Social Media Bill: Short Walk To Totalitarianism? Matthew 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 Nigeria. 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 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-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, 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
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 to, 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 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 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 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 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?

Law making 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
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. 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 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 the 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 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 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. 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 a
redundant, stale, superfluous and a fraud. We will fight it 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.

Catholic Bishop of Sokoto Diocese