How political elite and scholars subvert national cohesion

When faced with a national issue, it is a common citizenry behaviour to lend ears to opinion leaders. In Kenya, this club is composed of scholars, political and religious leaders. The mass media provide a platform for them to give their views and solutions. Many a time, this coveted opportunity has been abused and used only to fan the fire at the expense of providing meaningful solutions.

Philosophers have for a long time described the power of the spoken word; by it nations have been built through persuasion of legendary leaders for a common cause. Franklin Delano Roosevelt used it to plant and water hope in the hearts of Americans during the great depression and war through his fire-side radio talks. America pulled through and emerged as a strong nation, a superpower. This earned Roosevelt a place among the greatest US statesmen together with Abraham Lincoln and George Washington. The success of his fire-side radio chats breathed life into the hypodermic needle theory of mass media.  In the same breath, it must be pointed out that countries have been set on fire through the spoken word in the mass media; no need to mention Kenya’s post-election violence of 2007/8 and the Rwandan genocide.

Aristotle in his academic argument on communication ethics emphasised that persuasion can only be achieved through the moral force and character of the speaker as perceived by the target audience. Such a character is based on a sober and unbiased approach to addressing a problem in a way that appeals to your friends and perceived enemies in equal measure. This is an important trait our leaders must endeavour to learn and apply; Mr. Obama in his recent tour of the country noted the importance of having the whole and not half of the team playing if we have to win; a fact that should inform our Jubilee and Cord factions and their supporters when tackling national matters.

Our opinion leaders have a crucial role in the decision making process of the lay public; being their selected or elected leaders. Our politicians, religious and academic leaders set the tempo for the public. If they want us to be united patriots, it is an easy task, which they can achieve within a very short time. However, this remains a mirage because our version of democracy is firmly built on divisive hearsays; political ambitions do not need accompanying ideologies, but are anchored on public display of hatred of a perceived enemy or worse still, on dislike for a region or a tribe. Any public display of love for a political “enemy” is construed as an act of betrayal – and this is the greatest problem with our political leadership.

Subsequently, whenever a national problem comes our way, objective dissection of the issue is thrown out the window; it is politicised, generating a lot of heat. Before long another issue will come up and it will follow the same sequel; creating a time bomb – as many problems left unresolved don’t die, they pile somewhere and thus become dangerous.

In the contemporary digital era, their word reaches the audience very fast and sets the public mood. The sad reality is that neutrality has been lost to their respective political masters. Learned fellows who lectured in universities, wrote objective and informative newspaper columns and gave public lectures on governance have been turned into dogs for hire; where they should have given expert opinion, they adopt see no-evil hear no-evil subjective stances that mock their intellect.

But of great concern is the current abuse of the mass media by opinion leaders who spew forth injurious words amid applause from their supporters in total disregard of the effect this is having on our nation. Our young children are listening to these verbally unpalatable words and since leaders are their role models, it will not be long before they adapt these behaviours.

Counter-accusations and disregard for the truth will never assist us in seeking solutions that affect our constituents in equal measure. Basic communication ethics call for sobriety in the choice of messages so that they do not hurt anybody, but convey the intended message.