Constructive Communication:

Towards Constructive Communication: Taking the Poison out of Language

Presentation at the UNMIS Symposium on Unity and Self-Determination, Khartoum, Sudan: 2-3 November 20091Narrative NationsTheoreticians of modern nationalism have recognized the important role played by the mass media in the formation and maintenance of national identity. The rise of modern publishing in the vernacular languages was responsible for the emergence of modern nations, even where the nation in questions was not included within one state (Italy and Germany), or when the nation was part of a larger entity, as was the case with the Ottoman or Hapsburg empires.

2TV and NationhoodIn its early days, television played an important role in cementing national identities. This occurred through the shared experience of watching news and current affairs programmes, national sports and cultural and entertainment programmes. Televion also played a role in dealing with crises (such as the Kennedy assassination) or offering a platform for debate and contest (Vietnam War, election campaigns)

3New Media, FragmentationWith the advent of the new media, such as satellite TV and the Internet, national television no longer plays the same role, as audiences are now fragmented. But it is still influential in shaping public opinion and collective reaction to events. For example, the Iraq war and the war on terror in the West have been largely media-centred and media-driven.

4Media, ConflictThe media also plays a role in conflicts, ironically by helping shape common/opposing identities and collective reactions. In Yugoslavia, the local media were instrumental in promoting narrative of national identity and grievance which united some groups (Serbs, Albanian, etc.) while simultaneously creating polarization between groups. The way the media broadcast deeply symbolic nationalist-religious rituals and ceremonies, re-interpreted history, or projected a threatened national identity, has helped draw conflict lines.

5Hate MediaIn Rwanda, hate media such as the radio station Radio Television Libre des Mille Collines (RTLMC), or the magazine Kangura, were accused of playing a key role in inciting the genocide. RTLMC urged Hutus to kill the cockroaches (in reference to Tutsis). It also broadcast the names of people to be killed and their location, thus directing mobs to those targets. Key figures in these media organisations were given long jail sentences by the Arusha Tribunal.

6LeadershipThe media can thus bring people together as well as turn them against each other. It does not just depend on what the media broadcast, but also on the receptiveness of people. It also depends on the quality of political leadership. As we have seen in South Africa and during different phases of Zimbabwes recent history, it is possible for wise leadership to steer people away from hate even when they have had genuine grievances. It is also easy to stir up hatred and bitterness.

7Media SudanisationIn Sudans case, the media and public debate has helped shape modern Sudanese identity during the early colonial period, and set the themes which influenced later political discourse and development. This included accepting the depiction as Sudanese, which was a novel term, and (among the educated elite) consciously rejected tribal affiliations. It also involved an emphasis on Arab-Islamic identity, particularly under the influence of Egyptian-based media.

8On, but not of, the SouthWhile the South was not part of these debates due to the barriers to communication deliberately put in place by the British, it was at the heart of the debate. Nationalist rhetoric emphasized the unity of the country and expression of a yearning to be reunited with the brothers in the South. While there were parallels here with the Egyptian emphasis on the Unity of the Nile Valley, the difference was that the Southerners were not part of this conversation in the way Northern Sudanese were.

9BarriersThe lack of communication remained even after independence. This was due to many factors: continued difficulties in transport and communication; the language barrier; the outbreak of the civil war; restrictions poof military regimes which put on the media.

10Southern MediaNational media directed to Southern audiences and run by Southerners began to appear in 1960s, but the problem of communication persisted. Southern publications were usually in English, while most Southerners were unable (and/or unwilling) to access the mainstream Arabic media. Various governments failed to bridge this gap.

11National Media and SouthOccasionally, the Radio and TV produced short news programmes in English. But these were mainly directed at foreigners living in Khartoum, and usually consisted of giving the official line on events. No special service is currently directed to the South, and it has not occurred to programmers to include English subtitles for news and other relevant programmes. Much less to involve Southerners significantly in programme making and direction.

12Beyond the language gapThe language gap is not the only one. Now that most Southerners are fluent in Arabic, they still find trouble identifying with the content of the national media. One has just to watch the nightly news on national TV to note an obvious fact: for the editors of that programme, the South (and most parts of Sudan outside Khartoum) barely exists.

13Post-CPA MediaFollowing the conclusion of the CPA, national TV coverage has witnessed important improvements in general orientation, with more coverage of the regions, and more news featuring SPLA leaders. But national TV and Radio remain focused on giving a very narrow official line on events.

14Independent PressIndependent print media have shown more openness to diverse points of view, and made some feeble attempts to include Southern voices on their pages. However, the majority of Southern journalists continue to work in English language publications whose audience is predominantly Southern. The exception is the Arabic daily Ajras al-Hurriya, which maintains a pro-SPLA line, and SCP organ Al-Maidan, which shows similar inclinations.

15Backlash MediaHowever, the nature of these publications and the trenchant line they had adopted at times increases and worsens the polarization. The language they use is confrontational and tends to inflame emotions, especially when countered by hard-line publications form the other side, such as the militantly anti-SPLA al-Intibaha.

16Violent RhetoricIt might not be useful to reproduce here the rhetoric of bitterness and deep hostility (one can even say the language of hate) which characterizes some of the exchanges one can follow on the Internet or the print media at home, but it is clear that the persistence of this kind of language will not help the democratic transition. It does not matter here whether those deploying this rhetoric believe what they say or whether they are engaged in propaganda. The impact is more or less the same.

17Language of ConfrontationWhen someone makes comments such as the real intentions of the SPLM which is allied to the enemies of Northern Sudan and its cultural identity, including Israel and Zionist America, who are keen to overthrow Northern Sudan, or like: the Kenana conference by that very sell-out groups, and the creation of SPLM-DC are part of the strategies the successive regimes including NCP in Khartoum have been using to derail and sabotage the unity of Southern Sudanese whenever the South is about to make headway. No less disturbing are comments such as: arbitrariness is the norm of the ruling jallaba minority regime.

18Blanket accusationsThe main problem of such remarks is not just their scathing and provocative nature, but the fact that they make blanket accusations (sell-outs for all Southern parties opposed to the SPLA, accusations of a whole movement of being allied with Israel and other external enemies, or associating all northern Sudanese with dictatorship, using the pejorative term jallaba to refer to them). Here, insults are combined with criticism or attacks. This is what could be termed poisonous language.

19Wars start with wordsThis amounts to linguistic or symbolic violence in its own right. But we know from history that verbal abuse is the first stage of mass violence. Referring to the Croats as Ustashas (the name used by militias allied to Nazis during World War II) or describing Bosnian Muslim as Turks were the first salvoes in the propaganda war which unleashed Yugoslavias civil war.

20TakfirThe use of the language of takfir (branding those with different views as apostates or unbelievers) is another form of symbolic violence which usually leads to, and helps legitimise, actual violence. As it happens, the bitterest exchanges these days are between Islamist factions who continue to accuse each other of the most vile crimes and motives. The resulting tension is very corrosive of peaceful community relations.

21Bitterness and DemocracyDemocracies thrive on freedom of expression and tolerate (even require) lively and heated exchanges. However, a minimum of civility is also required to make democracy work. If one believes that opponents are sell-outs, foreign agents, racists intent on genocide, etc., one cannot accept to work alongside them in a peaceful contest, let alone permit them to take over power. Therefore the type of bitter exchanges we are witnessing at the moment cannot be a good indication about the democratic intentions of the parties involved.

22Studied SilenceThere is, on the other hand, an accusation that the Sudanese are too polite to a degree approaching hypocrisy. The lack of frank exchanges and the hiding behind pleasantries prevents real issues from being aired and resolved. As Dr Francis Deng once put it: it is what is not said that divides us. And it is true that lack of frankness can be as harmful as overly aggressive approach.

23The Value of CivilityThe Sudanese legendary civility did, nevertheless, play an important role in bringing people together. In fact, it has become one of the few markers of shared Sudanese identity. Not even the prolonged civil wars have managed to destroy this remarkable shared resource, and most observers were astounded to see how Sudanese from different warring parties or mutually hostile political groups treated each other with impeccable courtesy and respect

24 and FranknessThis said, however, civility should not preclude frankly discussing important issues in order to resolve matters of contention. But there is a delicate balance to strike here between inflammatory exchanges and merely hypocritical niceties. Especially with regards to the media, the balance between freedom of expression and respect to the sensitivities of fellow-citizens is crucially important. The grievances should be aired, but without making the exchanges themselves into a new source of conflict.

25Self-restraint versus CensorshipSelf-restraint, though, is completely different from censorship. To voluntarily refrain from hurting other peoples feelings is a noble act of consideration to fellow human beings and compatriots. But to use force or coercion to stifle free debate is in itself an act of aggression and a deliberate attempt to confront and resolve issues of dispute. When authorities decide to prevent citizens from talking to each other because this makes them look bad, this obstruction of free communication hinders the natural process of coming together and building consensus. Those who silence others by force do so because they believe they do not have valid arguments to respond to their opponents. But this enforced silence is hardly real peace, since the seething resentment is likely to explode in violence at some point. 26National ConversationAt this crucial juncture in Sudans history, there is more than ever a need for a vigorous but responsible media which could help in the conduct of a healthy debate on the countrys future. The process of vigorous debate in itself helps with the cementing of a shared national identity. The very fact that people are engaged in a joint conversation on national issues forges a unity. That is how nations are formed: in conversation.

27Family TalkBut the conversation may turn divisive. It is the role of the major political forces to minimise divisiveness and enhance the community spirit. In this, the national electronic media such as radio and television can play a role by adopting an inclusive and non-partisan approach. National TV programmes such as the evening news could play a role similar to that of the family dinner table, where all family members sit down at the end of the day and talk about what they had done that day and discuss issues of concern to them. It is part of what makes a family a family.For this same reason, no one should feel left out, and both in terms of language and content, the news and concerns of all major national groups should feature at some point to ensure that all feel involved.

28Unity Radio?In the past, North-South dialogue has been obstructed by linguistic, geographic, cultural and, above all, political barriers. In the coming months, this may be the last time they talk together. This opportunity needs to be taken full advantage of, by creating some truly national media. A truly national television and radio service should be set up, run jointly by journalists from both North and South, and broadcasting bilingually. Even if it runs for a few hours a day, it could have a significant impact. One can call it Unity Radio and Television.

29Talking to each otherIn the meantime, some of the private print media could experiment with broadening their coverage to include issues of concern to the South in particular and the regions in general. They could even try to print English language sections. It is no use paying lip service unity without taking some practical steps to support it. Hitherto, people in the North and South have been talking past each other. It is time they started talking to each other.30Starting to TalkA democratic order, at the end of the day, is a community in a free and frank, but courteous conversation. A conversation is a two-way process, involving both talking and listening, and reacting to what is said. If someone shouts: You have stepped on my foot! You do not answer by a comment on the weather. You move your foot and say sorry. That is what conversation is about: mutual understanding and mutual accommodation, not a dialogue of the deaf. But the start is getting oneself heard. And the media is that starting point.31Media of Disunity?In the current stage we are in, the media are reflective more disunity than unity. Because most media outlet currently reflect a one-sided view on issues impacting on unity.This is not always intentional. In particular in the case of the independent print media, the editors are often not aware that this was the case. Issues of prime concern to people from the South are just invisible to them.A good starting point is for the media to start acting as national voices in the true sense of the term.32