Zimpapers Logo

Tichaona Zindoga : Political Editor

There is an ongoing debate around the issue of social media in Zimbabwe at the moment. The debate is largely political. Social media has been used by opposition political elements to unruffle the government and the ruling party, Zanu-PF. This is more than just democratic expression through the new media that bypass the traditional information channels.Lately, social media have been used to spread messages of fear, hate and instability in Zimbabwe as opposition elements have tried to create chaos in the country.

That is a fact – and social media such as Facebook, Twitter and WhatsApp Messenger have been used by known and emerging opposition characters of all colours and hue.

Some are what have been labelled social media “terrorists” and the long arm of the law is threatening to reach out and get them.

Others, like one Evan Mawarire, have become overnight “celebrities’’ by speaking out against Government.

He is credited for agitating the so-called #ShutDownZimbabwe which occurred last month as civil servants downed tools over salary delays (of course attributing the strike to Mawarire’s calls is anything between disingenuous and outright dishonesty as the factors that contributed to the job action had nothing to do with his intervention. In fact, to prove this point, Mawarire actually called for another so-called #Shutdown the week of July 11 but was ignored.)

Mawarire is a smooth devil and he has used his newfound celebrity to shore political and financial capital on himself and as we speak he has been feted in South Africa and USA where the opponents of Zimbabwe are considering him as a possible opposition leader.

There are rascal-devils in the so-called #Tajamuka movement, which is basically an extension of the opposition MDC youth assembly and has been making lots of noises, including on the purported shutdown of Zimbabwe.

They have also called on protests at the country’s border posts and general dissent in the country, including in rural areas that have largely remained untouched by the histrionics of social media as used by opposition media.

An analysis of the phenomenon of social media in Zimbabwe today can be made in at least three frames.

First, does it pose serious danger to national security?

Second, what are the demographics of the phenomenon?

Third, what is the cost of all of the above?

There are clear and justifiable worries that the abuse of social media in Zimbabwe poses a significant and continuing national security threat to Zimbabwe and that is why authorities, including the highest office in the land, have expressed concern over the phenomenon.

It has to be understood in a global context that social media have been used to foment uprisings that have toppled the status quo in countries such as Egypt and Tunisia while similar attempts have been made in places like Iran.

They have been dubbed Facebook or Twitter “revolutions”.

When people power manifests itself, it is usually not a bad thing – and in the so-called Arab Spring some autocratic regimes were removed though with the collusion of the US and its allies.

The case is different in Zimbabwe: the ruling party won a popular mandate in the elections of July 2013, seeing off the opposition by claiming more than two-thirds majority and winning the presidential poll.

The elections were deemed free and fair and a reflection of the people’s will by all progressive missions that came to observe and monitor the exercise.

For its own part, despite initially disputing the results, the opposition failed to sustain a case of electoral fraud.

Thus Zanu-PF assumed the mandate which runs until 2018.

Those seeking to cause uprisings and agitating for chaos want to see off this constitutional and legal order so that at the very least a coalition of the opposition and the ruling party is agreed upon.

To achieve this they have to make Zimbabwe ungovernable and their tool of choice are social media.

They have the backing of countries such as France and the US which have previously enjoyed the outcomes of such illegal moves.

It is obvious that this is unacceptable hence the classification, at worst, of the drivers of illegal regime change through social media as terrorists.

The second frame to understand the phenomenon of social media abuse is its demographics.

The social media abuse is being largely undertaken by young people aligned to the opposition who are resident in urban areas or domiciled in the diaspora.

They are frustrated mainly by the failure of the main opposition to capture power from the ruling Zanu-PF.

Despite their umbilical chords being firmly buried in the opposition, many have sought to pretend that they are an apolitical “social” movement.

A cursory look at some of the characters involved in the social media campaigns will show a number of youths that have an association with the opposition.

One of them is Promise Mkwananzi, a former MDC-T youth assembly secretary general who now is the face of the Tajamuka “movement”.

The opposition will be the first beneficiary of any upset of the status quo and the youths have taken it upon themselves to make these kings.

It is crucial to note, though, the democratic deficit in these opposition supporters: many of them are wont to make a lot of noise on social media but are nowhere to be seen in the voting booth.

And when they do, they are outnumbered by Zanu-PF whose support constitutes the majority of the electorate.

The greatest weapon of this minority of opposition supporters is the ability to make noise and receiving media attention.

This sometimes – let’s say most of the time – create a fatal illusion.

Lastly, in the analysis of the current wave of social media abuse, it is critical to note that there is a huge economic cost to the mischief and threats of mischief being wrought through social media.

Figures are hard to come by at hand but one can imagine just how many millions threats of violence and the actual commission of violence and acts of sabotage can cost an economy.

The drivers of social media campaigns tell people to embark on actions such as shutting down of the country’s borders and closure of businesses.

These messages are accompanied with threats of violence and the actual acts such as burning and destruction of shops and burning vehicles. People are, and can be beaten or even murdered, if they peacefully seek to do their daily work.

On a more general scale, the culture and obsession with social media is likely to reduce the economic productivity of Zimbabwe. It has been observed even in the US and Britain that the rapid increase of social media is coming at a huge cost to the economy.

John Boitnott, journalist and digital consultant, cites a report stating that “social media addiction” meant that 18 percent of users can’t go beyond “a few hours” without checking Facebook and 61 percent of users check their newsfeed “at least once a day.”

He writes: “Of iPhone users, 28 percent check their Twitter feed before getting up in the morning. It’s estimated that the average American spends nearly one quarter of their work day browsing social media for non-work related activities.

“In fact, somewhere between 60 and 80 percent of Americans admit they don’t go online for anything necessary, but rather to kill time or be entertained. For bigger businesses, this means if one thousand of your employees spend just one hour per day “cyberloafing,” it could cost you $35 million each year. To make matters worse, numerous studies have revealed that just checking certain social media sites can make a person feel less happy. Now you might have unhappy employees as well as less productive ones.”

A few years back, the UK Telegraph said “Twitter and Facebook costing economy £14bn a year”.

The statistics are all available.

And as Zimbabwe hooks on the addiction of social media, it will increasingly show that social media is more than a workshop of political devils – the social media terrorists.

It will also hit us in the pocket.

This is a point that was raised by one minister the writer met in China recently: he said the country had better invested money in productive sectors such as agriculture and channel energies there rather than the so-called ICT revolution which in fact would give rise to troublesome phenomena.

Those who work in the ICT field are bound to disagree vehemently, but in a world of realpolitik and the economy – moreso one that requires a lot of work and no distractions – it makes perfect sense.