I have consistently tried to
create levels of differenti-
ation between democracy
and dictatorship, especially
dictatorships of the military
variant as we have had in Ni-
geria. I have argued that Nigeria is
still very far away from the goal posts
of what could be called a democratic
society. In my view, the environment
does not as yet look anything demo-
cratic because the actors are largely
strangers to the ethos of 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-presi-
dents suggest that we are still in the
thrall of militarism.
Democracy thrives on debate, con-
sensus building, negotiation, per-
suasion, argumentation, rule of law,
process, and inclusion. The military
thrives in a coup culture, secrecy, be-
trayal, violence, command structure,
exclusion and lack of transparen-
cy. That explains why I have always
warned against describing the cur-
rent charade of violent elections as
democracy.
I have illustrated on several occa-
sions 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 dem-
ocrats in terms of the strong-arm
tactics that we associated with a
militarized environment. Our ‘dem-
ocrats’ have had no problems with
what Noam Chomsky would refer
to as resorting to manufactured con-
sent when it comes to elections. They
have rented the same crowds, con-
trived the same outcomes as the old
order, seducing the people by bribery
rather than persuasion and debate.
Like the false feathers of Icarus,
everyday, the drama of the fraud
called democracy is re-enacted as
the masks occassionally 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 ei-
ther 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 to, democracy is merely a
heuristic device to perpetuate their
grip on power, a bad portfolio in-
vestment that fears scrutiny. All the
State Assemblies, at best glorified
cemeteries of silence, inhabited by
puppets, cowed to silence and sub-
mission as they munch their crumbs.
The recent outrage by the Minister
of Information, Mr. Lai Moham-
med over public reaction to the So-
cial 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 illustra-
tive of the highhandedness that sug-
gests 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 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 democ-
racy? If we must do your will or face
the wrath of government, then, this
suggests two things: First, we must
obey you and government because
we are subservient to you and gov-
ernment. 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 dar-
ing to question its wisdom or seek
to have an input in a law that con-
cerns us. When did we surrender our
rights and voices to government if we
are not heading to totalitarian rule?
It looks like and smells like it. Is Mr.
Mohammed a lawyer who is a pol-
itician or a politician who is a law-
yer? 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 de-
mocracy is definitely not his strong
jacket. To him, democracy is an irri-
tant, a nuisance that he is compelled
to live with. To paraphrase the Pres-
ident: ‘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 con-
version to democracy did not come
with a confession of his sins (of stag-
ing 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 val-
ues of protecting the rest of us from
a hovering scarecrow of evil, the so-
cial media. This is a low level fence
erected to hide the construction of
a wall of tyranny, fascism and total-
itarianism. All tyrants and fascists
started with the most noble of inten-
tions, 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 Amer-
ican 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, includ-
ing myself, who is not aware of the
dangers posed by the social media.
We have all been victims. However,
should the government wish to ad-
dress this matter legally and openly,
why should they be afraid of a public
debate? It is desirable that we address
the social media by way of education,
open debate and transfer of knowl-
edge. When did the social media
become sinister in the eyes of the
government? Is it after the same gov-
ernment used it that they now realise
that it was good for them then, but
bad for the rest of us now?
Law making is a serious business
and it demands high moral standards
of honesty on the lawmaker. No citi-
zen 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 patriot-
ism 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 back-
drop 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 be-
fore them, both Mark Zuckerberg
(Facebook) and Jack Dorsey (Twit-
ter) have shone their light. They
know what they have seen in Nigeria
and Mr. Dorsey says he plans a longer
stay in future. They have seen oppor-
tunity 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 bur-
ied 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 the social media. However,
the future of employment lies there
and all need to do is to extend the
frontiers of the imagination of our
Youth to enable them explore a fu-
ture that can make us safer and pros-
perous. 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 in-
herent in the goodness of water and
fire? Our real challenge is the shame
that now afflicts us due to years and
years of the neglect. A people so bad-
ly governed will use anything to ex-
press 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 religion,
gender, political affiliation or social
class. They are the real reason why
our people have remained dimin-
ished.
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 condi-
tions for the 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 government or
those in government. Again, here,
we have to fall back on the president’s
sense of honesty. When he promul-
gated Decree 2, the focus was to pun-
ish journalists who made public of-
ficers uncomfortable. Again, on this
note, the President has not changed
his mind set at all. So, again when
Tunde Thompson rushed to forgive-
ness, 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 a redundant, stale, superfluous
and a fraud. We will fight it Bill with
all our energy. It is rotten yoghurt be-
ing marketed beyond its expiration
date. We should reject it as a totali-
tarian attempt to circumscribe our
hard earned freedom.
- Catholic Bishop of Sokoto Dio-
cese
