I have consistently tried to create
levels of differentiation between democracy and dictatorship, especially
dictatorships of the military variant as we have had in Nigeria. I have argued
that Nigeria is still very far away from the goalposts of what could be called
a democratic society. In my view, the environment does not as yet look anything
democratic because the actors are largely strangers to the ethos
of democratic governance, and what is more, too many of them are tied
to the old order, not to talk of the fact that the presence of
General-presidents suggest that we are still in the thrall of militarism.
Democracy thrives on debate, consensus building, negotiation,
persuasion, argumentation, rule of law, process and inclusion. The military
thrives in a coup culture, secrecy, betrayal, violence, command structure,
exclusion and lack of transparency. That explains why I have always warned
against describing the current charade of violent elections as democracy.
I have
illustrated on several occasions that many among us arrived at Democracy’s
altar by parachutes, funded by moneybags, cliques and cults. We have seen no
difference from those who claim to be democrats in terms of the strong-arm
tactics that we associated with a militarized environment. Our ‘democrats’ have
had no problems with what Noam Chomsky would refer to as resorting to
manufactured consent when it comes to elections. They have rented the same
crowds, contrived the same outcomes as the old order, seducing the people by
bribery rather than persuasion and debate.
Like the false feathers of Icarus, every day, the drama of the
fraud called democracy is re-enacted as the masks occasionally fall
off and we see the real face of fascism that hides behind it all. When they
sense that we want to test their mandate through closely monitored elections,
they threaten that we will receive either coffins or body bags in return. Every
day, the evidence is before us suggesting clearly that, in the mind of those whom
we have entrusted our future, democracy is merely a heuristic device to
perpetuate their grip on power, a bad portfolio investment that fears scrutiny.
All the State Assemblies, at best glorified cemeteries of silence, inhabited by
puppets, cowed to silence and submission as they munch their crumbs.
The recent outrage by the Minister of Information, Mr. Lai
Mohammed over public reaction to the Social Media Bill is illustrative of the
point I am making, namely, that not all who call themselves democrats
appreciate the enormous burden that goes with the claim today.
The Minister has used some rather harsh and divisive words that
suggest some contempt for the voices and views of those whose labours and
sacrifices brought him and his government to where they are today. His language
is disrespectful, appalling and illustrative of the highhandedness that
suggests that we are not in a democracy. The language is as intolerant as it is
alienating. The Minister says that no amount of threat, blackmail, etc will dissuade
the government from going ahead with the social media bill because it is borne
out of patriotism. Really?
There are many questions begging for answers here. Is this the
language of democracy? Is this the language of people who understand or have
really imbibed and internalized the spirit and fine principles of democracy? If
we must do your will or face the wrath of the government, then, this suggests two
things: First, we must obey you and the government because we are subservient to
you and the government. We must be answerable to you not the other way round. We
must because if we don’t, we can be penalized by imprisonment for daring to
question its wisdom or seek to have an input in a law that concerns us. When
did we surrender our rights and voices to the government if we are not heading to
totalitarian rule? It looks like and smells like it. Is Mr. Mohammed a lawyer
who is a politician or a politician who is a lawyer? In an ideal situation, the
former should reinforce the latter.
At this point, I would rather side with President Muhammadu
Buhari who has been far more honest about his deficient democratic credentials.
I have heard the president on at least three occasions complain that democracy
is definitely not his strong jacket. To him, democracy is an irritant, a
nuisance that he is compelled to live with. To paraphrase the President: ‘When
I was a military man, I arrested all the thieves and put them in protective
custody. I asked them to go and prove their innocence. Now, I have been told
that even though I can see the thieves, I cannot arrest them. I must take them
to court and prove that they are guilty.’
I admire the fact that the president has illustrated that his
conversion to democracy was not like Paul on the road to Damascus. His
tentative conversion to democracy did not come with a confession of his sins
(of staging a coup), a promise not to do that again and then a plea for
absolution and the acceptance of the required penance! In honesty, the
president says he prefers to work with ‘those he knows not those who
know’, so we can forgive him. But not others.
Mr. Mohammed has climbed a moral high horse, claiming that he is
motivated by higher and noble values of protecting the rest of us from a
hovering scarecrow of evil, the social media. This is a low-level fence erected
to hide the construction of a wall of tyranny, fascism, and totalitarianism. All
tyrants and fascists started with the noblest of intentions, composing
panegyric lullabies in praise of patriotism. But, as the old saying goes,
patriotism is often the last refuge of scoundrels. Sooner than later, they will
start the witch-hunt. This is why, the radical American intellectual and
activist, Lillian Hellman who lived under the witch-hunting era of McCarthyism
titled her memoirs, Scoundrel Time!
To be sure, there is no one, including myself, who is not aware
of the dangers posed by social media. We have all been victims. However,
should the government wish to address this matter legally and openly, why
should they be afraid of public debate? It is desirable that we address social media by way of education, open debate and transfer of knowledge. When
did social media become sinister in the eyes of the government? Is it after
the same government used it that they now realize that it was good for them
then, but bad for the rest of us now?
Lawmaking is a serious business and it demands high moral
standards of honesty on the lawmaker. No citizen should be compelled to obey
bad laws. Patriotism is not a commodity of exchange. I have lived long in this
country, been engaged long enough to know that the degree of patriotism of
office holders is often in direct proportion to the opportunities that they
have. Today’s Buhariphiles will develop Buhariphobia when they lose their
position. Against the backdrop of the rumours and whispers about term limits,
do we know where this is going?
Finally, we must all concede that technology is here to stay.
All we can do is to try to make it work for us. Like their explorer
grandfathers before them, both Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook) and Jack Dorsey
(Twitter) have shone their light. They know what they have seen in Nigeria and
Mr. Dorsey says he plans a longer stay in the future. They have seen opportunity in
an incredibly energetic and brilliant youth and they are prepared to pour
investment into them. What do those who govern us see? Afraid of their shadows,
they see in their own Youth, trouble, and threats to the quicksand into which
they have buried their selfish ambitions. They want to kill these dreams by thinking
of a Bill to protect us from Hate speech and so on.
There is absolutely no doubt that we face a difficult future
with what to do with social media. However, the future of employment lies
there and all we need to do is to extend the frontiers of the imagination of
our youth to enable them to explore a future that can make us safer and
prosperous. We know that fire burns and people drown in water. Should we, therefore, restrict the usage of water and fire or should we sit the children
down and explain the dangers inherent in the goodness of water and fire? Our
real challenge is the shame that now afflicts us due to years and years of neglect. A people so badly governed will use anything to express their
frustration and sadly, this is what makes us all victims of hate speech. The
greatest expression of Hate is those who use the power in their hands to divide
us by favouring or excluding others based on religion, gender, political
affiliation or social class. They are the real reason why our people have remained
diminished.
It is a measure of who we are and the premium we place on life
that anyone would dream of suggesting a death sentence for the propagation of
Hate speech. Surely, unscrupulous and immoral theft of humungous resources
belonging to all of us by our politicians is more damaging to our society than
any Hate speech. It is like comparing saliva and a dam. We should have nothing
to fear. A clear conscience fears no accusation. Technology, developed by
humans still has inbuilt safety valves that will enable it to correct itself.
Threats, arm-twisting or raw bravado will not do. Edward Snowden has shown that
the builders of terror can always pull back. It is inefficiency and political
corruption that creates the conditions for social media to thrive not lack
of patriotism.
The ultimate goal of this Bill is not to punish those who
offend, but those who offend the government or those in government. Again, here, we
have to fall back on the president’s sense of honesty. When he promulgated
Decree 2, the focus was to punish journalists who made public officers
uncomfortable. Again, on this note, the President has not changed his mindset
at all. So, again when Tunde Thompson rushed to forgiveness, it was not because
the President had shown any contrition. Therefore, when the sponsors of this
Bill claim that it is for our own good, they are borrowing our mouths to eat
onions. If the government gets away with it, we have no idea what else will be
on the table. Only a robust debate can cure the claims of cynicism.
The Government has all the laws it needs to fight any form of
crime and individuals can fall back on it. This Bill is redundant, stale,
superfluous and a fraud. We will fight the Bill with all our energy. It is
rotten yoghurt being marketed beyond its expiration date. We should reject it
as a totalitarian attempt to circumscribe our hard earned freedom.
*Kukah is the Catholic Bishop of Sokoto Diocese
Comments
Post a Comment