Zohnerism and the likes in 2023 (I)

The second wind by Huzaifa jega   We are in the season of politics and political arguments where both sides seem deeply entrenched in their views and unwilling to budge an inch. In the heat of conflict, whether one championed on the basis of self-interest or altruistic public good, it may seem like your opponent […]

The second wind by Huzaifa jega

 

We are in the season of politics and political arguments where both sides seem deeply entrenched in their views and unwilling to budge an inch. In the heat of conflict, whether one championed on the basis of self-interest or altruistic public good, it may seem like your opponent lacks logic or evidence, but experience from Nigeria’s four-year election cycles points to a different problem: We’re not recognising each other’s values… or interests.

Given what we all know about the Nigerian political scene, all one has to do is to sincerely have an interest in wanting to improve political conversations and the culture around our conception of the most contentious issues. People often assume that everyone has the same values or aspirations in mind when they discuss moral or political subjects. But rather than arguing based on our own values, one might attempt a more productive engagement by simply recognizing the other person’s values, and interests — then reframe our mindsets to speak to those values and interests.

Both PDP and ACP typically craft arguments based on their own moral convictions, when the conversation is that conscientious, rather than the convictions of the people they target for persuasion. But our own politics tend to be blandly and blindly based on material interests where the goal is the zero-sum self-interest and as a result, these moral arguments tend to in turn be blandly and blindly unpersuasive, even offensive, to their recipients. This technique of moral reframing — whereby a position an individual would not normally support is framed in a way that is consistent with that individual’s moral values and material interests — can be an effective means for political communication and persuasion. 

Arguing for our own convictions, specifically with respect to who among the two serious contenders, to wit Tinubu and Atiku, will control the labyrinthine patronage system better, and against someone else’s can be challenging because of how we internalize what we believe.

At this point, we can stop talking about values and focus more on material interests. People, being people, really care very deeply about these interests as they should, so you’re essentially asking someone to rethink all the good things they want for their lives, and change what they care about deeply. However, by finding out what’s most important to the audience, you might find some common ground on particular issues.

No doubt, the clash in 2023 is going to be as interesting as it will be epic in every sense. Both sides are very much entrenched, very well fed and funded – and for the fact that some pundits believe that the incumbent president really has no horse in the race makes it the more interesting, if true.

But one thing I will throw in as we go into the 2023 battle royale is for my fellow voters who have made up their minds, and for those still on the fence. It is about the strategic political manipulation mechanisms already taking shape and going into gear. It is not about being reasonable and well-rounded too. Anyone can be a victim.

In 1997, a 14-year-old American student, Nathan Zohner presented a science fair project to his classmates, seeking to ban a highly toxic chemical from its everyday use. The chemical in question? Dihydrogen monoxide.

Throughout his presentation, Zohner provided his audience with scientifically correct evidence as to why this chemical should be banned.

He explained that dihydrogen monoxide:

· Causes severe burns while it’s in gas form.

· Corrodes and rusts metal.

· Kills countless amounts of people annually.

· Is commonly found in tumors, acid rain etc.

· Causes excessive urination and bloating if consumed.

Zohner also noted that the chemical is able to kill you if you depend on it and then experience an extended withdrawal.

He then asked his classmates if they actually wanted to ban dihydrogen monoxide. And so, 43 out of the 50 children present voted to ban this clearly toxic chemical. However… this chemical isn’t typically considered toxic at all. In fact, dihydrogen monoxide is simply H2O, which is nothing but Water.

The moral here as it affects our context is not only the ability to understand the person from the other aisles when they talk, but also to be able to see these emerging trends in selective communication as each of the aisles brings out their big guns.