Hate and Euphemistic Speech in Politics: Searching for a Durable Peace through words that Heal.

AYENKA FRANKLIN

MSc. Social Science and International Relations

Abstract

This article looks beyond the causes of conflict and violence. It suggests that the fire of violence and belligerence are not just ignited by the root causes of conflicts but by motivation through speech. If we could solve problems and heal wound before conflict entrepreneurs take center-stage and craft euphemistic and hate speeches that motivate people to pick up arms in violence, we would be halving all potentially dangerous conflicts even if they are entrenched in commonplace political, social and economic lives of individuals globally.

Key words: Hate speech, conflict, violence

I. Introduction

Human rights are the foundation of human dignity, freedom, justice and peace. Behind each right like the freedom of speech, there is more often than not a history, and too often a present of oppression. As such, they each play a role in the construction of our common humanity. People use thousands of words daily in spoken and written speech, but what words? In a rigorous language, there are no words of war or, for that matter, of peace. Any semantic can in opinion prompt the full scope of ideas, beliefs, and political activity. Any language can communicate war as well as communicate peace. Therefore "words of war" are no more than figures of speech or words crafted as ideas, rather than a special kind of dialectal, but it may be interpreted as fairly surface. The two most prominent features of war discourse are its belligerence and its vagueness. Their apparent absurdity disappears as soon as we become conscious of the difference in their dissemination: the antagonism is focused at an apparent enemy, while the evasion denotes the undertakings of one's own side.

Hate speech may be a widespread term for the voiced communication of hatred, bigotry, prejudice, and damaging shared feelings. It is a violent usage of language aimed to attack, isolate, judge and possibly destroy an ethnic, social or political group, which under disorder or chaos may even proclaim total physical annihilation. What exactly is the role of hate speech and propaganda in relation to extreme violence? Do words create a permissive environment for violence? Do words and speeches designed to incite violence move erstwhile non-violent people to commit acts of violence? Hate speech is a powerful rallying device to silence or remove opponents — often in preparations for violence or in the course of war, when hate speech assumes the leading role in orchestrating the rhetoric of war. By no means new, hate speech has been a tangible cause of major conflicts like racist propaganda of the Third Reich, language usage in the Rwandan Genocide and the bitter verbal exchanges of the Cold War. How can words of war and hate be chiseled into words of peace? First, we need to understand hate speech then, we can learn to transform it to words of love and peace.

II. Understanding of meaning of Hate Speech

Hate speech and propaganda occurs in all societies, to radically varying degrees and we have witnessed it with presidential candidate Donald Trump’s campaign for the White house. While the 1948 UN Genocide Convention criminalizes the incitement of genocide, especially with the use of hate speech as well as how to respond in such cases, it is fraught with contention. To help address the lack of sufficient research and documentation to distinguish how and when speech is understood broadly to include print media, radio, television, and new technologies, as well as public speaking in relation to the occurrence of violence,[1] the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum convened a seminar at which experts explored four contemporary case studies as well as international laws governing this area. Hate speech like “new speaks” in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty – Four is the falsification of reality through speech. It does not respects cultural and political differences, and reveals the cruelty of words as diffused by Radio Mille Collines in Rwanda in 1994 which demonized one group against another and built resentment and fear among the Hutu who planned the genocide as an appropriate self-defense mechanism.

III. The Index of hate speech

The full effects of hate speech are felt with the range of mass media. In most African countries, inter-ethnic hatred is expertly plotted by political and national elites in preparation for warfare and hostile takeovers.

Among the many resources on hate speech that have led to mass murder and violence is Simon Bikindi, a popular Rwandan singer and songwriter who song Twasezereye (we said goodbye to the Feudal Regime), Nanga Abahutu (I Hate the Hutu), and ―Bene Sebahinzi (The Sons and Fathers of the Cultivators).[2] These songs were filled with inflammatory anti Tutsi hate speech and pro-Hutu solidarity messages. Nevertheless, the Kenyan election of 2008 is compared to a political transformations that witnessed hateful speech and extreme violence. Violence in Kenya was predominantly termed an uprising in contradiction of doubtful election results, but when observers identified the ethnic patterns to the violence, the comparisons to the Rwandan genocide poured fast through the intercontinental media. In both Kenya and Rwanda hate speech had been broadcast over local language radio and other media, yet among the many differences between the two conflicts was the extensive use of text messages to communicate hate in Kenya. This exploitation of new media quickly became emblematic of the Kenyan conflict. The mass media and scholarly attention to this shocking use of text messaging in the midst of violence perhaps over-emphasized the role it may have played in furthering the violence among Kenyans. Hate speech in its many forms--text messages, radio broadcasts, leaflets, and speeches certainly had multiple effects as the conflict unfolded; it likely incited individuals to use violence. However, as the numerous reports and commentaries on the election violence note, these instances of hateful speech should not be confused with the root causes of the Kenyan conflict, which lie in the disputed election, inequality, economic decline, and age-old conflicts over land and political power.[3]

The numerous reports by national and international organizations that document the threatening atmosphere and violence before, during, and after the election all mention the role of hate speech as a feature of the conflict. The rhetoric of politicians and political operatives prior to the election made it clear that voters should organize along ethnic lines and defend ethnic interests, a tactic also used in the 2002 election. The public discourse by leaders allowed voters to take for granted that ethnicity would be a significant factor in the elections. Some of the political rhetoric went beyond identifying groups and their interests to denigrating a particular ethnicity by using familiar stereotypes of their qualities or behaviors, such as laziness, acquisitiveness, and callousness.[4] The forms of hate speech may vary somewhat, but the bare essentials of the mechanism on which it rests and without which it loses its power are simple; one of them accommodates US, who are good, progressive, peace loving, endangered, the object of envy and conspiracy while the other is reserved for THEM, who are evil, backward, aggressive, menacing, forever plotting. Between these two categories there are no transitional forms or possibilities of a peaceful settlement: nuances and compromise are completely alien to the nature of hate speech. The group "US" has a legitimate right to power, riches, territories and all the rest, which is why "THEY," with their incomprehensible and illegal claims to some of that, must be discredited, and possibly destroyed.

This simple model has been in effect all the time since the outbreak of armed conflict in most Africa states. The category “US” in Rwanda was probably the Hutu pictured as patriots and guards of age-long hearths, innocent victims, a celestial people, and the like. In sharp contrast, but in harmony with the character of the Rwandan conflict, is the category “THEY” that was quite heterogeneous, accommodating the Tutsi, subsequently to be more or less selected and somewhat specified as cutthroat, fanatics, traitors and not worthy of humanity. This shows how language, usually thought of as reflecting existing reality, may under extraordinary circumstances anticipate future events.

Political speech-making and war marketing are surrounded by main areas of community life often soaked with evasive and euphemistic speech. As noted in our introductory remarks, this kind of language is heavily drawn upon in justification of one's own policies or actions, usually with the aim of putting a pretty mask on an ugly face. Joking about ethnicity is more common in some societies than others and can take different forms depending on the cultural and linguistic conventions that guide both humor and insult. In Cameroon, there is the fabled “come no go”[5] syndrome used in referring to non-ethnic immigrants. Kenyan humor is renowned.

Wordplay, and use of code-switching and accents frequently make fun using ethnic themes. Some Kenyan entertainers employ catchphrases such as son of the slopes[6] that, when uttered by others, could be heard either as ethnic smugness denouncing those not sharing an ethnic affiliation. Identical catchphrases move from in-group hilarity to out-group criticism or threat along a range tracking the speaker’s intention. This societal tendency inspires the intellect to probe whether to joke about ethnicity makes it stress-free to produce ethnic slurs or does it simply make it harder to identify the truly injurious expressions that promote violence? Such joking is certainly evidence that, in Kenya and elsewhere, people are capable of a variety of expressions about ethnicity, and that many of those fall short of hatred. To this extent euphemistic speech may be construed as a kind of inverse hate speech.

Generally speaking, euphemistic speech in the present context frequently has the effect of Orwellian doublespeak, characterized by the incongruity of what is said and what is done, one which replaces true communication with intentional confusion. For instance, calling people spots or weeds that needed to be cleansed or pulled out or referring to people as animals or insects.[7] Such uses of language offer a key warning sign that the groups might be poised for violence. But with respect to Kenya, hate speech has a rather shallow history. Strict dualistic oppositions have been relevant in certain moments or contexts, such as the famous rivalries between Kikuyu and Luo or Kalenjin and Kikuyu.[8] War propaganda being at least as old as modern warfare, it is not difficult to find telling examples of this variety of verbal manipulation.

Having contrasted hate speech and euphemistic speech, each taken individually and assigned to the same source group but aimed at different recipients, we may now ask whether it is possible to have two groups engaged in armed conflict, one of them emitting mostly euphemistic speech and the other returning fierce hate speech. At first blush it would seem that this typologically interesting possibility was plainly excluded in real-life situations — or at any rate that it would take a new and very special kind of conflict to admit it. As we know, conventional war implies two armies engaged in fighting, more or less face to face, with propaganda of both parties manipulating language in comparable ways, painting a black-and-white picture which extols the good boys on our side while demonizing the bad boys in the opposed camp. Such parallelism was also true of recent warfare.

IV. What next? Initiative at developing or building words that Heal

According to Fiona Lloyd, one careless word or one inaccurate detail can ignite a conflict. Equally, one clear, balance report can help to defuse tension and neutralize fear.[9] With the awareness of the impact of hate speech on the well-being of Africans and on development of the continent, attempts are being made to discourage such manners of communication. Most African Governments wants to introduce a "Prohibition of Hate Speech Bill"[10] with the aim of criminalizing hate speech, because the advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion constitutes incitement to cause harm. Surely no Christian would disagree, because hatred, except of evil and sin, is forbidden in the Scriptures. Jesus even said: "You have Heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy’. But I say to you,
‘Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.’"[11] The envisaged Hate Speech bill is designed to complement a more comprehensive bill, namely the 'Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Bill. A transgressor will, on first conviction, be fined or imprisoned for up to 3 years, and on second conviction fined and/or imprisoned for up to six years. But it is likely to leave bitter resentment on the victims of this bill after they have served their punishment or paid their fines. More sustainably preferable measures have been and are in continuous adoption over time.

Peaceful means of communication have been developed and applied without resort to force. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, Radio Okapi: A voice of Dialogue set in 2002 provides accurate non-partisan information. Its programs promote the process of dialogue and peacebuilding. There are also academic initiatives that help in the understanding of conflict and their methods of emission. The Institute of War and Peace Reporting undertakes extensive training of journalist working in war zones.[12] In Cameroon the Faculty of Social Sciences and International Relations of the Protestant University of Central Africa offers degree and masters programs on Peace Journalism aimed at training professional who can inform with tact and impartiality. Nevertheless, the fellowship programs offered by the African Leadership Centre in collaboration with its partners are in line with the needs of transforming the manner in which events are handled to provide lasting peace.

V. Conclusion

There are many ways to say things or to communicate, some better than others. There are some people who seek to use their language in ways that will make exclusivity eminent for power and possession by drawing boundaries between themselves and other. On the other side there are those who seek to use their language to find a common ground among beliefs and needs, shared points of overlapping inclusivity and commonality as found in the efforts of individuals as Archbishop Desmond Tutu and the late president Nelson Mandela of South Africa in the last days of Apartheid. Further research by peace loving Africans should therefore be carried out with a vision of finding new ways to improve intercultural communication without the type of casualty witnessed in Rwanda in 1994

Notes 

---

[1] United States Holocaust Memorial Museum “Hate Speech and Group Targeted Violence: The Role of Speech in

Violent Conflict” Available at http://www.ushmm.org/genocide/spv.

[2] The Prosecutor v. Simon Bikindi, Case No. ICTR-01-72-T, Judgement and Sentence, 2 December 2008, para 15.

[3] Kiai, Maina. (this collection). Speech, Power, and Violence: Hate Speech and the Political Crisis in Kenya. http://allafrica.com/stories/200810240331.html 2007

[4] EU, Election Observation Mission. 2008. Kenya: Final Report General Elections 27 December 2007. European Union

[5] “Come no go” is in the Pidgin English parlance. It is the appellation of an infectious disease that infects man due to the dirtiness and unkempt nature of his environment. So the reference of people from other ethnic setting who find themselves within another cultural setting as “come no go” means these people are unfit for humanity and should not live among a superior race. Some time it simply means they have overstayed their welcome.

[6] The reference “son of the slopes” is a version of veiled ethnic joking used by the beloved Kenyan humorist and political activist, Wahome Mutahi, to raise consciousness about ethnocentrism and political oppression.

[7] Mwalongo, Rose. 2008. Spreading the `word of hate` in Kenya. Guardian, January 26, 2008

[8] Harnett-Sievers, Axel, and Ralph-Michael Peters. 2008. Kenya's 2007 General Election and its Aftershocks. Africa Spectrum 43 (1):133-144

[9] Fiona Lloyd. Training Manual Broadcasting from the frontline: skills, techniques and challenges for radio journalists.

[10] The draft 'Prohibition of Hate Speech Bill' and the 'Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Bill' are posted on the website of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, www.doj.gov.za

[11]Matthew Chapter 5, verses 43-44. King James version.

[12]David, Alan, Regional Media in Conflict: Georgia, Cambodia, Bosnia, South Africa. Institute of War and Peace Reporting: London 2000

References

• ·        David, Alan, Regional Media in Conflict: Georgia, Cambodia, Bosnia, South Africa. Institute of War and Peace Reporting: London 2000
•     EU, Election Observation Mission. 2008. Kenya: Final Report General Elections 27 December 2007. European Union
• ·     Fiona, Lloyd. Training Manual Broadcasting from the frontline: skills, techniques and challenges for radio journalists.
• ·         Harnett-Sievers, Axel, and Ralph-Michael Peters. 2008. Kenya's 2007 General Election and its Aftershocks. Africa Spectrum 43 (1):133-144
• ·       Kiai, Maina. (this collection). Speech, Power, and Violence: Hate Speech and the Political Crisis in Kenya. http://allafrica.com/stories/200810240331.html 2007
• ·         Mwalongo, Rose. 2008. Spreading the `word of hate` in Kenya. Guardian, January 26, 2008
• ·         The draft 'Prohibition of Hate Speech Bill' and the 'Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Bill' are posted on the website of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, www.doj.gov.za
• ·     The Prosecutor v. Simon Bikindi,Case No. ICTR-01-72-T, Judgement and Sentence, 2 December 2008, para 15.
• ·         United States Holocaust Memorial Museum ―Hate Speech and Group Targeted Violence: The Role Of Speech in Violent Conflict Available at http://www.ushmm.org/genocide/spv.

Resource curse in weak states: Link between economic resources and violence or war.

Ayenka Franklin

MSc Social Science and International Relations (PUCA)

Peace and Development

Program Assistant at Ecumenical Service for Peace

Key word: conflict, economic resources, weak states

This work is a conceptual analysis centered on the opinions and works of scholars about natural resources and their relationship to violence in politically weak resource states. Since the late 1990s, many scholars have studied the relationship between natural resource wealth and war especially in Africa. Most have been motivated by a series of the high-profile conflicts – in Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Nigeria and the Sudan (which today exist as two separate sovereign political entities) – that have captured the attention of international organizations and the media. The works of Keen (1998), Collier & Hoeffler (1998), Reno (1995, 1998), Berdal & Malone (2000)^[1] have this analysis. So, what can these studies tell us about the relationship between natural resources – including oil, gas, non-fuel minerals, gemstones, narcotics, timber, and agricultural products – and violent conflicts? The answer might be not too much, because the literature about war is still incomplete and changing from symmetric to asymmetric and sometimes not able to exhaustively explain why and how violent conflicts happen and cannot be managed easily or avoided. Only in the last decade, case study analysis and quantitative studies have been carried out. To define war and violence, scholars, have used a number of methods and consider several features, nevertheless many cases are difficult to handle because of the lack of important data.^[2]

Collier’s study (1998) is one of the first to apply empirical economic data to the analysis of war and the relationship thereof. In particular, his objective is to measure the influence of some variables on the incidence of war and violence, and the risk of the onset of conflict. Collier and Hoeffler (1998) investigate violence globally and economic causes. They elaborated two versions of the same model that differ in some premises and outcomes. The comparisons of war data set are used and modified by authors of extra-systemic wars and conflicts with all data available in their sample. Both versions of the model had a big diffusion and were followed by a great and controversial debate.^[3] Though some authors reach varying conclusions on some aspects in the relationship between resources and conflicts, and whether or not natural resources influence the onset, duration and the types or subtypes of conflict, and the set of resources that are more likely linked to conflict, it is understandable that resource possession and governance have been center stage of many violent conflicts in Africa.

To supporting these facts, Buchaman and Faith (1987)^[4], Collier and Hoeffler hold that the “allure of claiming ownership of a natural resource discovery gives the populations in peripheral regions an incentive to establish sovereign states”^[5]. Though this is mostly influenced by conflict entrepreneurs who have economic benefit from war than from than from peace, we have seen populations sway easily to their dictates and manipulative tendencies in the Sudan, in Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) with cataclysmic consequences. In his 2001 work Billion argues that secessionist actions are more likely when a resource is physically concentrated, appropriated by locals and requires foreign investment. Using labor intensive process to extract natural resources, which offers fewer benefits to the state than larger extraction firms, separatist rebellions are more provoked.^[6] Since oil wealth might increase the value of controlling the state, it’s obvious that it can cause violence suggests Billion, Fearon and Laitin. Ross adds that oil and other mineral resources encourage foreign parties to support or start wars because mineral wealth increases the benefits of intervention.

In addition, Switzer (2001)^[7] and Klar (2001)^[8] hypothesize that the extraction process of natural resources led to community-level grievances such and pollution and destruction of ancestral property may lead to violent conflicts. Humphreys’ view is that resource-dependent countries are more susceptible to trade shocks, and when economies crash and suffering sets in it might lead war and that commodities that can be looted such as gemstones, drugs, and timber have a direct link to conflict as the can be used to finance war or create disputes over ownership.^[9] At this juncture, it is therefore ideal to use Ross’ analysis on conflicts, that wars, symmetric or asymmetric  have been and are prominent in natural resource producing countries Africa. In essence, Stedman joins in to say that “no peace agreement has been successfully implemented where there are valuable easily marketable commodities such as gems or timber”. Global Witness, 2002 said that in Cambodia, Liberia and DRC both timber and gemstone maintained that viability of the military force of Khmer Rouge rebels in Cambodia (1989-1995)^[10]

Graphic Representation of the Resource Trap

The conclusions to drawn from the graphic presentations above with starting point being institutional quality and how it affects the management of resources and then lead to economic development or conflict are:

Firstly, natural resources affect economic growth and national income as well as human behavioral patterns. To trace the link between economic resources and conflicts, from the presentation, the quality of institutions worsens leading to war or improve leading to economic development depending on the management of resources. If resource governance is democratic and inclusive, it leads to economic growth and reverses back to better management and strong institutions. If resource management is poor, there is a likelihood that it will create income inequalities, poor service and production sectors and low levels of per capita income which increases risk of war and violence, because it creates a 1% of strong individuals instead of strong institutions who can finance opposition groups easily to continue their ownership of resources. Hypothetically, low economic development creates social conditions that may pressure for socio-political change and conflict be it nonviolent demonstrations against inequality and injustice, or through violent means.

Nevertheless, resources if not properly managed provide proceeds for corrupted political behaviors, and an unearned revenue for the state, which in weak economies weakens the state’s ability to provide social physical security to its inhabitants. Weaker institutions are more likely to create grievances and are less able to cope with violent insurgencies and wars.

Yet again natural resources can be looted by opposition groups that use them to obtain finance to start a war and prolong hostilities, that is, natural resources finance opposition groups to continue politics by means of war as the war theorist and diplomat Carl Von Clausewitz would put it. In warfare, rebels can exploit more natural resources in illicit production and trade and increase their profits, and perhaps prolong hostilities.^[11]

---

[1] Also, see, Michael L. Ross, What Do We Know About Natural Resources and Civil War, 2004 Journal of Peace Research, vol. 41, no. 3, 2004, pp. 337–356 Sage Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi) www.sagepublications.com

[2] Manuela Travaglianti, The Role of The State In The Natural Resources And Civil War Paradigm. In Jean Monnet Working Paper in Comparative and International Politics. October 2006 - JMWP n° 61. P 3

[3] Ibid. p 6

[4] Also, see, Buchanan, James M. & Roger L. Faith, 1987. ‘Secession and the Limits of Taxation: Toward a Theory of Internal Exit’, American Economic Review77(5): 1023–1031.

[5] Collier, Paul & Anke Hoeffler, 2002a. ‘Greed and Grievance in Civil War’, Oxford University, Centre for the Study of African Economies, Working Paper 2002–01 (http://www.csae.ox.ac.uk/workingpapers/pdfs/2002–01text.pdf).

[6] Ross, Michael L., 2001b. Extractive Sectors and the Poor. Washington, DC: Oxfam America.

[7] Switzer, Jason, 2001. ‘Armed Conflict and Natural Resources: The Case of the Minerals Sector’, Report No. 12, Minerals, Mining, and Sustainable Development, International Institute for Environment and Development, July

(http://www.iied.org/mmsd/mmsd_pdfs/jason_switzer.pdf)

[8] Klare, Michael T., 2001. Resource Wars. New York: Metropolitan

[9] Humphreys, Macartan, 2003. ‘Natural Resource, Conflict, and Conflict Resolution’, paper prepared for the Santa Fe Institute/Javeriana University ‘Obstacles to Robust Negotiated Settlements’ workshop, Bogota, 29–31 May

(http://www.santafe.edu/files/gems/obstaclestopeace/hymphreys.pdf).

[10] Global Witness, 2002. ‘The Logs of War: The Timber Trade and Armed Conflict’, Programme for International Co-operation and Conflict Resolution, Fafo-report 379, March (http://www.fafo.no/pub/rapp/379/379.pdf)

[11] Manuela TRAVAGLIANTI, opcit, pp 23 – 25