A Critical Discourse Analysis of How South African Publics Engaged in the Social Media Platform, Namely Facebook, Over Nkandlagate
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF HOW SOUTH AFRICAN PUBLICS ENGAGED IN THE SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM, FACEBOOK, OVER NKANDLAGATE IN 2015 by Sally Kumwenda Student Number: 814039 A Research project submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MA by course work and Research Report in the Department of Journalism and Media Studies, Faculty of Humanities University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg Supervisor: Dr. Glenda Daniels Date March 2016 i DECLARATION I declare that this research report is completely my own, unaided work. It has not been submitted before for any other degree or examination at this or any other university. All the sources and quotes used have been acknowledged accordingly. I am not allowing anybody to use my research without my consent, the consent of my supervisor or the University of the Witwatersrand. __________________________ Sally Kumwenda Date: 15th March 2016 Word count: 29,640 ii ABSTRACT The Nkandlagate scandal, in which the South African President, Jacob Zuma allegedly spent an estimated R246 million of taxpayers’ money on the renovation of his Nkandla residence, created huge public outcry. This reached yet another height in 2015 when Zuma’s administration declared that the President was not going to pay back the money as demanded by the South African publics. The publics of South Africa used social media platforms to express themselves over the decision. Studies have shown that social media platforms provide an opportunity for political mobilisation of publics and their participation in democracy. Using critical discourse analysis, this study seeks to investigate how South African publics engaged in the social media platform, particularly Facebook, over Nkandlagate. The research focuses on the discussions by two political parties’ Facebook pages: an opposition party, the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), and the ruling African National Congress (ANC). The analysis involves posts and comments made by South African publics on each of the Facebook pages to establish how South Africans made use of Facebook to express themselves over Nkandlagate, how the two parties covered Nkandlagate and what kind of discourse emerged from the parties’ posts. The concepts used in this research include the networked public sphere, democracy, watchdog and collective will/opinion. Three dimensions of critical discourse analysis were used for data analysis in this study: description (text genres), interpretation (discursive type) and explanation (social practice.) The insights of South African publics social practices were recognised. This research argues that to a large extent, social media has provided South African publics with access to Facebook a public sphere through which democracy – particularly in terms of freedom of speech – is exercised. However, there is a lack of democratic interaction in that although there was interactive engagement amongst publics, there was a lack of interactive engagement between politicians and publics. Keywords: Social media, public sphere, Facebook, democracy, Nkandlagate iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am greatly indebted to Dr. Bishop Barnabas Lekganyane, the Spiritual leader of the Zion Christian Church. Papa, those of us who know who you really are have witnessed endless blessings, love and care from you spiritually. I have met fearsome battles in front of me, but by your grace they have all come to pass. I love you so much papa. I can‟t even thank you more for how you have dealt with my situations during my studies. Blessed are those who look at you with such admiration, fear, respect and trust for they will continue witnessing your glory throughout their entire lives. If it was not for you, the devil could have stolen my education blessings away from me, but you refused. I salute you Mongameli. To my best friend, Brian Boby; James 1 vs. 17 says: „Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows‟. I do not think I can thank God enough for the person you are to me. In fact I am always in disbelief that people like you exist in this world. I cannot thank you enough for coming into my life. Although you are somebody who holds a very senior position at your work place and are very busy with your work, you have always worked tirelessly editing whatever I sent you. You have been helping me edit this research even when it meant finishing close to dawn. I am speechless, Brian. Only God is the one who can know how to thank you on my behalf. To my Supervisor, Dr. Glenda Daniels; God sent you to me, because I saw you in my dreams before we even spoke. A month before I met you, I told Brian that I had dreamt that I had another supervisor, a female, who was very good; very, very good. And I told Brian that if only God can give me the person I had dreamt of as my supervisor, I would have no problems in accomplishing my research. Since then it was my prayer until we met for the very first time. From that very first meeting I glorified God that you were the female I had seen in my dreams, the same day I explained to my best friend Brian. I am so grateful to God for the kind of a person you are. Very humble, down to earth, very understanding; surely I cannot thank you more – only God should help me thank you. iv DEDICATION To the noblest woman I have ever met, Professor Libby Meintjes. Being a mother does not necessarily mean a woman bearing children, but how a woman is able to think and act reasonably. You are such a woman, a mother figure to all students under your department. May God keep blessing you and the position He blessed you with at Wits University. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Declaration………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ii Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… iii Dedication…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. iv Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… v List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ix CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1 1.1 Background of the Study…..…………………………………….…………………………………………………………. 1 1.2 Digital Divide………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 2 1.2.1. South Africa and digital divide…………………………………………………………………………………….. 4 1.3 Rationale of the Research.…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 5 1.4 Research Question…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 7 1.4.1 Central research question……………………………………………………………………………………………. 7 1.4.2 Sub question……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 7 1.5 Research Design and Methodology……………………………………………………………………………………. 7 1.6 Outline of Chapters……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 8 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 9 2.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 9 2.2 Preliminary Studies……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 10 2.2.1 Brief history of President Jacob Zuma………………………………………………………………………….. 10 2.2.2 Nkandla ‘gate’ background………………………………………………………………………………………….. 13 2.2.3 Facebook……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 17 2.4 New Media…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 18 2.5 Participatory Democracy………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 19 2.6 Participatory Journalism…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 21 2.7 Social Media Networks……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 23 2.8 Arab Spring…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 26 2.9 Challenges Associated with Social Media……………………………………………………………………………. 27 2.10 South Africa and Social Media…………………………………………………………………………………………… 28 2.11 Facebook is the Most Popular and Influential Social Networking Website in South Africa with 12 million monthly active users………………………………………………………………………………… 29 2.12 Why do People Join Facebook? ............................................................................................. 30 2.13 Facebook use in South Africa…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 32 2.14 Power Influence of Social Media to Politicians: Benefits and Challenges…………………………… 33 2.15 South African Political Parties and Social Media………………………………………………………………… 35 2.16 The Range of Political Parties’ Social Media Usage…………………………………………………………….. 38 2.17 Barriers to the Usage of Social Media by Political Parties in South Africa (ibid.)…………………. 38 vi 2.18 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 39 CHAPTER 3: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK…………………………………………………………………………………. 40 3.1 Networked public sphere……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 40 3.2 Critics of Habermas…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 43 3.3 The network society……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 46 3.4 Concepts used in this research……………………………………………………………………………………………. 51 3.4.1 Democracy…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 51 3.4.2 Networked public sphere…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 52 3.4.3 Watchdog…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 52 3.4.4 Public opinion……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 53 3.5 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 53 CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY…………………………………………………………….. 55 4.1. Qualitative research method……………………………………………………………………………………………… 55 4.2. Sampling and data collection……………………………………………………………………………………………… 56 4.3. Critical discourse analysis…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 57 CHAPTER 5: DATA ANALYSIS……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 61 5.1. Analysing the texts……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 61 5.1.1 Analysis 1: Post……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….