Can We Discuss National Issues Without Insults, Invectives Or “Ma-Cuss?”

By atty Philip N. Wesseh (PNW)
Many constitutions of countries in the world provide provisions for freedom of speech and freedoms of the press. Liberia, as a member of the world, is not exempted from this, as its own Constitution also provides provision for freedoms, but unambiguously warns against the abuse of these freedoms, sending a clear message that these freedoms are not absolute, but go with responsibility, as we are even told in media ethics.

Article 15 of the Liberian Constitution states; ”Every person shall have the right to freedom of expression, being fully responsible for the abuse thereof. This right shall not be curtailed, restricted or enjoined by government save during an emergency declared in accordance with this Constitution; This right encompasses the right to hold opinions without interference and the right to knowledge. It includes freedom of speech and of the press, academic freedom to receive and impart knowledge and information and the right of libraries to make such knowledge available. It includes non-interference with the use of the mail, telephone and telegraph. It likewise includes the right to remain silent. In pursuance of this right, there shall be no limitation on the public right to be informed about the government and its functionaries; Access to state owned media shall not be denied because of any disagreement with or dislike of the ideas express. Denial of such access may be challenged in a court of competent jurisdiction; This freedom may be limited only by judicial action in proceedings grounded in defamation or invasion of the rights of privacy and publicity or in the commercial aspect of expression in deception, false advertising and copyright infringement

Frankly, these freedoms are all intended to provide opportunities for citizens to express their views on national issues and issues of concern responsibly; and also for the media which serves as the conduit and conveyor of information to be free to transmit those messages or expressions. In so doing, this is another way of people contributing to national growth and development.

Disappointingly and regrettably, in today’s Liberia, the picture is so gloomy and quite different; as national discourse is fraught with insults and invectives. I should not be misconstrued as saying that this is an issue for today, but in all fairness, it is too profound, especially so with the trading of insults.

Sometimes people say this is the intent of freedom of speech. I disagree because the purpose and essence of freedom of speech is not to insult. No matter how we disagree or differ on issues, we have to do so with civility and maturity.

Even in our disagreement or critical action on issues, insults are not the best way to communicate. Equally, so, our national leaders, no matter how they disagree, should not also go gutter or intolerably respond to their perceived critics.

Culturally, it is even a taboo to engage in such negative acts, more so, on what is referred to as “MA-CUSS.” This is completely diametrical to the generally acceptable norms and values of our society.

“Ma-cuss,’ is a Liberian parlance which denotes a situation in which the mothers of people are insulted or are classified derogatorily. It can be likened to what is referred as, ‘transferred aggression.’

What is more nauseating about this is the fact that some of us in the media allow our platforms to be used to transmit these insults. Media practitioners have a responsibility to ensure that these insults are not allowed. This is in consonance with the “SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY’ or “GATE-KEEPING’ role of the media.

That is, working for the interest or general good of society. Indeed, insults are not good for our society, especially as our young people, who are the future leaders to listen to them.

Whenever I think about this negative trend in our national politics, I am reminded of the good behavior and mature utterances of the progressives, and then headed by the late Gabriel Baccus Matthews in the 80’s. The group advocated for positive change during the one-party rule of the True Whig Party (TWP). They never used insults or invectives to speak on national issues.

I believe that if we, as a people and national leaders today emulate the good example of the progressives, our discourse would not be characterized by insults and invectives.

I Rest My Case