The Perils of Censoring Community Activists: Upholding Democracy or Suppressing Voices?

In any democratic society, the exchange of diverse ideas and perspectives is the lifeblood that
sustains the principles of representation and governance. Community activists play a crucial role in
this process, advocating for the rights and concerns of the people, from all sections of society.
However, a growing concern has emerged regarding the censorship or the deliberate limitation of
these activists, allegedly to allow elected representatives to dominate the narrative. This raises
important questions about the balance between preserving democratic values and maintaining order
within the political landscape as a diverse and vibrant participatory model.

Community activists are individuals or groups who passionately advocate for social, economic, and
political change, participation, and inclusion within their communities. Their efforts often revolve
around addressing issues such as inequality, injustice, environmental concerns, and other matters
that impact the lives of those less enabled to voice concerns around a myriad number of issues and
especially exclusion. By acting as a bridge between the community and elected officials, activists
contribute to the democratic process by bringing attention to marginalised voices and holding
representatives accountable for their actions.

In some instances, elected representatives may seek to control or limit the activities of community
activists to consolidate their own power and dominate the narrative. Censorship can take various
forms, including restricting access to public forums, suppressing dissenting opinions, or manipulating
media coverage. While these measures may be justified by some in the name of maintaining order,
they also pose a threat to the fundamental principles of democracy, recently contacting social media
platforms seems to have increased, removing community or personal pages if they highlight voting
records or post videos of speeches that politicians have denied making.

The Dangers of Dominating the Narrative.

When elected representatives exert too much control over the narrative, there is a risk of stifling
healthy debate, hindering the free flow of information, and suppressing dissenting voices. This not
only undermines the democratic process but also creates an environment where decisions are made
without considering the diverse perspectives and needs of the community. Eventually, this leads to a
loss of trust in the political system and a weakening of the very foundations upon which participatory
democracy stands.
To preserve the democratic fabric of a society, it is essential to strike a balance between maintaining
order and upholding the right of community activists to voice their concerns. Open dialogue,
transparency, and a commitment to inclusivity are vital components of a thriving democracy. Elected
representatives should view community activists as valuable partners in the pursuit of a more just
and equitable society rather than as obstacles to their own agendas.

The tension between preserving democracy and maintaining order is a delicate balance that requires
careful consideration. While it is understandable that elected representatives may seek to control the
narrative for the sake of governance, and their party control of Government to administer their
policies, it is crucial to avoid the pitfalls of censoring or limiting community activists. True democracy
thrives on the diversity of voices, ideas, participation and inclusion, and any attempts to stifle these
expressions should be met with scrutiny and resistance. As we navigate the complexities of modern
governance, it is imperative to remain vigilant in defending the principles that underpin our
democratic societies, as can be seen when we look at history control of the narrative by one section
of society, one party or an individual never ends well.