The recent unbanning of the microblogging site, Twitter by the Federal Government of Nigeria has brought a sigh of relief to stakeholders in the saga. But as government and other stakeholders count their gains and losses, it is time to reflect on the road less travelled and examine if there was no better way to have handled the conflict between government and twitter. Certainly the conflict could have been handled differently to avoid the humongous revenue loss, the disruption of means of livelihoods of local entrepreneurs who ply their trade on the site and the loss of goodwill by the government.
Since the burgeoning of the Information and Communication and Technologies (ICTs) and the fillip offered by the internet, a monumental disruption has been wrought on the media and communications landscape. This disruption has put governments worldwide on edge as they watch the thinning of the line between democratisation of the media space and what they considered as loss of governmental powers to order society.
Governments have reacted to this disruption in various ways. While the less democratic ones have come down heavily on the media space through bans, arrests, shutting of the information highway among other repressive means, many others set up think-tanks, committees and other civil means to understand the dimensions of the disruption and government’s response to it. They privileged legislative reforms, dialogues and strengthening of the environment of operation.
For example, the European Union (EU) evolved a fairly comprehensive social media policy. Kernels of the policy are worth recalling here. It aims to strike “a balance between innovation and regulation” in order to stimulate a multi-stakeholder dialogue; promote responsible use of social media platforms through a sustained support of media literacy initiatives; promote a social media ecosystem community of developers, designers, users, artists, entrepreneurs and researchers; and encourage new social media initiatives to pave the way to the next generation of social media platforms for Europe, among other laudable visions.
It is particularly noted that there are no threats of sanctions and the promise to “deal mercilessly with” other stakeholders, but a disposition to work cooperatively with them. This is contrary to the huffing and puffing of governmental spokespersons in Nigeria when confronted with similar social media milieu.
Nigerian government disposition to social media during the administration of President Muhammadu Buhari has been largely negative. At intervals, Minister of Information and Culture would not allow any opportunity to pass by without blaming the social media for one grievous offence or the other. It would seem to him that the bulk of the country’s problem would be solved if government was able to cage the irritant social media. Granted that the social media are rife with many undesirable acts enabled by lack of gatekeeping, they are no different from what obtains in other climes that would rather engage the issues diligently and intelligently. Amidst the failure to deliver on the rising expectations of the populace as expressed through various media, the irritant value of the media heightened in governmental cycles.
The matter blew open when Twitter decided to locate its regional headquarters in Ghana and not Nigeria where it had a larger followership. This irked the government and a significant number of Nigerians. But those who justified Twitter’s move hinged their justification on the inclement business environment in Nigeria signposted by the heightened cases of violent crimes, kidnappings and a gloomy economic environment. What the government could have concentrated on was to resolve these inclement conditions rather than threatening investors. But the immediate cause of the ban can be located in Twitter’s decision to pull down a tweet by the President which Twitter held to have violated its community rules. Nigerian government could take it no more, hence the ban.
Pleas by economic pundits that the ban would hurt local entrepreneurs who ply their trade on the site more could not dissuade the government. Social activists also pointed to the negative effects on the image of the government who may be perceived as dictatorial and being a cloak to muzzle press freedom and free expression were also ignored. Economic losses were variously calculated at several billions of naira.
Mercifully, after 222 days and an estimated N546.5 billion loss, the Federal Government and Twitter are back on the negotiation table. As has been observed by peace and conflict experts, conflicts are resolved ultimately on the negotiation table irrespective of the carnage that may have preceded them. Therefore, it behoves conflict parties to shorten the conflict cycle and reach the negotiation table quickly.
Government has listed the gains of the ban to include the fact that Twitter has agreed to certain conditions. These conditions include opening a Nigerian office, addressing tax concerns, managing prohibited publications in line with Nigeria law, among others. This is fair enough. But Nigeria could have achieved the same goals without going through the route of outright banning of the outlet. Dialogue, civic engagement and policy updates and reforms would have achieved the same results. Regrettably, that is the road less travelled.
Going forward, the set rules of engagement should be embraced by all stakeholders in the social media firmament. Government should make Nigeria a Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) haven through positive policies and actions. The tech world already recognises Nigeria as a tech hub as attested to by Facebook Founder, Mark Zuckerberg, during his 2016 visit to Yaba, Lagos. Social media users should also exercise self-restraint and abide by the rules of objectivity, decency and social responsibility.
But the greater responsibility is for government to provide critical infrastructure and a clement environment through good governance. Nigeria has the resources, potential and population to attract the best of global investments in high-tech, manufacturing and other service sectors.
END
Be the first to comment