The NBC Chat Shows

‘I know no safe depository of the aspirations of society but the people themselves, if we find them not enlightened enough to exercise their authority with wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take away their authority, but to inform their discretion’ (Roosevelt, circa 1930)

THE principle of a deliberative democracy condones free speech and chat shows remain the offspring of the principle in question.

Virtually all Namibians have, for the better part of the last 18 years, both benefited from and enriched this dialogue. There were divergent positions on how best these chat shows should be organised and applied. Some in society felt that they must be left loose to become somewhat of a socio-political therapeutic discourse. Some felt that they must be guided more while left to address contemporary topical issues, while others felt that they must be rigidly controlled and guided through set topics.
Against this backdrop and given the fact that issues of interest prevail for many Namibians, the need to sustain dialogue through these chat shows remains prominent in society, save for those who are occasionally on the receiving end or who detest the element of abuse by some participants to these programmes. Suffice it to note that the problem of abuse is not global and is limited to certain radio stations.
Notwithstanding the good intentions with the chat shows, the element of abuse by some callers has continued to confound the chat shows, much to the disappointment of the larger public and more so to the frustration of the programme hosts, the latter who in the end take the flak for lack of control. But it is only when the first call is registered that the presenter gets the gist of what to expect.
And the spoken word, unlike the written word, is hard to edit.
One evening I went into the studio to calm emotions during these controversial topical discussions. A caller started off by praising the leaders and mentioned some by name. ‘But, Mr. Kandetu’ she said: ‘it is only when the water ends up on your face that you can appreciate how hot the water is’. Ten seconds later I did grasp the meaning, but by then she was gone.
The point is that it is only after the spoken word has settled that we can appreciate its meaning and therefore its effect on society. It is against this backdrop that we must understand the frustration of those in society who call for the closure of the chat shows. But we can close the chat shows only at the risk of gagging society and thereby regimenting thinking in our democracy with all the ingredients of positively promoting an open society as we have seen in the last 18 years.
Our wisdom must be not to take away the authority of society to guide development through dialogue, but to inform society’s discretion in dealing with contextual issues. This challenge is as true to the ordinary person as it is to our leaders.
Democracy must be guaranteed for all and we must accept that where my democratic rights start, somebody else’s have just stopped and mine will stop in time for somebody else’s to start. To this end, there are no shortcuts to progress and in the words of Peter Tosh: ‘If you live in a glass house, do not throw stones’.
The shows must continue, albeit with integrity and a high sense of mutual regard. To stop them is tantamount to constraining public debate and that is not in conformity with the principle of deliberative democracy.