Zimbabwe’s Social Media, Elections and Mobilisation.
By Takura Zhangazha*
Zimbabwe’s social media has had an ambiguous role in political
events in the last twelve months and particularly with the yet to end July 31 2013
harmonized electoral period. Local ICT experts have lauded the expansion of
mobile telephony and 3G internet as signifying definite improvements in citizens
access to information and freedom of expression. Given the fact that the
country faced a highly contested electoral period, the use of social media
applications came to be dominated by matters related to politics and the
targeting of voters. In other spheres such as in the mainstream media, social
media was used to increase online readership and in part re-brand their titles
into trendy multimedia publications. Civil society organizations also utilized the
increasingly fashionable social media for voter education campaigns as well as
to communicate variegated positions on the state of affairs in the country.
For those that were the end receivers of news received via Twitter, facebook or whatsup (among others), they
took to it less to act on information received and more to express their own
opinions on anything (from the religious to the political). In most instances it
has become a platform more for information, entertainment, rumour-mongering and
sensationalism that has transcended levels never seen before in Zimbabwe’s media
and communications history. This ,to the extent that social media has left many
a user upset, confused, seeking legal recourse or trying to
contact the complaints email of one social media company or the other.
But perhaps what is of immediate concern are its political
dimensions in Zimbabwe. Its arrival signified a major shift in how political news
and events in the country are received and interpreted. Because it does not
have a specific journalistic ethos as regards its content, the news that social
media users put into the public domain were more for communication of opinion,
personal matters than serving to professionally and ethically inform a somewhat unlimited number of persons. This would then point to
the fact that the arrival of social media led to the expansion of the right of
Zimbabweans to receive and impart information in a manner that was more
personally empowering and without direct censorship. It is a right that in this electoral period
Zimbabweans enjoyed all too well (if they could afford to get connected).
The overall impact of such usage of these media platforms on
the overall election is something that pollsters and academics will take some
months to give a verdict on, but it is important to place a few matters on the
table.
The first of these is that social media usage and its
evolution in Zimbabwean political matters was largely one of mimicry. Its political
utilization was framed within the framework characterized by the Arab Spring,
particularly the Tunisian version of it.
Except that here it was more for incremental change than any perceived
or anticipated revolution. So the initial political usage of social media
within the context of elections was more or less framed within the ambit of
access to information and not action on information. This means that its usage
in Zimbabwe was not in the aftermath of a specified injustice but in anticipation
of a political event and therefore it had to be introduced and not enhanced.
This introduction of civic/political education and mobilization
social media platforms literally unleashed a stream of what I would like to
call ‘immediate/defensive consciousness’ related to various but specific
political affiliations. And this is the second point to place on the table. More
often than not, social media did not necessarily change the political viewpoints
of users, it gave them a platform on which to reinforce or defend them against
rival ones with greater urgency and immediacy. In the process it also served as
a medium of rivalry even beyond political parties but also between differing
civil society actors.
The penultimate issue relates to the emerging question of
whether in Zimbabwe’s case, social media leads to action from the virtual and
into reality. When one looks at the electoral period, beginning with the March
2013 Constitutional referendum, social media was important in generating public
interest in various political issues but did not however significantly replace
the direct need for either door to door lobbying, campaigning or political
rallies. It was used more often than not after a major event and not as an
event in and of itself. The campaigns to lure the youth to register to vote and
eventually do so via social media could not be left merely to the internet by
way of mobilizing. There had to be a prioritisation of physical mobilization and
accepting the social media as ‘toppings’. Emphasis had to be placed on the real
before turning to the virtual.
The final matter to be placed on the table is a rather controversial
but necessary one to make. This being whether social media platforms have
created new platforms for critical engagement or have merely extended the reach
of propaganda. In the case of our country, for now, social media has reflected
not only the mainstream views in our society but also the rival mainstream
ideas about elections and/or their results.
This binary character to the ‘critical thought’ one encounters on these
platforms means for now, whatever the hegemonic and counter hegemonic trends in
real society, these will come to be represented in the new or alternative media.
So as it is, and during our electoral period (which has not
yet ended) social media has been most useful as an alternative source of
information for many citizens. It has also allowed greater participation by
citizens in debates that their opinions
may have never seen it into any newspapers, radio or TV stations. It has not
however, been as great an agent of direct change. For now, it remains direct and real mobilization
that works.
*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity
(takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment