…the logic of the Buhari government’s response to the #EndSARS protests appears to have concluded that the protest was a threat to the state (however that is read), when it could have understood it, instead, as a vital process of broadening and deepening our democracy.
Several weeks after its controversial, but undoubtedly unfortunate, denouement, the #EndSARS protest retains its capacity to elicit intensely opposed sentiments amongst the populace. With some hope, the ongoing panel of enquiry into the circumstances in which the protesters at the Lekki Toll Plaza (Lagos State) were dispersed will lay a few of the more contentious issues to rest. In all likelihood, though, a white paper from any enquiry will only add more combustible material to the flames.
Throughout our history, enquiries of this nature have understood their tasks in terms of squelching an incipient threat to the state. Which definition makes sense under an unelected military government. Lacking all but one source of legitimacy ― the violence that could flow from the barrel of the guns with which it seized power ― a military government was always going to look askance at all sources of power within the state that are not under its control. Inevitably, the use of force to put down protesters would check all the key boxes in an unelected government’s playbook. As indeed, the more excessive the force, the stronger the signal to those who would ordinarily pose challenges to it.
Yet, on this denial of voice to others, unelected governments struggle to find a good leg to stand on. As human societies develop, as increasingly larger cohorts of the population acquire worries beyond basic needs, perspectives become more diverse and deeply held. The demand for channels through which these opinions may be ventilated strengthens, as does the diversity of channels sought. Democratic government, at least, pretends to give wings to this process. If nothing else, the regular polls around which democracies are constructed simply formalise the idea and process of contending ideas remaining free to do battle. But the democratic notion goes way beyond this. The real exchange of ideas on which democracies subsist happens in the inter-election period, when disagreements over the qualification to govern of the ruling party help hone the choices that will be made at the ballots.
It is, thus, injurious to a democracy to seek to restrain the ideas around which the electorate may gather ― except in the extent to which the exercise of the active principles associated with such ideas impinge on the rights of others.
In this sense, a democracy fails when it elevates the rights of the state over that of the electorate ― in other words, when it seeks to restrict the breadth of issues around which the public may have or express an opinion. Nor shall it elevate the rights of communities over those of the individual, without first religiously enforcing the freedom of the latter to associate. To gather round one idea today, and coalesce around another, tomorrow, that is the curse of the electorate in a democracy. It is, thus, injurious to a democracy to seek to restrain the ideas around which the electorate may gather ― except in the extent to which the exercise of the active principles associated with such ideas impinge on the rights of others. Nor is it okay that the state should hope to impose sanctions on the channels of expression in a democracy ― again, provided that these channels do not occasion harm to others.
That said, the logic of the Buhari government’s response to the #EndSARS protests appears to have concluded that the protest was a threat to the state (however that is read), when it could have understood it, instead, as a vital process of broadening and deepening our democracy. In the former reading, its current strong arm measures ― seizing the travel documents of the protests’ alleged organisers and interdicting their bank accounts ― makes some sort of sense. But read properly, government was invited by the events of the last few months simply to beef up its dossiers on these people. And to broaden communication and dialogue channels in the country in a way that obviates scarce resources being deployed as efficiently as was done in support of the protests.
By hounding those who lent voice to these concerns, government continues to violate these rights. While drawing attention to the trust issues at the heart of our failure to build an efficient state.
To the argument that left unchecked, protests are habit-forming, it is easy to rush to offer a “strong government” as a solution. But to the extent that there’s consensus on the inadmissibility of the extra-judicial police activities that the protests were all about, government missed several tricks. All over the world, it is standard practice for enquiries to succeed the police use of firearms in situations involving civilians. Even when in hot pursuit of an alleged felon, the concern with the excessive use of force is a legitimate one. In our case, however, the police appeared to have turned into an excessive force itself. And by its failure to fix this, successive governments have been complicit in constraining civil rights.
By hounding those who lent voice to these concerns, government continues to violate these rights. While drawing attention to the trust issues at the heart of our failure to build an efficient state.
Uddin Ifeanyi, journalist manqué and retired civil servant, can be reached @IfeanyiUddin.
