There was some discussion earlier in this newspaper, particularly in the letters column, about whether Mavado should have been banned from performing in this country. Artists in Western society are allowed considerable latitude, if only because it is perceived as dangerous to stifle the creative spirit. Censorship brings back unpleasant memories of repressed societies such as those of the communist era, where the state determined what was art and what was not. And it is not for nothing that autocracies in general fear artists more than ordinary rebellious citizens; they represent a challenge to the supposed intellectual dominance of the rulers and their ‘right’ to think on behalf of the people. At their best artists can speak to the soul of a nation, and their criticisms can be both sophisticated and subtle.
Having said that, no one could accuse the dancehall artistes of subtlety; their message is nothing if not uninhibited and explicit. They operate in a genre where the lyrics are everything, albeit delivered to the accompaniment of a hypnotic beat. The musical wrapping has not been the issue however; like every other musical style that is a question of personal taste. The question is whether the lyrics – violent and sometimes hate-filled in tone – raise issues which go beyond the purely musical.
Some commentators have said that the lyrics are just a reflection of the society, a position taken by Mavado himself, who was reported in Stabroek News of September 19 as saying that they were a response to what he saw around him, and the only way they would change was when society changed. It is perhaps a less than convincing argument. It is one thing to write about the conditions one sees around one and give them a slant that this should not be, and quite another to glorify those conditions.
And there is no hint in the music of Mavado or Bounty Killa or Vybz Kartel and the rest, that they themselves are not subscribing to the violence, the degradation of women and the gay bashing that they are singing about. In other words, they come over as having a message, and it is this to which their audience responds. As Mr Orrin Gordon writing in the September 24 edition of this newspaper said, the people who turned up to the Mavado show wanted to hear “exactly what was belted out.”
If, for the sake of argument, one were to imagine some perverted group whose members indulged in the torture of others, and who recorded songs seemingly endorsing their activities, would any sane government feel itself obliged to allow their musical renditions public exposure on the grounds of artistic licence? It might be argued that torture is not a good analogy, since among other things it transgresses human rights and is against the law. But then so is some of what Mavado et al sing about. And the words are extraordinarily gruesome in their imagery. As Mr Gordon rightly expressed it, “…the imagery of ‘marrow flying’ is ghastly in its utter savagery.” It is not even as if off-stage these particular dancehall artistes advise their fans that while they are describing their world in their lyrics, this is not a world to be emulated. Again, the implication is, therefore, that they see nothing wrong with the violence, the gang warfare, the mistreatment of women, etc.
It might be added, that if some of the lyrics were to be divorced from their musical context to be recited on their own, they might very well be considered too offensive and potentially inciteful for broadcast or reproduction.
Furthermore, Mavado and company have an extraordinarily cavalier approach to the connection between what they perform on stage and their fans’ subsequent actions. Reams have been written about the extent to which certain films, video games, etc, influence behaviour, but it is probably hazardous to make generalizations in this department. However, there is evidence in this particular case that the so-called ‘war’ between one or another of the Jamaican performers has led to violence between their fans in more than one Caribbean territory in the past.
It was fears about violence which caused Mavado to be banned from Guyana last year. Mavado himself has declined to make any connection between his performance and the later reactions of his fans, a position which Mr Gordon quite rightly called “disingenuous.” Others in society have to take responsibility for their actions, so why should the dancehall artistes believe that they are exempt?
Exactly why the authorities changed their minds about allowing Mavado into Guyana this year has not been sufficiently explained. On September 13 we reported President Jagdeo as saying that he had apologized for his previous performance here when his lyrics were offensive, while Dr Luncheon said he was being given an opportunity to mend his ways. Well mend his ways he surely didn’t, and one would have thought that the authorities were unduly naïve to think that he would. One can only hope that their change of heart was not a consequence of indulging the request of a big promoter close to the government. Either it is the right decision to prevent Mavado from performing here, or it is not; principle is not dependent on the status of the promoter involved.
According to a report in the Jamaica Gleaner on October 4, Trinidad had no qualms about denying Bounty Killa entry when he landed in Piarco. Despite the fact that he had lead billing in a concert on the island, he was unceremoniously sent back without even the courtesy of an explanation. The Jamaican paper offered the reason that following a previous concert appearance with Vybz Kartel there had been violence between the different fan followings.
Of course as several commentators have observed, even if it were desirable to ban certain lyrics, it is nowadays technologically impossible to impose complete censorship. But perhaps one can make a distinction between private listening and public expression. You should be entitled to listen to whatever you want in the privacy of your own home through the media of CDs, DVDs, video recordings, tapes, the internet, etc. However, that should not mean that artistes singing offensive lyrics of the type under discussion should be allowed to attract large numbers of people together in one place where potentially they could be worked up into aggressive group mode, so to speak.
This particularly applies in a society where the subject matter of the songs is not an abstraction belonging to another universe. No doubt a Mavado concert in Sweden could possibly be regarded as no more damaging to the fabric of the society there than an Elton John performance, although the sentiments in some of the lyrics may be seen as nonetheless unacceptable. But in our corner of the planet, what the dancehall artistes sing about has an immediate relevance to a real world and is infinitely more dangerous, potentially speaking. By extension, the public airwaves should not facilitate the broadcast of material which is so offensive as to constitute possible incitement and an assault on fundamental human rights, more particularly as said above, because the material is given no context.
One hopes that the authorities have finally learnt their lesson, and that they recognize that apologies and assurances mean nothing to Mavado and company. If the controversial members of this genre are to return, the conditions of performing must be written into a contract, and there must be substantial monetary penalties if these are breached. In the meantime, their offensive lyrics should not be given time on the airwaves.