansive Rift Valley. Protests against the announced presidential election results quickly took a violent turn. The violence then quickly became inter-ethnic because, in the eyes of ODM supporters in the Rift Valley and parts of Western Province, the “stolen presidential election” meant that there was not going to be a resolution of the land issue this time either. There was not going to be a resolution, just as there had not been during the 24-year presidency of Arap Moi, himself a son of the Rift Valley -- a 24-year reign during which Moi was, indeed, l’état.
The land issue – precisely who (or which ethnic community) really was entitled to the land that colonial farmers left behind at independence, or soon thereafter? -- had remained unresolved for much longer than the 24 years, in fact; that is, since independence on December 12, 1963. During the 2007 campaign, ODM supporters had been promised by their political leaders, in subtle and not-so-subtle ways, that this time around the issue would at last be resolved, upon the much-anticipated victory of ODM’s presidential and parliamentary candidates. This time, the justice that Moi had failed or neglected to dispense for 24 years would e dispensed, with finality.
Needless to say, then, the inter-ethnic violence in Kenya was triggered by a disputed presidential election result, and by adverse message it signaled vis-à-vis the land issue, not by the existence of the radio stations as such. There have been claims, to be sure, that certain radio stations in the Rift Valley and elsewhere did prompt their listeners to xenophobic pillage and murder – and revenge. In Rwanda, fortunately, such urgings were recorded by those who would subsequently prosecute the perpetrators. I am not aware that similar recordings exist in Kenya to serve as evidence for the prosecution – perhaps I have not paid sufficient attention to the adduced evidence. If such recordings exist, they should be used in court without fear or favour.
The said Saturday Nation issue reminds the reader that Moi made a similar but unsuccessful banning call in August 2000, when he was still president, arguing that radio stations should broadcast only in English and Kiswahili – Kenya’s official and national languages, respectively. But his own Minister for Information at the time, Mr. Johnstone Makau, would hear none of it, arguing that “vernacular is part of the Kenyan culture.” It is intriguing that Moi allowed his minister to win that particular argument.
That “vernacular is part of the Kenyan culture” is precisely the point, but we can say more: These radio stations are the only viable, nearly always-on and commute-free channels of contact with the world beyond the confines of the village for a wide cross-section of Kenya’s rural communities, where English and Kiswahili remain at the margin of daily life. They are an indispensable source of broadcasts rich in locally relevant content: news (local, regional and national), announcements (including funeral announcements, the occasional obituary and visits by dignitaries and government officials), entertainment (particularly music, comedy and story-telling), radio-evangelism, language-teaching (particularly of urban youth, since many of these broadcasts reach urban areas as well) and the growth of the vernaculars themselves, as broadcasters struggle to domesticate new concepts or standardize usages arising from day-to-day local living or from farther afield. Lately, mobile phones (some 13 million Kenyans have them now, out of a population of 35 million) have emphatically arrived to challenge the vernacular radio stations as channels of communication, but not in the domain of impersonal or mass communication.
Vernacular radio stations are tailor-made avenues for reaching members of local communities during emergencies and disaster situations, and should be recognized as such in emergencies, scenario-building and disaster plans. When easily accessible and trusted information sources, and easily understood messages are at a premium, vernacular radio stations are an asset, not a liability.
What is more, these stations already offer sustainable jobs to more Kenyans than, I believe, are employed abroad in our embassies and high commissions. They also extend marketing and advertising channels to parts of the Kenyan market which manufacturers and service providers, usually based in the cities, would find it harder to reach than they now do. Viewed thus, they are an essential component of wealth-creation in the country. Demand for their services grows demand for radios and batteries, thereby further sustaining local industries and jobs, to the extent that these are not undercut by subsidized or cheaper imports.
The foregoing suggests that the use of vernacular radio stations in ways that subvert the national good tends to coincide with the onset of transitional periods, or periods of high anxiety that cut across ethnicities and regions to engulf a whole country – such as during general elections. If that is the case, then the challenge to policy-makers is how to put in place measures that effectively monitor and punish, early enough, errant stations in their specificities – during those periods of great risk. The policy solution should not be unimaginative and too unself-critical. We should not impose blanket punishment against vernacular radio stations as a generic category, in the mistaken calculation that one offender implicates and damns all. During periods of normalcy, live and let live is clearly the norm across the country – and should be the catch-phrase.
In conclusion, it needs to be said that to ban vernacular radio stations would be to ban the future, or certainly to attempt to do so. In the sense that these radio stations are almost by definition, given their foregoing characterization, an integral part of the African renaissance -- which several thinkers have been calling for or endeavouring to realize, in our time. That is, moreover, if one defines the African renaissance as the simultaneous re-flowering and re-configuration – indeed, the elevation (or levitation?) to a distinctly higher plane – of the African way of life, and of the associated modes of expressing it.
Still, the ex-President has a valid example. This is reinforced by Kenya’s own experience in January and February of 2008, particularly in the expansive Rift Valley. Protests against the announced presidential election results quickly took a violent turn. The violence then quickly became inter-ethnic because, in the eyes of ODM supporters in the Rift Valley and parts of Western Province, the “stolen presidential election” meant that there was not going to be a resolution of the land issue this time either. There was not going to be a resolution, just as there had not been during the 24-year presidency of Arap Moi, himself a son of the Rift Valley -- a 24-year reign during which Moi was, indeed, l’état.
The land issue – precisely who (or which ethnic community) really was entitled to the land that colonial farmers left behind at independence, or soon thereafter? -- had remained unresolved for much longer than the 24 years, in fact; that is, since independence on December 12, 1963. During the 2007 campaign, ODM supporters had been promised by their political leaders, in subtle and not-so-subtle ways, that this time around the issue would at last be resolved, upon the much-anticipated victory of ODM’s presidential and parliamentary candidates. This time, the justice that Moi had failed or neglected to dispense for 24 years would e dispensed, with finality.
Needless to say, then, the inter-ethnic violence in Kenya was triggered by a disputed presidential election result, and by adverse message it signaled vis-à-vis the land issue, not by the existence of the radio stations as such. There have been claims, to be sure, that certain radio stations in the Rift Valley and elsewhere did prompt their listeners to xenophobic pillage and murder – and revenge. In Rwanda, fortunately, such urgings were recorded by those who would subsequently prosecute the perpetrators. I am not aware that similar recordings exist in Kenya to serve as evidence for the prosecution – perhaps I have not paid sufficient attention to the adduced evidence. If such recordings exist, they should be used in court without fear or favour.
The said Saturday Nation issue reminds the reader that Moi made a similar but unsuccessful banning call in August 2000, when he was still president, arguing that radio stations should broadcast only in English and Kiswahili – Kenya’s official and national languages, respectively. But his own Minister for Information at the time, Mr. Johnstone Makau, would hear none of it, arguing that “vernacular is part of the Kenyan culture.” It is intriguing that Moi allowed his minister to win that particular argument.
That “vernacular is part of the Kenyan culture” is precisely the point, but we can say more: These radio stations are the only viable, nearly always-on and commute-free channels of contact with the world beyond the confines of the village for a wide cross-section of Kenya’s rural communities, where English and Kiswahili remain at the margin of daily life. They are an indispensable source of broadcasts rich in locally relevant content: news (local, regional and national), announcements (including funeral announcements, the occasional obituary and visits by dignitaries and government officials), entertainment (particularly music, comedy and story-telling), radio-evangelism, language-teaching (particularly of urban youth, since many of these broadcasts reach urban areas as well) and the growth of the vernaculars themselves, as broadcasters struggle to domesticate new concepts or standardize usages arising from day-to-day local living or from farther afield. Lately, mobile phones (some 13 million Kenyans have them now, out of a population of 35 million) have emphatically arrived to challenge the vernacular radio stations as channels of communication, but not in the domain of impersonal or mass communication.
Vernacular radio stations are tailor-made avenues for reaching members of local communities during emergencies and disaster situations, and should be recognized as such in emergencies, scenario-building and disaster plans. When easily accessible and trusted information sources, and easily understood messages are at a premium, vernacular radio stations are an asset, not a liability.
What is more, these stations already offer sustainable jobs to more Kenyans than, I believe, are employed abroad in our embassies and high commissions. They also extend marketing and advertising channels to parts of the Kenyan market which manufacturers and service providers, usually based in the cities, would find it harder to reach than they now do. Viewed thus, they are an essential component of wealth-creation in the country. Demand for their services grows demand for radios and batteries, thereby further sustaining local industries and jobs, to the extent that these are not undercut by subsidized or cheaper imports.
The foregoing suggests that the use of vernacular radio stations in ways that subvert the national good tends to coincide with the onset of transitional periods, or periods of high anxiety that cut across ethnicities and regions to engulf a whole country – such as during general elections. If that is the case, then the challenge to policy-makers is how to put in place measures that effectively monitor and punish, early enough, errant stations in their specificities – during those periods of great risk. The policy solution should not be unimaginative and too unself-critical. We should not impose blanket punishment against vernacular radio stations as a generic category, in the mistaken calculation that one offender implicates and damns all. During periods of normalcy, live and let live is clearly the norm across the country – and should be the catch-phrase.
In conclusion, it needs to be said that to ban vernacular radio stations would be to ban the future, or certainly to attempt to do so. In the sense that these radio stations are almost by definition, given their foregoing characterization, an integral part of the African renaissance -- which several thinkers have been calling for or endeavouring to realize, in our time. That is, moreover, if one defines the African renaissance as the simultaneous re-flowering and re-configuration – indeed, the elevation (or levitation?) to a distinctly higher plane – of the African way of life, and of the associated modes of expressing it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)