Can you win a war on Facebook? By Simon Turner

Recently, I have been trying to keep up with the situation in Bujumbura, the capital city of Burundi in light of the protests and the violence. And while mainstream Western media only mention the situation sporadically, Burundians are busy on social media like Facebook and Twitter. I am struck by the amount of detail that is uploaded every day. It is as if every single arrest is documented, place, name and time recorded and spread through social media together with photos and video clips, recorded on smart phones. Not only do the updates seem to cover a lot of ground and document as many incidents as possible; they are also uploaded so fast that we almost can follow the events in real time – in front of our screens in our offices, on the train to work or at home. The various groups posting these pictures and updates such as ‘Journalistes Et Societé Civile En Danger De Mort Au Burundi’ appear thus to be pretty media savvy and up beat in the social media. The question then whether social media and mobile phones make a big difference. Is the present online, real-time coverage having an impact on the nature of the conflict? In order to answer this, let us go back in time and see how power, violence and media have played themselves out in Burundi’s tumultuous past.

I have engaged with Burundi and Burundians living in exile for almost two decades now. At first talking to Hutu refugees living under harsh conditions in camps in Tanzania. Later among young men and women, hiding in Nairobi, living off nothing and trying to avoid the authorities while they hoped for a better future back home in Burundi or perhaps in North America or Europe. I also have engaged with the elite who made it to Europe and settled in Brussels or Copenhagen, and finally with those who remained at home throughout the civil war. Wherever I met them, they would explain to me why Burundi was at war, who was to blame and what to do about it, and they would always be concerned that the other half was lying. That ‘the truth’ was not getting out. ‘Go back to your country and tell the big people about our problems,’ they would say to me in the camp, as if I were their only hope that the truth would emerge and reach those who had the power to change things.

Information and ‘truth’ about the conflict have in other words always been an integral part of the conflict. It is, in other words, not just a question of who wins on the ground but equally of who gets to define what the conflict is about. In the 1970s and most of the 1980s a small Tutsi elite controlled the army and the one party state with a tight fist. Political decent was not tolerated. Opposition was therefore forced into exile. In Brussels, Rwanda and Tanzania, Hutu organized politically and began formulating alternative visions of society – visions based on ideas of ethnicity and autochtony.

I first met Matthias in his home in Brussels in 2003. He had lived in Belgium for three decades and was a founding member of the oldest ‘Hutu’ party, Palipehutu. He showed me into his ‘office’; a small, stuffy room full of photocopies in stacks, piles of old newspaper clippings and various ‘bulletins’ about Burundi and the Great Lakes. On the walls were posters of the assassinated president Ndadaye and the first leader of Palipehutu, Remy Gahutu. There were also blown up copies of black and white photos of what looked like mass graves and trucks loaded with bodies – the pixels blurring the image. This was his treasure trove. Here, he had all the evidence of the violence that the regime had committed against the Hutu. He and others had carefully collected the evidence. Every time someone escaped the country, he explained, they would invite him or her to a meeting to inform them about the situation. The task of Matthias and his compatriots in Belgium was then to collect and disseminate this information that allegedly was being withheld by the regime. They photocopied and sent newletters. Later they used fax machines to send the information back into Burundi. Now the internet had taken over – but Matthias found this too modern and complicated, so he had his son-in-law print material from the internet for him.

From the late 1990s, websites on the conflict in Burundi mushroomed. They were often run by a handful of exiles in Belgium, Germany and Scandinavia. Their raison d’être was that information coming out of Burundi was being controlled by the regime and that they needed to put things right by providing ‘the truth’. The audience was meant to be fellow Burundians inside and outside Burundi as well as some vague idea of the ‘international community’. By the time I was doing fieldwork in Belgium and Denmark in the early 2000s, Burundi was changing. A peace agreement had been reached and vibrant media were emerging – often supported financially by international donors. As critical journalism grew steadily in Burundi, the diaspora websites were left without a cause. My experience was that they were left in a kind of time pocket where they cultivated conspiratorial narratives about the peace process and the Tutsi who allegedly were still pulling the strings backstage.

So what does this detour into the past tell us about the present conflict and the use of social media? First, using media and controlling information has always been part and parcel of the conflicts in Burundi. All sides of the conflict have attempted to monopolize their version of ‘the truth’. At times the diaspora has played an important role, being able to voice opinions that were banned inside the country. Second, while control of information has always been part of the conflict, technological changes have also affected the way the conflict about the truth is fought out. Until the 1990s, the regime controlled all radio and print media, banning anything that might threaten ‘national unity’. The opposition in exile did its best in obtaining evidence from individuals fleeing the country and circulated the information in closed circuits among like-minded exiles. In the 1990s with the fax and later the Internet, information flowed more freely but was dominated by exiles who had the possibility of hosting websites without being persecuted. Now, with social media giving instant access to vast audiences, it seems that anyone and everyone can disseminate information. The playing field is, however, not level, as some actors are more media savvy than others. And in this case, it appears that the regime is on the loosing end. President Nkurunziza has tried to curb critical journalism, and has at different points in time since April this year tried to close several media – including Iwacu. This may not have been a wise step, as he is now up against journalists who may have been trained in Belgium, who have benefitted from more than a decade of a blossoming critical journalism in Burundi and who now are putting all their effort into documenting the atrocities of the regime and the heroic deeds of the movement – of which they are a part.

While President Nkurunziza is trying to delegitimise the demonstrators as violent thugs with an ethnic –Tutsi – agenda, the journalists and civil society movements on Facebook and Twitter insist on the peaceful nature of the demonstrations and that the struggle is not ethnic but rather about democracy. If the conflict is indeed about defining what the conflict is about, it seems that the opposition may have the upper hand.

Simon Turner is Associate Professor at the Centre for Advanced Migration Studies, University of Copenhagen. He has done research on Burundi and Rwanda since 1997 and has written about refugees, rumours, gender, humanitarianism, diaspora and conflict.

This entry was posted in Diaspora, Election violence, Elections, Media and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Can you win a war on Facebook? By Simon Turner

  1. Coyi says:

    Burundi conflict is both complex and easy to understand. Complex for those led by emotions on what they are told rather than what they observe and experience, those who never took time to live with Burundians especially within as from the time of colonialism, from 60s to 80s, from 90s to 2003 then from the latter to today. It is easy to those who take time to know Burundians, antropologically, culturally, historically, ethnically, politically, socially and objectivelly. You can consult someone like J.P Chretiens who took time to know Burundi very well and others like Simon Turner, whom I know has been trying to understand Burundi history.

    This is an extract of some of interesting passages about the reality in Burundi:

    “«Nous pouvons affirmer sans risque de nous tromper que c’est du tribalisme. (…) ce sont certains responsables insatiables qui pour faire aboutir leurs ambitions inavouables, font la division ethnique une stratégie politique. Alors s’ils sont Tutsi, ils dénoncent au besoin avec des complots tactiques à l’appui, un péril hutu à contrer ; s’ils sont Hutu, ils dévoilent un ‘apartheid tutsi à combattre. Et cela s’orchestre avec une mise en scène diabolique pour que le sentiment prenne le pas sur la raison». le commandant Martin NDAYAHOZE cité par CHRETIENS (1993, p.332)”.

    This message was captured in 60s. There after followed a Coup d’Etat that led to an ethnic based government. As a result 1972 tragedy occured where thousands of innocent citizens were savagely slaughtered. This was orchestrated by a small group of greedy people who used ethnic curtain as a bridge to sail their unmerciful decisions to help them stick to power by discriminating one group of the population.

    Check what the former Deputy President said: “Les conflits d’intérêts peuvent soulever quelques difficultés. …. L’homme est toujours l’homme, lorsque son intérêt n’est pas satisfait, il essaie toujours de dire que c’est l’intérêt du groupe pour se renforcer.” SINUNGURUZA T.

    There is another category of people who are just zenophobic, full of hatred bad spirits:

    ” Le député KAYABU (1968) cité par NGAYIMPENDA (1998, p.73) révèle la dimension de la haine : «Le Hutu n’a jamais gouverné. Plutôt que d’être gouverné par un Hutu, je préférerais mourir». this also was in 60s when Ngendandumwe, a hutu, was going to be chosen as Prime Minister.

    As a christian faith based person I am not surprised because I even get similar people in the Bible who prefer to die rather than seeing their other people coming to their senses and change for better or living well:

    Jonah’s Anger at God’s Kindness:

    “Therefore, Lord, please kill me, because it’s better for me to die than to live!” Jonas Said

    “Greatly displeased, Jonah flew into a rage. So he prayed to the Lord, “Lord, isn’t this what I said while I was still in my home country? That’s why I fled previously to Tarshish, because I knew you’re a compassionate God, slow to anger, overflowing with gracious love, and reluctant to send trouble. Therefore, Lord, please kill me, because it’s better for me to die than to live!”
    The Lord replied, Does being angry make you right?” Jonas 4:1-4

    Jonas prefered death instead of seing people of Ninive enjoying God’s forgiveness and peace! In Burundi we have such a people from both Hutus and Tutsis.

    From all these views you can guess why Burundi conflict is prevailing up to tadoy!

    We have these category of people:

    1. Greedy people: The are many and cause more atrocities. The are corrupt and can kill whoever , regardless of his class, is trying to stop them from achieving their machiavellian goals. If he is a hutu, he will try to convince hutus that they are facing danger from tutsis, if they are tutsis they tell their fello tutsis that a genocide is coming from Hutus.

    2. People full of hatred based on ethnicity: These are arrogant people by nature and are very few. You find them on Hutus side and on Tutsis’ side as well. They think that the other ethnic group is not worthy ruling or living like KAYABU and JONAS did.

    3. Opportunists: They turn where the wind of interests goes. These have a tendancy to work with everyone as long as they see personal interests for the bellies. This category of people cause a lot of confusion and crooks. They are like bats, cameleon.

    4. upright people: Notable men and women who are not led by emotions, personal interests whose prayer is to see burundians unite regardless of their groups (ethnic, region, religion,…). Greedy people are most of the time a hindrance to upright people way. Truth is their culture. They don’t take sides and speak truth without favour or fear. Burundi has been surviving because of such people. God uses such people to bring about unity among the community.

    5 Innocent people (These people need just someone who can leave them alone, give them peace so as to labor for their daily endsmeat peacefully, they need peace of mind)

    There comes a time when category 4 will win and Burundi will be peacefull. God is in Control.

  2. I have also met some older generation exiles like your Matthias. You are using him in your article as a foil against supposedly more dynamic and contemporary journalists and civil society people. That comparison is very misleading. Just because some people do not know how to use digital media tools effectively, that does not invalidate the injustice they have to live with. It is not a conspiracy, it is the issue of complete impunity. Western human rights warriors are busy attacking Nkurunziza but have little to say about 1965, 1969, 1972, 1988, 1993, massacres of refugees in DRC by FAB who were helping RPF and ADFL etc, etc. Why is Nkurunziza singled out while all these people are free and clear. Why is Samantha Power meddling in Burundi and silent about Kagame or many other US allies.

    What I really disagree with in this post is that you are using a framework of good versus evil to interpret Burundi: the atrocities of the regime versus the heroic movement. I agree some of the opposition movement are heroic but some are not. An opposition general has taken responsibility for grenade attacks in Bujumbura, opposition people have tried to lynch and kill government supporters, not to mention burning some innocent telecom technician alive because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Opposition people have used social media to deliberately spread lies and misinformation: demonizing the entire police force, interchanging imbonerakure with interahamwe and FDLR (ridiculous and inaccurate). Some opposition people let children participate in violent street protests- of course something bad is going to happen… a kid is killed and his face immediately appears on twitter accounts as propaganda against the government. A good friend of mine who is Burundian was disgusted with Radio Bonesha- he was listening to the station and they were not just conveying anti-government messages but also hatred. Having lived through 1972 and the war in early 1990s he was dismayed to hear such propaganda.

    The way you are interpreting the information war on Burundi is through the imaginary of liberalism. This post says more to me about western obsession with humans rights and civil society discourses as somehow intrinsically moral and progressive. It is a focus on form without questioning how the content can incorporate all kinds of manipulation, violence, propaganda etc. You should talk to more Nkurunziza supporters and rural people who do not have easy digital platform to send out tweets and facebook posts every minute of the day

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s