Protest and Progress

Ever since the people spoke through their protestations about the not good enough attitude of government in the search for the girls, the tempo of the search  has moved from lukewarm to a frenetic pace with Nigerians being given regular information about what is being done by the government.  Of course, until the girls are […]

Ever since the people spoke through their protestations about the not good enough attitude of government in the search for the girls, the tempo of the search  has moved from lukewarm to a frenetic pace with Nigerians being given regular information about what is being done by the government.  Of course, until the girls are safely home, everything being done is still cold comfort.
After having witnessed the Nigeria Police change its attitude towards the protesters by blocking access routes and engaging them in unnecessary scuffles, on the 25th of May, 2014 on this page I expressed the fear that “the protests may stop without having achieved its aim”. And barely a week later, the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Police Command announced that it was banning the protests. Police Commissioner Mbu Joseph Mbu, previously of River State fame, who announced the decision, noted that because the protests had been infiltrated by “dangerous elements” his command was “banning it with immediate effect”. But almost immediately Mbu’s order was reversed by no less a person than the Nigeria Police Chief himself, the Inspector General of Police, Muhammed Abubakar told journalists that the police never issued any order banning the protests and that Mbu’s order was merely advisory to make protesters to be orderly and keep the peace.
As it stands, the protesters and indeed the nation are faced with two opposing orders- one out- rightly banning the protests and the other, coming from the Oga pata pata of the police, saying that it was not a ban but merely an advise enjoining people to do what they want to do with due care so as not to disturb the peace.  The difference between these two positions is not difficult to detect—Mbu’s orders seeks to put a stop to the protest once and for all; while his Oga, the IGP’s position allows the protests to go on, in so far as  they do not go beyond hoisting placards, chanting and generally conducted peacefully. In the May 25th piece, I argued that stopping peaceful protests would be counter- productive to government’s image already battered by the Chibok episode. It would be seen as muzzling freedom of assembly and the right to express one’s views.
As long as the protests remain peaceful and orderly, it is difficult to see what government stands to gain by banning them. Banning would merely show government is smarting from the sustained wave of public anger against its lapses thereby becoming intolerant of it. The correct attitude would be to look beyond its own narrow interest of preserving its image and realise that a cowed, petrified citizenry can only engender a culture of silence {which in fact many believe already exists and has taken deep roots). The point must be made that peace and order are not achieved by forcefully bottling up opposing views; views so repressed ultimately find expression in other unpalatable and unwholesome ways, like the kind that has become so prevalent now.  Therefore, the IGP’s more nuanced entreaty for protesters to exercise better judgement on the side of maintenance of peace and order is by far a better option to take as Nigeria seeks to lessen endemic violence. It recognises that democracy can only grow by walking the tight rope of delicately balancing people freedom against preservation of the polity for it to continue to serve their needs. Anyway, putting a stop to the protests can be done in more subtle way of appealing to the protesters sense of proportion and moderation and that they should also appreciate the enormity of the Chibok girls matter and what government is doing to surmount it.