Home >> Africa >> Tanzania

     Email   Print 

Another way of looking at Sauper's controversial documentary

Telesphor R. Magobe - 8/24/2006

I leave it to each one of us judge Hubert Sauper's controversial documentary Darwin Nightmare. But it is important that we don't seek to blindly wriggle off the hook when we face a challenge. It is clear that documentary has come under scathing attack in Tanzania only after President Jakaya Kikwete's monthly speech in Mwanza at the end of July this year in which he said the film had tarnished our country's image.

The speech then prompted adverse comments of rare proportions, notably from government officials, legislators and the ruling CCM. Some called for the legal action against the Sauper and his "local collaborators". Most of those opposed to the film said their stance was driven by patriotism, and they thus branded those holding alternative views as puppets of our country's foreign enemies. It is upon all of us to say how this divided opinion related to the need for freedom of expression.

For instance, is the whole of the documentary entirely false and misleading or is it that only particular portions distort the reality about Mwanza and the Lake Victoria fish industry? Should it be treasonable for anyone to suggest that Sauper had a point?

A true story will always remain true even if some people swear to the contrary. Why is it only now that we are witnessing all this condemnation and not soon after the film was made some three years ago?

It may be convenient to lie low until the some senior official makes a point - even if we see things happening in broad daylight - but is it proper?

President Kikwete recently visited Manzese, Mbagala and Tegeta in Dar es Salaam, finding the areas a hundred times cleaner than they were just the previous day - and for sure than they were soon after!

This is a wrong approach and should not be entertained because it means that we often act too late for any intervention to have the expected impact. That is why critics refer to such behaviour as hypocrisy because it has neither originality nor creativity.

One wonders what would have happened if the President had not mentioned Sauper's documentary during his Mwanza speech! Would the mammoth Mwanza demonstration have been held anyway? Would the National Assembly have debated the matter in official session?

The story is told of two ancient philosophers, Diogenes and Aristippus. Diogenes was having lentils for supper as Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king, looked on. "If you learnt to be subservient to the king you would not live on such garbage as lentils," said Aristippus. "If you had learnt to live on lentils you would not have to flatter the king," replied Diogenes. It is hard to say which philosophy Tanzanian politicians would subscribe to.

At least 20 people were killed when police fired on a Civic United Front demonstration in the Isles in January 2001. Scores of CUF members supporters fled into exile, while several others were arrested and charged with conducting an illegal demonstration.

Questions are being asked why the issue was not officially taken to Parliament for debate and condemnation. There is also the 2001 case of the 135 villagers in Serengeti District whose houses were burnt down allegedly on orders from the local district commissioner.

Why has this never really been an issue? The long-running pay-related tribulations of the former employees of the East African Community are also a case in point - and there are numerous others. Nevertheless, these are real issues that often do not catch our immediate attention, much as they tarnish the image of our nation because they show how we perform on a day-to-day basis.

My suggestion is that, soon after we see something wrong in our immediate surroundings, we should plan to seek redress without resorting to discriminatory language or labelling others puppets because they too will label us hypocrites and flatterers and we will all be the losers! I believe we are all confronted with the same challenge but we only reason differently.