The folly of hashtag activism

Christopher Farai Charamba Correspondent—

A FEW months ago, July to be precise, Blessing-Miles Tendi wrote an article for the Foreign Policy magazine titled “Why a hashtag isn’t enough for revolution in Zimbabwe”.Tendi, an acclaimed academic, was commenting on the wave of activism and protests happening at the time spurred on by the #ThisFlag Movement.

At the time, some in the online community were of the belief that the social media movement would continue to grow and result in the removal of President Mugabe in a similar fashion to how social media had influenced the ‘Arab Spring’.

Of this perception Tendi wrote: “[The] predictions of Mugabe’s imminent downfall are wrong. The reason is quite simple: the angry urban social media activists and pro-democracy pundits have failed to absorb two key lessons of the Arab Spring. The first is that the role of the military in times of civil unrest is pivotal. The second is that social media activism can never substitute for organised political activity on the ground.”

I remember sharing this article on my social media pages and subsequently receiving a barrage of flak from some of the online activists who felt that my criticism of their methods meant that I determinately wished them to fail.

What I was simply trying to point out at the time was that the wave of online activism and the demonstrations were to be futile attempts at first engaging the Government and, as some would have hoped, removing it.

First of all, the Government of Zimbabwe is constitutionally elected and will therefore remain in office until 2018.

Since 2013, however, when the current Zanu-PF Government came to power, some in the opposition and other organisations have on occasion claimed the 2013 elections were illegitimate. At the same time though, they have chosen to sit in Parliament with the same Government they claim is illegitimate.

It boggles the mind actually, as the very act of sitting with the representatives of Government in Parliament for the past two years has legitimised the very Government they claim was illegitimately elected.

Similarly, those who claim to boycott by-elections until reforms are done, but continue to sit with the parliamentarians elected in those by-elections, are endorsing the process that chose those individuals.

But I digress, returning to the futile approach of the online activists, from what one gauged on social media, there were those who hoped the waves of protests would result in the removal of the Government. Some, I dare say, erroneously believe that this could still happen.

The biggest problem faced by this online community is that they have failed to understand the social and political dynamics in Zimbabwe, on the ground, and not in cyberspace.

Becoming popular to an online audience, receiving likes, retweets, shares and such does not translate to support on the ground.

In fact, one is likely to only find within the online community people who agree with their message and not those who challenge and dispute it. Particularly as one can tailor their feed to their specification.

Aside from the fact that the likes and the retweets could be coming from anywhere in the world, from people who are not even Zimbabweans, there is no substitute for having an organisation on the ground with real people who can be mobilised and physically appear.

The thing with online, particularly social media is that you can hide behind a screen and endorse a message or create one while never coming out into the real world. It is a shame that some Zimbabweans have yet to learn from the folly that was Baba Jukwa.

A second big error that has fooled the online activists, is the one partially ”successful” stayaway that happened earlier this year. This they believed was a result of Pastor Evan Mawarire’s call for a stayaway but the subsequent failed demos and stayaways actually revealed that it had nothing to do with them but was the result of a civil servant and commuter operators strike.

Again it took a body with people on the ground, who at the time had a dispute with their employer, to yield results. Since then the Government and the civil servants have come to an understanding, with the Government honouring its end of the bargain and thus no action in the form of a strike, stayaway or demonstration called by the online activists has been successful.

And then there is the aspect of hero- worshipping. While Pastor Evan spoke about the inclusivity of the #ThisFlag Movement and claimed that it belonged to all Zimbabweans, the fact that he was the only one making videos and there was no visible organisation beside him, it was a viewed as his individual project.

This became evident when the movement took a massive blow and waned when he left the country. Once more, without an organisation or structure, with one man leading and all those online praising him, then when the proverbial shepherd is struck, the sheep will scatter.

When Tendi was writing in July, he was certain that nothing would come off the online activism and further positing that “hashtag activism and Facebook posts will never be a substitute for a well-crafted agenda; nor do they offer a successful alternative to on-the-ground political engagement”.

He went on to add that “young Zimbabweans should remember that protesting is not the only way to effect political change”, and called out the fact that the youth who take to the streets are in fact politically apathetic in that many of them are not registered to and do not vote.

One would have hoped that following the numerous failed protests that took place earlier this year the hashtag activists would have gotten the picture and amended their approach to engagement. Particularly if as they claim, they are looking out for a better Zimbabwe and not for regime change.

This has, however, not been the case as last week there was another unsuccessful protest against bond notes.

One is hard-pressed to understand what exactly these groups hope to achieve from these protests. Aside from the fact that a paltry number of people turn up to these non-events, they do not communicate effectively with the Government.

But perhaps one is also being harsh and should accept that they have a right to peaceful demonstration. This is a right enshrined in the Constitution of Zimbabwe, the supreme law of the land under whom all citizens including those in political office, are subject to.

Outside the freedom to demonstrate is also the freedom of expression, which allows every citizen the right to express their viewpoint as long as it is not hateful or inciting and without fear and intimidation to curtail them from sharing their views.

And while their methods might be akin to insanity, repeating the same thing with no result, as long as they are exercising them within the confines of the law and without infringing on the rights of others, they should be free to do so.