Social Media Bill:
Social Media Bill: Short walk to
totalitarianism?
By Matthew Hassan Kukah
I have consistently tried to create levels of differentiation
between democracy and dictatorship, especially dictatorships of the
military variant as we have had in our country. 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 democratic because the actors are largely
strangers to the ethos 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. It is therefore no surprise that 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 to 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, are 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 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. 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
mediabill because it is borne out of patriotism. Really?
There are many questions begging for answers here. 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 government, then, this
suggests two things: First, we must obey you and government because
we are subservient to you and 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 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 notothers.
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 most noble 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 the 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 a public debate? It is
desirable that we address the social media by way of education,
open debate and transfer of knowledge. When did the social media
become sinister in the eyes of the government? Is it after the same
government used it that they now realise that it was good for them
then, but bad for the rest of us now?
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
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 the social media. 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. 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 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 promulgated Decree 2, the focus was to punish
journalists who made public officers uncomfortable. Again, on this
note, the President has not changed his mind set at all. 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 must fight it 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 theCatholic Bishop of Sokoto Diocese