By Fred Daka Kamwada
In his theory known as the paradox of tolerance Austrian professor and philosopher Karl popper stated that intolerance without limit can destroy the tolerance that prevails in a given society.
Popper’s theory has since generated a lot of debate in regard to freedom of speech which seems to be abused by state actors and citizens on a daily basis.
Popper’s theory has since generated a lot of debate in regard to freedom of speech which seems to be abused by state actors and citizens on a daily basis.
There seems to be no consensus on the subject. State actors usually tend to have an upper hand when the citizens seem to get into an over drive in regard to their freedoms of expression.
Former Ugandan president Gen Idi Amin made an interesting statement when he said that he ‘’can guarantee freedom of speech before but cannot guarantee freedom of speech after’’.
What president Amin said fits very well with the reality that has befallen victims or casualties of freedom of speech?
Many of them have enjoyed the pleasure of publishing or writing whatever they had, but have not survived the wrath of the people they have annoyed.
In his theory known as the paradox of tolerance Austrian professor and philosopher Karl popper stated that intolerance without limit can destroy the tolerance that prevails in a given society.
One of the issues that we need to appreciate is that when we speak or write without using credible facts to attack either individuals or state actors we forget that they are human with emotions.
Even if we have the facts, we should be aware of the consequences of annoying others.
We tend to overlook the reaction the affected party will remit in response to our attacks.
The case in point is Saud Arabian journalist Jamal Kashogi whose articles about the crown prince were printed in the Washington post.
Although he seemed to know the consequences, since he wrote from exile, he exposed himself to the wrath of the crown prince and paid with his life.
So the subject remains as ambiguous as the ‘’the egg and chicken which came first’’ debate.
How much freedom or tolerance is too much?
While the purists assert that freedom of speech is an inalienable right, the protagonists (state actors) insist that it must be regulated.
In the end the debate ends up unresolved.
But for my case I think it’s easy to make a value judgment about the subject.
We should admit that there is need to regulate freedom of speech. There is also a limit to how much we should tolerate.
If you apply some empathy, just imagine if you were the one Prof Stella Nyanzi was calling ‘’a stupid pair of buttocks?
Imagine if you were the one Joseph kabuleeta was calling a thief, a gambler anarchist or whatever.
How would you feel if you were Gen Muhoozi Kainerugaba, and someone you have never provoked is describing you as a lifeless, incompetent fellow with no charisma and leadership potential?
The problem we have in Uganda is that everything is judged with political lenses.
There is no room for maneuver issues using human logic.
Otherwise, even if you were a member of the opposition and you hate President Museveni and Muhoozi so much you wouldn’t condone what Prof Stella Nyanzi or kabuleta said.
Therefore, while we have to tolerate intolerance, there must be a limit to how much we can tolerate.
This is because if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant.
We should be good historians and learn form the case of Rwanda where some sections of intolerant Rwandese preached intolerance which later translated it into genocide.
It would also mean that intolerant leaders like Adolf Hitler had to be given chance to propagate their hatred against the Jews.
Every bad episode in this world has come about through intolerant people.
Once someone has a degree of intolerance and gets platform to remit it, then he can spread it to a large section of people who lack the reason to disseminate it.
There is a good chance that the emotional ones will translate that intolerance into action which is certain to be violent.
Wars metamorphose through intolerance of some few people in society.
Unfortunately, just as I stated earlier, any abuse or insult directed at the president and his cronies is good stuff for the opposition.
They regard (the insults) as the weapon that can bring down the government. But some principled citizens cannot join the cause that is laden with angry-intolerant people.
People like Joseph kabuleta are not doing any good for the opposition. They are just fermenting hatred which actually makes the cause for regime change more difficult.
It’s this brand of politics which has made the Col Kiiza Besigye brand unmarketable.
Some of us are praying that by 2021 we shall have Credible, tolerant and less angry politicians like Gen Mugisha Muntu , Hon Norbert Mao, Hon Robert Kyagulanyi followed by less angry citizens.
The author Fred Daka Kamwada is a blogger and journalist. [email protected]
Author Profile
- Uganda's First online News Paper. "More than Just News" Investigative, Informative, without Fear or Favor
Latest entries
Business2022.09.26A Health Move: Nella Organics Launches to offer a Perfect Harmony between Conventional and Complementary Medicine
Education2022.09.22VP Jessica Alupo Addresses the UN Transforming Education Summit, Announces Uganda`s USD3M Pledge 
Crime news2022.09.20Family Jinx: How EAC Candidate and City Lawyer Phiona Rwandarugali is Facing a USD2400 Debt Quagmire 
Featured2022.09.19Personal Experience: An Agonizing Story of a relative whose brother committed suicide due to Mental Illness
