Nobody needs to be extraordinarily bright to know that the Senate has become a source of noise designed to silence citizens who are enthusiastic about the war against corruption.
Vice President Osinbajo chose this year’s Anti-Corruption Day to appeal to citizens to opt for sound over silence regarding matters of corruption in particular and change in general. The appeal is to ensure that the war on corruption is won by the society at large, rather than just by President Buhari and his team and to prevent noise makers opposed to the emphasis on identifying and punishing thieves of state from seizing the nation’s political narrative from those committed to fighting corruption. Making the war on corruption a national task may require a roadmap by the government that citizens can intellectually and emotionally identify with, apart from pre-election identification of voters with the manifesto to dismantle the culture of corruption and impunity that has almost impoverished majority of the population.
Nobody needs to be extraordinarily bright to know that the Senate has become a source of noise designed to silence citizens who are enthusiastic about the war against corruption. For senators who got elected largely on account of Buhari and APC for change to suddenly become obsessed with legislating against citizens willing to carry the message of enough is enough to venal political office holders and public servants must worry lovers of good governance. As if by design, senators on a war path with advocates of freedom of speech seem to have distracted many citizens from the real job at hand. Instead of being encouraged to speak against corruption by members of the party elected to fight corruption, the country’s opinion leaders have been sucked into a struggle against senators who have sworn to kill free speech by labelling complaints against corruption as frivolous criticism. The noise by authors of anti-frivolity bill has increased what appears like silence on the part of warriors against corruption.
The Vice President’s call for citizen democracy is appropriate. Citizen journalism, facilitated globally by social media and other advances in communication technology, is a major factor in the enhancement of participatory democracy in the modern world. The impression given by the chairman of the House of Representatives’ Media and Publicity Committee, just as the myopia of senators on the side of a new law to gag citizens, seems to have no tolerance for citizen journalism. Freedom of speech does not exist just for professional journalists; it is constitutionally guaranteed for all citizens.
But to the mind of the house chairman of media and publicity, the legislature owns freedom of expression which it can give to whomsoever it wants whenever it finds it convenient to do so: As chairman House Committee on Media, I must say that we cannot close space for free speech. We would like to ensure that there is free speech. And the only thing we try to enjoin is that journalists, who are trained, who know the ethics of journalism, should also join the social media activity so that we can differentiate between the grains and the chaff. I think that is most essential, but we should not leave it for just those who think they can just post anything. Ideally, I think it is very important that we allow free speech. With time, we will get to the level that we can regulate. For now, I think Nigerians will rely on them. We came on the platter of change and it was this social media that brought us to power and we are making effective changes on that; I think we should live with that. Ideally, I think it is very important that we allow free speech. With time, we will get to the level that we can regulate.
It is futile to set out to regulate citizens’ use of modern communication technology to make comments about how they are governed. Social media has added value to democratic spirit and culture all over the world. Indeed, social media has expanded citizens’ rights to hold and express opinions without hindrance and interference. Beyond the traditional role of the journalist as watchdog in democracies, social media has made it possible for citizens (ultimate owners of sovereignty) to also function as watchdogs. Na’Allah’s quick move to enact a law to muzzle the media and Namdas’ willingness to postpone creating a law to exclude non-journalists from exchanging ideas on the social media point to the same unease of APC lawmakers with democratisation of the process of signification. Reduction of the power of mediation between sender and receiver of messages characteristic of traditional media and increasing empowerment of citizens to contribute to political communication is an inevitable aspect of modern democracy. The research wing of the ruling party needs to re-educate lawmakers about the futility of any government opting to control or regulate the use of social media and the internet. What needs to be regulated or controlled is the propensity of rulers to use power to control citizens rather than to enrich them. With the internet and social media, there is no more hiding place for political or business leaders who operate or plan to act unethically. All politicians and citizens are already well protected by existing laws against treason, defamation, and libel.
The president himself can also help to encourage citizens who want to support the anti-corruption drive and other projects that can bring positive change to the country. Citizens need to know more about the soft war against corruption. Citizens deserve to know more than mere presidential declaration that thieves of state are already returning money to the nation’s coffers. It is salutary that President Buhari had discussed openly with Nigerians in Iran the efforts of his government to make corrupt individuals return some of their loot. But there are many concerns on the minds of citizens at home. For example, citizens are eager to know how much the government has collected from corrupt men and women; percentage of what is returned to what is stolen; who are the individuals being given the special advantage of corruption amnesty (as opposed to those bound to face open trial); and what agency is in charge of warehousing of returned loot?
There is no doubt that it is, in the final analysis, only citizens that can assist any party in power to succeed in bringing change to a polity, more so one that had been hobbled for decades by venality of people in power. But such citizens need to be convinced by those in the legislature and the executive that the party in power is ready ‘to play ball.’ APC lawmakers’ eagerness to regulate free speech and the executive’s preference to be general (rather than specific) in talking about proceeds from an informal corruption amnesty to selected persons are likely to create doubts in the minds of vocal pro-change citizens. Citizens who voted for President Buhari and his party in preference to the PDP that has been in power for sixteen years had shown that they are ready for the sacrifice needed to bring change. It is the people citizens had voted into power that have to reassure voters that they too are ready for the inconvenience that a Change Manifesto can create for lawmakers and those in other arms of government.
NATION
END
Be the first to comment