Freedom of expression – Case of Ugandan Open Air Community Discussions

Community Debates engage everyone, regardless of socioeconomic status, on current issues.

Furthermore, interaction or communication is natural and part of human survival. It is simply a natural attraction to socialize and interact, no matter the extent.

They influence government policies and the decision-making process, and are appreciated as one of the credible means of expressing local concerns, reforming governance and working for peace.

Those in power use the forum to explain the government’s positions on different controversial issues, so that they can be understood and accepted by the people.

Likewise, opposition politicians use it to constructively criticize the government and remind it of its failures so that it can correct or adopt new, friendlier policies.

People, who think they can offer better leadership, use the forum to make their ideals known to the population and identify with them, so that during the elections, there is a greater chance of being elected to power.

Even those who miss out on becoming Members of Parliament (MPs), soon caught up when President YK Museveni finally appointed them as Resident District Commissioners (RDCs) or MPs for the post. What matters, however, is the question of who is interested in the speaker. Sometimes they have to eat their own ‘vomit’ and call the color black white.

From open-air community debates, young aspiring politicians gain confidence and experience in public speaking. In fact, many of them are still dedicated to the trade and are the darlings of the people.

Community discussions offer an opportunity for frustrated and disappointed citizens to vent their psychopathological conditions, which alone was therapeutic enough. Affected participants leave the forum calmer and feeling better than when they arrived, having “expelled” the toxicity of anger on leaders who betray the nation.

They provide a credible way for individuals to form a civil parliament and make themselves heard by legislators and lazy MPs alike.

It’s a sure way to ensure local participation and representation, helping to fill in the gaps left by the legislature. It fills the void left by the representative democratic system, in which the majority of parliamentarians are not up to the wishes of the people.

An empowered citizenry is in a position to make informed decisions and pressure the government to pass people-friendly policies in line with decisions made at the personal and group level, and to further assess leadership performance (accountability).

The debates awaken the political consciousness of most educated young people, who join the discussions or begin to see the affairs of their country in a two-sided manner and make informed decisions accordingly.

It makes vernacular radios relevant to Ugandans in the countryside. Radio stations developed different brands or names for each forum, including: the ekimeza brand on radio uno, simbawo akati (Radio Simba), mambo baado (CBS), among others. But the events following the protests of September 11, 2009 forced the government to ban open-air debates.

On the eve and after national or international holidays, participants discuss the meanings of those days for Ugandans. In this way, it helps educate the masses about the current events and challenges of those days, for example, March 8 (Women’s Day), June 9 (Heroes’ Day), January 26 ( Teresita Day), October 9 (Independence Day) and the mid-year budget reading days, as well as burning issues in Parliament.

It not only helps bridge the gap between those in government and its people, but also plays a role in empowering the masses. There is no clear demarcation between debates and banned radio stations, because shortly after their ban, community debates also ceased or weakened.

It can be presented that; it is necessary to allow open-air community debates and discussion to be broadcast again on radios at all levels, to provide forums for the exchange of ideas on social problems, for problem solving, for venting and psychological healing or peace and to enable beneficial policy reform and formulation. of the common man, and for the construction of healthy relationships as significant avenues for good governance and peacebuilding and the prevention of psychologically traumatic conditions of war.

However, more research is needed to define and set the boundaries of open-air community discussions so that while you embrace the rights and freedoms of assembly, information and expression, and appreciate your responsibilities to society and governance, you know your limits to Ugandan order and the common good of its people.