The nation is mired in crises. The economy is in shambles with runaway inflation and an unsustainable high rate of unemployment. There is a growing population of hungry men, women and children, hopeless and utterly dissatisfied with the status quo, a veritable breeding ground for pent-up anger, which on eruption, can generate irrational response from a populace on edge. This is the context of much of the chain of violence that has entangled the nation since the beginning of the present republic.
There was the Ikeja cantonment bomb explosion that killed scores of citizens. There were the senseless ethnic clashes that caused the death and maiming of innocent citizens who were caught in the middle. There were protests and rallies which started peacefully but quickly escalated into rampage due to unprovoked violent intervention by security agents. In many of these cases, the maturity of citizens’ response prevented the crises from going from bad to worse.
When maturity takes leave, however, the consequence is predictable. It is unfortunately the case with many of the incidents of protests involving young students reacting to some official conduct. Violence is almost always the first and last response.
It is safe to assume that such a response, where and when it has occurred, has not always been deliberatively chosen by most participants in a rally or protest. It has always been a sizable minority that initiate the violence, presumably in angry reaction to frustrated expectations.
In such cases, thoughtful adults have wondered aloud about the rationality of such responses which have only caused more harm to victims without any visible redeeming outcome. We try to understand the psychology of protests and the youthful appetite for disruption that they feed. Now these adults also need to take our young citizens seriously. We need to engage them in thinking through the choices that they make in their response to the choices that those in positions of power make.
Thinking through our choices requires us to ask probing questions concerning the rightness or wrongness of the course we contemplate taking. Two ethical approaches can be brought to bear on the question of the justifiability of violence as a response to social disappointment. Is it ever fair and just? And does it work?
The question of the justice or fairness of violent response to social disappointment emanating from unacceptable policy, conduct or inaction by government agents can be easily answered. Almost always, the victims of violent reactions are innocent citizens who have also been victims of the original wrong that is being protested. With the violent reaction of colleagues purporting to right the original wrong, the innocent victims of the original wrong are doubly impacted. Consider the case of petty traders who get their stores vandalised and looted during protests. That is certainly unfair.
Perhaps we should not bother about fairness or injustice. Following the Chief Priest who insisted on the execution of innocent Christ Jesus, we might justify the suffering of the innocent by appeal to the disproportionate amount of benefit that accrues to society as a result. In other words, the suffering of innocent victims of violent protests would be adequately compensated for by the good outcome of the violence for many members of the society.
That would be the utilitarian argument. From this perspective, the justifiability of violence comes down to its effectiveness as a response to social disappointment. But does it work? The answer to this question can only be empirically determined and unfortunately for the utilitarian supporter of that cause of action, it doesn’t.
If violence works it would have effected drastic changes in our society a long time ago and there would be no need for the kind of protests and rallies that have turned violent in recent times. And the fact that such cases keep recurring despite our predilection to violence, appears to suggest that violent response has been ineffective in forcing change.
I do not want to be misunderstood. First, I am fully conscious of the fact that occasions that force protests and rallies that turn violent can be particularly offensive and inhuman, ranging from a military personnel’s abuse of power leading to the death of an innocent student, or a careless commercial driver killing an innocent pedestrian, or the uncaring attitude of a hospital staff towards a critically sick person leading to a preventable death. These are demonstrably unfair and thus condemnable. My point, however, is that as odious as such conducts are, violent reaction does not work and it could be counter-productive.
Second, I also know fully well that peaceful protests and rallies are the bedrock of public engagement with their government. This was clear in my submission on democracy and dissent in this column a couple of weeks ago. And what is more, I am fully aware that violence is not the intent of protests and rallies against unacceptable official policy or conduct. However, due diligence is warranted on the part of protest organisers to avoid the degeneration of peaceful protests into violent disturbance which ends up taking the centre stage in the aftermath of the original incident. Violence is blamed while the original social harm takes the back seat.
The immediate impetus for this discussion today was the tragic death of a young student of the Federal University of Minna. Mr. Olalekan Emmanuel slumped on the soccer pitch and was rushed to the university’s health centre where he unfortunately died. While the health centre authorities claimed that the student was pronounced dead upon arrival, his peers accused the workers of the centre of negligence. The students claimed that the workers left Emmanuel unattended for 30 minutes before he died.
There is no denying the fact that our public institutions, including health, security, and government are incubators of human monsters whose only claim to humanity is their physical appearance. Many of those who voluntarily sign up for positions that require compassion as key quality have no milk of mercy in their veins. This is especially true of some nurses and physicians. What the students allege in the case of Emmanuel is certainly not beyond what can happen in situations where human life means nothing to those who have trained and sworn to an oath to promote health.
If the allegation of the students turns out to be true, it will not be the first time. It may also not be the last time. Meanwhile, a young soul with a future ahead of him would have been cut down prematurely. Therefore, if it was true, the action of the health centre workers is reprehensible and whoever is found responsible must be punished. But this is something that cannot be decided without an adequate investigation, which takes time. And because cases of negligence have become rampant in our society, the patience of young people can be tasked beyond their capacity for tolerance.
The students’ reaction, however, leaves much to be desired. They were alleged to have gone on rampage, set ablaze the school’s clinic and “vandalised the school libraries, lecture rooms, a female hostel and a microfinance bank on the campus.” In the first place, the vandalism disrespects the memory of Emmanuel. A decent candle light vigil that honours the departed student and calls attention to the state of the health centre and the offending workers would have been a dignified response to the tragedy.
In the second place, the burning down of the clinic, while it may satisfy some irrational urge for revenge or expression of anger, is unfair because innocent students will continue to suffer if the clinic remains inoperable, and it has no utilitarian value. If any worker is found culpable and is to be punished it will not be because the clinic is burned down. Therefore, the violent response has no deterrence effect.
In the specific case of the death of Olalekan Emmanuel, the authorities of the institution need to conduct an open investigation. There is also the need for an investigation into the rampage that erupted thereafter. The chain of violence needs to be broken for the good of society and citizens.
Follow me on twitter:
@SegunGbadeg2002
@HarvestDayPubs
END
Be the first to comment