Intolerance and the ideal of unique thinking have been strong marks of Angolan “activists”. These supposed champions of democracy have made an opposition that does not encourage the elevation of the debate and reverses the precepts of democracy in Angola.
In the book How Democracies Die, Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt made it very clear that the process of democratization of states has no end. Regardless of political maturity, there is no guarantee that all democratic advances will not be abruptly destroyed.
Democracy persists for several reasons. In addition to the primacy of the rule of law and the institutions that determine its functioning, it also persists due to unwritten agreements or through repeated practices that are not necessarily legislated, but that are applied according to the common practice that different political actors of a given state have accomplished over the years.
Because, as we read in Robert A. Dahl (1998), the democratic regime obeys several criteria. One of which is effective participation in politics. This implies, among other things, that everyone has the right to express their opinions and express themselves freely, as democracy aims to give voice and time to everyone, and not to a select group of individuals. No one should be restrained from presenting their opinion.
In Angola, democracy is an achievement of and for all. Democratization is seen as an irreversible process, resulting from the ceding of power and its main protagonist is the MPLA. But it also took off in a strategic way to adapt to the post-cold war environment, meet new demands in the post-civil war context and appears as a mechanism for managing political power.
One of the representations of the political openness that the country has registered since 1991/2 is the emancipation of civil society – whose importance in the process of peace, reconciliation and deepening of democracy is very great.
In the nearly thirty years since the beginning of the democratization process, one of the most notable phenomena is the appearance of the self-styled Revolutionary Movement (hereinafter Movimento Revú), composed of groups and personalities whose activity is essentially limited to contesting the MPLA. They present themselves mainly as civic activists, but it also includes academics, journalists and artists. They are, therefore, considered as elements of civil society, non-partisan (despite calling for the vote and campaigning in favor of the opposition, especially UNITA) and, in recent times, have led the challenge to power.
It is not difficult to understand the identity and objectives of the Revú Movement. In the main communication vehicles where they express themselves – in social networks, but also in their portals and the like -, they make it clear what they are and what they want.
Since João Lourenço came to power, Angola has been identified as one of the African countries with the most progress in governance (see, for example, the progression in the Mo Ibrahim 2020 indexes; The Economist 2020), despite the various difficulties that the country presents, especially from the point of view of solving economic problems, a situation aggravated by the covid-19 pandemic.
Recently, the country’s highest mandate summoned representatives of Angolan youth, including the “revús”, for a democratic dialogue aimed at gathering concerns, clarifying and reaching common solutions to the problems faced. As expected, some “activists” downplayed the importance of the act and published texts stating that they would not participate if called upon, others simply did not attend, interrupting this constructive, more efficient, and effective way of solving problems.
This attitude was by no means admirable. In other words, I would admire if the scope of the “revú” was essentially civic. It would not make sense for an activist who raises the banner of democracy, tolerance, dialogue, and peaceful solutions in favor of stability, to belittle a meeting that just promoted these values. Some people condemn the “revús” for underestimating this possibility and vilifying the few “courageous” who were there, as are the cases of Nito Alves and Mbanza Hanza, two militants of the self-proclaimed “Movimento Revú” that integrated the popular 15 + 2 process. The “revús”, at least, the leaders of the movement, those who build narratives and program actions, are politicians … opposition politicians. In fact, apparently, an opposition that has no interest,
These supposed champions of democracy have made an opposition that does not encourage the elevation of the debate and reverses the precepts of democracy in Angola, preventing the process from following the path that it must necessarily follow.
This reversal occurs as, on the one hand, the “revús” do not realize that democracy is built through repeated, non-legislated good practices, as was the meeting that the President of Angola held with the youth. On the other hand, they do not recognize the criterion of the effective participation of certain people. What even seems strange or humorous: an individual who fights for the democratic process to be increasingly consolidated, but also acts against this propagated objective.
Intolerance and the ideal of unique thinking have been strong marks of Angolan “activists”. For these individuals, an opinion is only valid when it is against the actions and speeches of the MPLA and the executive or when it is in accordance with their ideas or is favorable to parliamentary opposition, especially UNITA by Adalberto da Costa Júnior. When someone, even if not an MPLA activist, agrees with the ruling party, this opinion is no longer helpful and a public defamation campaign is carried out against the person. There are a series of adjectives and derogatory phrases that are used to designate such people – who are or are seen as “sold”, “bajú” (of a sycophant), someone who does not respect himself, anyway … And, in the understanding of Most of these “activists”, such adjectives are not valid for the opposition. Flattery,
In social networks, their capital habitat, they mobilize their followers for recurring character killing practices, delivering countless offenses against those who corroborate or support the MPLA, or who simply say or do something they don’t like, even attacking people. whose trajectory in contesting power was notable, such as the cases of Rafael Marques, João Paulo Ganga and, recently, David Mendes (who was a lawyer in the 15 + 2 case).
These attitudes create an environment where unique thinking prevails, making people with an opinion contrary to their own afraid to express themselves. In other words, they have symbolic power and are destroying what Michel Foucault conceived as parresia, which presupposes speaking the truth without any fear.
Usually, in terms of historical location, those who are in power have done this, but in Angola the current scenario is very peculiar and worrying. Those who are destroying parresia are mainly those who oppose those in power. Anyone who thinks the opposite of them shy away, does not manifest, because he knows that otherwise he will be applying for a virtual lynching or is even at risk of his life.
Consequently, all the advances in the Angolan democratic process that allow the “revús” to carry out their activities would run the risk of disappearing abruptly, if the power holders decided to give a response at the same level, which would, in fact, be a follow-up to a standard, as evidenced by Ziblatt and Levitsky.
Edmundo gunza
PÚBLICO
