As it comes to a fold, 2021 has been a bumpy and humpy year for South Sudan as a country. In the democratic sphere, Cleisthenes of Athens and the founder of what we call democracy today, would most probably love to lecture us more on how the concept works if he was alive.

This brings us to yet another concept; the public sphere. When German scholar and sociologist Jürgen Habermas coined this phrase thousands of years ago, he meant a phenomenon in which national laws and policies are shaped by public discourses.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

The public sphere theory also encompassed an ideology that the only legitimate governments are those that listen to and consider the compelling views of the public.

He stated it bluntly: “Democratic governance rests on the capacity of and opportunity for citizens to engage in enlightened debate”.

Unfortunately, this ideology is yet to hatch in many countries around the world, including South Sudan. The country still has a long way to travel the path of liberal democracy as evidenced by several tip-toe incidences between state security apparatus and civil society activists.

This has resulted in the closure of offices of perceived adversarial civil society organisations and a halt to their operations. The incidences put the country in the spotlight for the wrong reason.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

As 2022 is just hours away, it’s crucial to underline that democracy is more than just what others perceived to be; giving space to adversaries to speak their minds. Democracy breeds free speech, a recipe for social, political, and economic development.

This explains why Western governments implored Juba to go slow on civil society organizations. It was a positive call.

Responsible activism

But the call on the government alone to open civic space is not enough. The advocates of democracy and free speech must also consider the measure at which such expressions happen.

Irresponsible activism is dangerous and sets communities against each other. There’s been endless emergence of tribal activists whose drive is to propagate tribal ideologies and rally support along the ethnic line. This kind of activism must not happen in the name of free speech and democracy. It is costly.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Civil society activists and concerned citizens alike have better national concerns and more formal ways of presenting them to the government than embarking on divisive projects and harming the country.

Also, posting negativity against the government always does not make an individual a top-notched or firebrand activist. Not everything about the state warrants’ opposition. Credit should be given where it’s due and criticisms should constructive.

A familiar activist who left an organisation he founded has dedicated his Twitter handle to lambasting the President. This makes quite little to no sense.

In March 2019, Kate Bennet submitted a thesis to the Graduate Faculty of St. Cloud State University in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Social Responsibility.

Titled “Freedom To, From, and for Whom: Analysing Freedom Discourse in Tiny House Blogs”, the thesis argues that freedom of speech is not for everyone.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

The Tiny House movement, characterized by the primary dwelling it is named for, is an emerging field of academic study. The movement encompasses a diverse spectrum of simple living practices that typically serve participants’ pursuit of self-defined freedom.

Using framing methodologies to root the Tiny House movement as a specific articulation of Voluntary Simplicity, an intersectional approach to understand power and identity, and critical discourse analysis, the study analyses freedom discourse in publicly available Tiny House blogs to discern positive descriptors of freedom (freedom to); negative descriptors of freedom (freedom from); applications of said freedom (freedom for whom) based on privileges and access to capitals, including financial, social, and human; as well as how freedom discourse relates to other simple living movements.

Though controversial, Bennet’s argument reflects some sense. Freedom of speech belongs to those who use it responsibly.