Justice, Op-ed, Politics

Activism: The Word They Want Us to Fear

Activism is not an insult. It is what people do when they refuse to accept injustice as normal.

Richard Mabala

September 22, 2026

subscribe to our newsletter!

This week, before giving the examples of participation I promised to provide, I would like to look at another word that has been bandied around a lot recently. I do not intend to weigh the pros and cons of either side in the debate, but to show that, once again, it is the Humpty Dumpty syndrome: the master, or masters, decide what a word means, rather than its original meaning.

So let us start with that original meaning.

An activist, or mwanaharakati, is someone who strongly believes in political or social change and takes action to make it happen. Activists work to change society; they do not merely talk or complain about problems. They act.

Most changes over the centuries have come through activism against slavery, colonialism, apartheid, patriarchy, authoritarianism and exploitation of every kind. Without activists, the world would be very different, probably to the benefit of the Humpty Dumptys of this world.

Take the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Before she refused to give up her seat on a bus, Rosa Parks was already an activist; she knew what she was doing.

Her arrest helped trigger a larger, organised movement in which people were beaten, imprisoned and, in some cases, killed while resisting racial segregation. The boycott helped end legally enforced segregation on Montgomery’s buses, a result we now take for granted. Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr. and thousands of others made that change possible.

Even paid leave, minimum wages, pension schemes, protection against unfair dismissal, and healthier and safer work are not gifts from the Humpty Dumptys. The history of international labour standards records how organised demands drove action on working hours, maternity protection and other conditions of work.

Before such protections, many workers faced shocking conditions that led to permanent injury and early death. Those in power often opposed improvement because it threatened their luxuries. And for women reading this, voting rights, equal pay and maternity protection did not simply arrive; people had to fight for them.

Change has a history

Not forgetting those of us who believe in one form of religion or another. Since I was born a Christian, let me give examples from Christianity, though I would say prophets from every religion carried the same activism. That, to my mind, is why their religions flourished.

Take Jesus. I see him as standing up repeatedly to the Humpty Dumptys of the time: the religious and political authorities, and the rich and powerful. That is why they demanded that he be put to death; his activism threatened their power and their ability to decide what words meant.

This has continued throughout history. Churches have, at times, supported dictators, slavery, apartheid, unjust imperialist wars and much else besides. Yet there have always been people within them who remained true to the activism of their founder and sought change for the betterment of the people.

Thus, Archbishop Hélder Câmara of Brazil said: “When I feed the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist.”

Of course. His words threatened the power of the rich at a time of dictatorship in Brazil.

Then where would we be in Africa without activists? In every country, activists stood up to colonialism and demanded independence.

I am not talking only of prominent leaders, though they played a great part. In Tanganyika, thousands of women and men spread the word and energised people to support independence, often walking from village to village despite threats and hardship.

Historical research finds that women TANU activists did not merely respond to nationalist rhetoric; they helped shape, inform and spread it. They were part of how nationalism became a lived political force.

I believe Nyerere remained an activist until his death. You can disagree with his activism, but he was never satisfied with the status quo; he wanted change for the better and wanted those in power to be concerned with it. He was prepared to stand up to his own party when he felt it was becoming Humpty Dumpty.

Once again, you can disagree with his opinions, but it was the statement of an activist still ready to fight for a better society, against the wishes of those in power. No wonder the Humpty Dumptys tried to label him a dictator (another attempt to change the meaning of a word) when all he had was the power of his words and the fact that people loved and supported his activism.

Another example is Wangari Maathai, who was arrested and attacked for her activism. The Humpty Dumptys ridiculed her, but she founded the Green Belt Movement and became a global inspiration for protecting the environment and empowering women.

Her work connected the environment, social justice and women’s agency. It brought her the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize.

A line often attributed to Gandhi goes: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” It was not, in fact, said by Gandhi, but it remains a telling description of the resistance activists can face.

More than marches

Activism is not just demonstrations or political rallies. Here in Tanzania, people have been activists in many ways.

Justice James Lewis Mwalusanya used the courts and the law to challenge government, apply the Constitution and protect human rights. In Ephrahim v. Pastory and Kaizingele, the High Court held that customary law limiting women’s property rights discriminated on the ground of sex; women had the same rights as men.

He also helped strengthen the constitutional understanding of bail as a right to be taken seriously, rather than a privilege.

Professor Issa Shivji has frequently used the law and scholarship to challenge the misuse of power. Organisations such as HakiElimu, TGNP, TAMWA and LHRC have used their positions to advance education, gender equality, women’s empowerment and human rights.

At an earlier time, when the government moved to silence HakiElimu in 2005 by restricting its work and publications, people from many walks of life supported it. The ban was ultimately lifted in 2007 after advocacy and discussions with ministers; the campaign’s record is a reminder that public pressure can matter.

Maybe that was when those in power decided they had to change the meaning of activist, mwanaharakati. Until the doctors’ strike in 2012, activism was generally at worst a neutral word and at best a positive one, as we recognised those prepared to stand up and fight for change.

Then, according to my memory, and I stand to be corrected, the perception changed during that strike. Dr Steven Ulimboka, the spokesperson for striking doctors, was abducted and severely beaten; he said he had been taken from Dar es Salaam by gunmen, while President Jakaya Kikwete denied government involvement. The strike and the attack left a standoff between doctors and the government.

Activists later blocked Selander Bridge, demanding a solution, which eventually came.

However, the President and his supporters claimed that the solution was already there, but activists had messed it up.

Since then, rulers have been able to turn the word around and demonise those who stand up for change. Even at community level, anyone who questions a village chair or executive officer, or asks where contributions for building a secondary school have gone, can be labelled an activist: one of these bad, bad people.

Yet village life has improved because of the dedicated activism of thousands of people who do not accept injustice in the status quo. Sometimes they are even conservative activists, protecting what they believe must be protected from change. A society where no one cares and no one is prepared to stand up for what they believe is dead.

A living word

To be clear, I am not saying that activism is always good. I object to changing the word so that activism always means something bad. In a way, activism is a neutral word. It means believing in something, standing up for it and taking action.

Some will agree with a particular activism and some, especially those who may lose power, prestige or money, will not. Ideally, through interaction, change will come about — perhaps not exactly in the form activists first sought, but change for the better can happen.

We can question people’s particular activism or whether they are sincere. But we must be careful, because the same vitriol has been directed against activists throughout history, and negative stereotyping leads to an impasse that only produces further conflict.

We should not forget the words commonly associated with the American anthropologist Margaret Mead: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

Whether that small group is the first members of TANU, the African National Congress, women activists leading up to Beijing, or a youth group demanding accountability and change in its community, determination has led — and leads — to change.

So we should ask ourselves: are we satisfied with the status quo? If not, why the negative perception of activism? There should not be unconditional support for activists. Activists can go overboard too.

But we should examine each issue on its merits, always bearing in mind that the demonised activism of today is often the accepted benefit of tomorrow.

Richard Mabala is an educator, poet, and author. He is available at rmabala@yahoo.com or on X as @MabalaMakengeza. The opinions expressed here are the writer’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of The Chanzo. If you are interested in publishing in this space, please contact our editors at editor@thechanzo.com.