Talkative Polity. Florence Brisset-FoucaultЧитать онлайн книгу.
explained.22 This had an influence on the way the debates were to be organized.
Ebimeeza members used a whole range of different words to designate the way the political architecture was being redesigned: they talked of different “sides, wings, camps, tendencies, political attachments, ideologies, affiliations, political backgrounds, parties,” and the like.23 They imagined different lines of division: “pro- and antiestablishment,” “multipartyists against Movementists,” or “opposition against government.” People were not unanimous on how to organize the debate. As one orator explained: “Of course the chairman of the ekimeeza could always want to balance the debate, so if he has called two people speaking in favor of government, then he would make sure he would call other people, two people speaking against, from opposition to come and you know, so as it appears as a debate.”24 But the chairman himself, in accordance with the views set out in chapter 1, was rather hostile to this option:
That is a new phenomenon. We practice it now, but I want to discourage it personally. Because it will polarize the discussion. People will start identifying themselves as “yes I am this, I am that.” . . . I discourage it personally. I don’t want people to tell us where they belong. I just want their views, that’s it. [. . .] They were saying “opposition,” “movement.” I said no: “pro the topic,” “against the topic.”25
Despite the chairman’s and many historicals’ hostility, the Ekimeeza quickly adopted this binary system in its routine functioning. As a journalist explained in 2002: “These public talk shows have become Movement versus multiparty discussion forums. This explains why the more vocal Movement and multiparty faces hop from one show to the next, if only to bat for their side. [. . .] The political opposition (multipartyists) is particularly loud at these gatherings.”26 Interestingly, some members encouraged the adoption of this binary system because they were attached to the no-party system: they preferred orators to engage in oratorical matches according to fluid lines such as “opposition” and “proposition,” instead of competing based on their party belongings. However, this containment of political party identifications worked only to a certain extent.
The lists of orators established by the organizers of the ebimeeza were an interesting aid for examining these dynamics of political polarization and partisanization. In Club Obbligato, the lists illustrated that the polarization “proposition” versus “opposition,” which was supposed to be fluid and change according to the topic of debate, was quickly reinterpreted, both by members and by organizers, as “government” versus “opposition.” As the chairman explained:
In the beginning, we were having one single [. . .] list, one [person] following the other as [they] registered. We realized we could have ten people in a row from one side, one divide of the political sphere, and that was unfair. One speaker after the other, they were all saying the same thing. So . . . Hmm, we said no, [we] should separate. [. . .] So we have one speaker from the ruling party, one from the opposition. Ruling party, opposition—we try to balance it.27
FIGURE 3.1. Club Obbligato’s coordinator establishes two lists of orators, 2007. (Photo by author.)
In order to do this, potential orators wrote their names on a piece of paper. Then a person called the coordinator (see chapter 7) had to make a list, usually divided into two columns, according to political leanings. He then gave the list to the chairman, for his use in calling the speakers to the microphone.28
There were various coordinators in Club Obbligato, and they had different ways of separating the orators, which revealed disagreements in how the competition should be organized and varied ideas of what a “balanced debate” meant.29 The first pattern, which was the most frequent in the archives I found, was “proposition” versus “opposition.” A second pattern opposed a “side A” against a “side B.” A third opposed a column titled “NRM” against a column titled “opposition.”
Even when topics or patterns changed, I found that some orators were in the same columns most of the time, which suggests that coordinators tended to gather people they identified as belonging to one side or the other because they knew them and their usual beliefs or leanings.30
Generally speaking, it was difficult for orators to escape being categorized by other members or organizers as belonging to one side or the other. It was part of the fun of the show for spectators to guess orators’ loyalties. Also, as the chairman said: “Now we know who belongs to where. We know who belongs to opposition, and we know who belongs to the ruling party. So we separate them that way.”31 An orator explained: “At that time, everybody could stand and talk on a topical issue as an individual. But it was through the words or the way he brings about his point that you can realize how the other is against government, or the other is progovernment.”32
Some members enthusiastically embraced these constraints of identification, partly because the ebimeeza are spheres of political recruitment, which encourages demonstrating one’s loyalty toward a political organization (see discussion later in this chapter). As an orator explained:
Usually we have two parties in the bimeeza. The opposition and the government people. [. . .] Let’s say a member of the opposition, whenever the debate is concerning the government, you are supposed to look for negative aspects only (he laughs). When you look for the positive aspects, you maybe give morale to the government that they are doing very good, so it’s not what you’re supposed to do. You look for the negative aspect. If you are not a good person to make a negative analysis, next time they don’t call you, saying that person misrepresented us.33
At Simbawo Akatii, Radio Simba’s ekimeeza, things were different than at Club Obbligato. Even if the binary structure was strong, the debate gave more importance to party identities. Producers agreed to use party labels and encouraged orators to identify themselves with a partisan repertoire because they wanted to make sure the debate was “balanced.” When people registered, they indicated their party membership or preference to the organizers. Afterward, the host of the debate, Dick Nvule, called them in a certain order so as to respect a binary balance between “government” and “opposition.” He explained during an interview how government itself encouraged a certain partisanization of the debate, as the adoption of party labels in the show was thought of as a way to avoid repression. Paradoxically, before the return to multipartyism in 2005, organizing a political debate that reproduced a multiparty system was the result less of challenging the official ideology of a no-party democracy than of an adaptation to the authorities’ injunctions:
The reason why we did that, asking people [. . .] to expose the political parties they come from, that was something that we . . . Government was always saying that we radio moderators of political talk shows, we normally prefer having people from the opposition to speak and we were saying no. But the government was insisting. So we said “okay,” now whenever we call them, we shall say “Okay, this [one] is from the ruling party; this [one] is from the opposition; and this is an independent,” so that the audience can choose who is telling lies between the moderators and the government.
Q: So that’s a way of showing the government that the show is balanced?
A: Yes!
Q: Yes?
A: Yes! Because government was attacking us that we normally take on the opposition guys so that’s why we decided okay, we should always expose which political party they come from. To show them that the show is balanced! So if you [NRM] don’t have good speakers, you are the ones to blame, not us! You should mobilize your guys and you have good speakers.34
The competitive and polarized nature of debates also came from what orators thought were the expectations of the moderator in terms of the quality of the show. As an orator explained: