The Spell has Turned Against the Sorcerer
The Paradox of Ditademocracies with an Emphasis on Mozambique
Freedom of expression is recognized as one of the essential pillars of democracy, allowing citizens to voice opinions, question authorities, and participate in public debate.
However, hybrid regimes – authoritarian democracies known as “Ditademocracies” – have now emerged. They have the appearance of being democracies with elections, a parliament, and a vibrant press, but these coexist with authoritarian practices and veiled restrictions on freedom. Political and social life are polarised, information is controlled, and dissident voices are suppressed. This article analyses the paradox of formal freedom and imposed silence, and highlights the resulting challenges and resistance strategies with a specific focus on Mozambique.
Ditademocracies
Freedom of expression is historically enshrined in international documents, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), and in national constitutions. However, as Arendt (1951) observes, political freedom only materializes in societies where there is a plurality of voices and effective participation. In ditademocracies, a term inspired by Zakaria’s (1997) notion of illiberal democracy, regular elections coexist with press control, the persecution of opponents, and the limitation of critical debate. Moreover, censorship takes on subtle forms such as: economic manipulation of the media, judicial defamation, and digital surveillance, creating a freedom that exists only “on paper.”
The growing social and political polarization exacerbates this situation, fragmenting the public space and transforming dialogue into dispute. Habermas (1989) conceives the public sphere as a space for rational argumentation, but in polarized societies, it becomes a terrain of hate speech and disinformation. Social media amplifies this phenomenon, creating “cognitive bubbles” where groups only share information that reinforces their convictions (Sunstein, 2017). Independent journalism is attacked as an “enemy of the people”, while freedom of expression is reinterpreted as the right to manipulate or offend. In African and Latin American countries, fear and partisan loyalty are observed to replace critical listening, turning public discourse into an emotional battlefield.
The paradox of ditademocracies lies in the fact that regimes maintain the language of freedom to restrict real freedom. Laws against “disinformation” or “in defense of public morals” are used to criminalize criticism and limit civic activism. Chomsky and Herman (1988) explain how the control of information does not need to be explicit, noting that the systematic filtering of news that challenges power creates self-censorship and fear among citizens. Countries that hold regular elections can at the same time restrict the actions of the press, civil society, and the opposition, converting silence into a mechanism for political survival.
Resistance emerges
Even in the face of restrictions, resistance and counter-narratives emerge. Independent journalism, community media, and digital collectives constitute alternative spaces for expression and denunciation. Art, music, political humor, and audiovisual narratives play a central role in reconfiguring the public space. Freire (1970) already highlighted that the word is an act of liberation, and in contexts of repression, the simple act of expressing oneself becomes a gesture of resistance.
In Mozambique, currently, this paradigm has become a reality in an unprecedented way. Political polarization has come to reflect a “reversal by the people themselves.” Historically, regimes in power persecuted opposition leaders, activists, artists, and other social and political actors. But recent post-electoral demonstrations showed that power can be directly challenged. Members of the ruling party, and both junior and senior members of the State and government, had their lives and assets threatened. Having any association with the party could be interpreted as grounds for reprisal. As the popular saying goes, “the spell has turned against the sorcerer”. Those who previously controlled and intimidated began to experience the direct reaction of the population.
With the passage of time, and a decrease in extreme tensions, freedom of expression has become a new field of dispute. On the one hand, the system and the regime still repress, but on the other, the population no longer accepts any manifestation which appears to be favorable to the regime. Even so, no matter how logical or protective one’s argument, the risk of being labeled a traitor or targeted for attacks remains high. In this context, social media – notably Facebook – has become the real battleground, a place where contrary or critical opinions, even constructive and rational ones, directed at the popular party face a high probability of incurring reprisals.
Resistance and Repression in Mozambique
Post-Electoral Demonstrations of 2023 and 2024
Following the municipal elections in October 2023, which resulted in the victory of Frelimo in 64 out of 65 municipalities, protests occurred in several cities, including Maputo and Nampula, denouncing alleged electoral fraud. Security forces responded with excessive use of force, resulting in deaths and injuries among the demonstrators (Amnesty International, 2025).
During the post-electoral period, journalists and activists faced arbitrary detentions, physical assaults, and death threats. Press freedom was severely restricted, with new laws being debated or approved in the national parliament that limited freedom of expression and the work of journalists (Human Rights Watch, 2023).
There were reports of internet disruptions and blocking of social media platforms during critical periods, hindering communication and the organization of protests. Furthermore, digital activists faced persecution and legal proceedings for their online activities (Amnesty International, 2025).
Resistance Movements and Digital Activism
Despite repression, several resistance movements have emerged — phenomena that at first seem nonsensical but are, in fact, explainable. Journalists have become activists, partially biased, while activists have sought to act as journalists within equally partial movements. An example is the guerrilla struggles of the Namparamas, who use digital platforms to expose abuses and mobilise civil society. Such groups face significant challenges, including state surveillance, defamation campaigns, and episodes of violence including death.
The Namparamas were ancient warriors, known for their supernatural resilience and their use of black magic in their rebellion against colonial forces. They were said to be bulletproof and able to fight without suffering a single scratch. Today, the symbolism of the Namparamas has been revived in certain modern narratives of resistance, serving as a metaphor for the resilience and indomitable spirit of activists who, despite oppression, continued to fight for justice, truth, and social transformation in the digital era.
The new Namparamas
This revival has not remained purely metaphorical or symbolic. Real groups known as Namparamas have re-emerged, organised for hunting and killing. These death squads claim to be protected by black magic and act as contemporary guerrillas. Far from being limited to virtual denunciation, many of these collectives produce biased information against the regime, forge data and reports, and spread manipulated narratives that inflame tensions. They investigate and locate the homes and properties of government members and sympathisers and vandalise or destroythem. Some go as far as hunting, capturing, and executing political opponents.
It all begins on social media, a mere comment, a post, an accusation and quickly the virtual mobilisation turns into physical action. It is at this transitional point, between the digital and the tangible, that the so-called Namparamas have been reborn.
Like the legendary Namparamas, these contemporary guerrillas believe themselves to possess invisible armour — not only of conviction but of supernatural protection. Yet when conviction merges with manipulation, hatred, and revenge, resistance ceases to be liberating and becomes profoundly destructive. The comparison between ancestry and modernity enables us to understand how forms of resistance can mutate into instruments of violence, making freedom of expression, truth, and ethics both weapons and victims in the same struggle.
Summary
The paradox of ditademocracies shows that freedom of expression does not vanish only through explicit censorship, but also through indifference and fear. When citizens silence themselves out of fear of reprisals, democracy becomes a mere ritual without substance. Preserving this freedom requires far more than legislation — it demands critical education, independent thinking, and ethical courage. Rebuilding the public sphere means transforming silence into dialogue and fear into awareness, reaffirming that freedom of expression is not merely a political privilege, but a condition of human dignity.
However, what was once a restriction imposed solely by regimes has now become a collective phenomenon. The suppression of free expression is no longer vertical from power to people but horizontal, within society itself. Fear, intolerance, and digital mob justice have turned everyone into both censor and censored.
In this new landscape, freedom of expression has become a utopia without sides, an ideal that belongs to no camp, no ideology, and no regime, only to those who dare to speak, listen, and think freely.
By Neque Alcino António Francisco