In “Finding long-lasting solutions to Nigeria’s woes” published on 11 June, 2024, I commented on a post sent to me by a comrade and classmate at “Great Ife”, Wale Olajire Ajao, titled “The role of the public space in a democracy” In it, I disagreed with Wale that critics do not necessarily have to offer suggestions; the role of defending the government, he said, rests squarely on the shoulders of the public relations managers of the government.
Today, I am honouring my pledge to publish Wale’s treatise in full (with little editing because of space constraints) and to further explain why I disagree with some of his views. Read on:
“Public space can be defined as any medium or avenue made available for citizens to express views on the public affairs of a society. Such mediums could be above-the-line, below-the-line or on-line channels. Among above-the-line channels are magazines, newspapers and electronic mediums like radio and television. One of their major characteristics is that a vast or mass audience can be reached at a time. For example, Tokyo Daily in Japan or Washington Post in the USA can circulate up to five million copies daily.
Below-the-line channels include leaflets, posters and interpersonal communication channels such as letters or intra-organisation communication channels like house journals or newsletters and other new media avenues like WhatsApp group where up to two hundred members of the platform can exchange ideas by chatting up one another. On-line channels are usually new media avenues like e-mail, Facebook, X and WhatsApp. On-line channels can disseminate information faster than traditional media like newspapers and magazines . New media can also reach the vast majority of communication consumers more than newspapers and magazines. Electronic channels, however, can reach the audience faster than any new media channel.
The common characteristic of any public space channel is that it is an avenue for the exchange of ideas. In effect, in the public space there is bound to be advertisement and dis- advertisement of ideas. This is so because in the public space, it is ideas and opinions that are in competition; not the owners of the ideas or opinions. Views compete for attention in the public space. It is clear, therefore, that in a democracy, the public space is open to all the stakeholders to express their views. In popular language, the right of a stakeholder to express his or her opinion on any issue of public interest is what is described as the citizen’s fundamental human rights.
This means that each citizen has an equal right of access to the public space. No citizen has a right to inhibit another citizen from expressing his opinion. Therefore, the first thing all users of the public space must accept is that each citizen has equal access or equal right to the public space whatever their opinion. In effect, it is clear that all users of the public space cannot have the same opinion on an issue. Therefore, the first condition for a proper use of the public space is that all users must allow others to express their views without harassment or intimidation. One major demand which the public space makes on all users is what is known as the right of reply. Just as every citizen has a right to express his opinion, it is also the right of everyone to reply to whatever has been put in the public space which they agree or disagree with.
One very clear role of the public space is that it gives everyone the right to react to whatever they agree or disagree with. This means, for example, that if Mr. Julius Akpojiovi is fond of writing only negative things about Nigeria, other users of the public space can respond by publishing what is good about Nigeria. That is how to use the public space. Whenever someone expresses an opinion that is not acceptable, those who disagree have the right of reply.
Democracy thrives on difference of opinions because it provides for the right of expression and right of reply. In a democracy, no one should abuse another person just because of difference or divergence of opinions. The public space can accommodate everyone because it has provided freedom of speech or freedom of expression as well the right of reply. It is an abuse of the public space to abuse or attack someone just because of his or her opinion. All a good user of public space has to do is to exercise his right of reply whenever and wherever he deems it necessary.
When stakeholders refuse to abide by the freedom of speech and the right of reply, they endanger democracy by unwittingly resorting to gagging the press or polluting the public space. When people are threatened or attacked just because of their opinion, the society loses because it is when two opposing camps engage in a debate that stakeholders can have a deeper understanding of the issues at hand.
One common manifestation of abuse of the public space is to resist or be openly intolerant of dissenting opinions. Critics of the government are often regarded as enemies of the government simply because they criticized the government. Supporters of the government often say that those who criticize the government should come up with alternative views or suggestions for the government to consider. But the rules of the public space do not include making suggestions to the government.
In other words, a critic who does not have suggestions to make to the government has not violated the rules of the public space just because he did not make suggestions to the government. In fact, his duty is not to make suggestions. His duty is to criticise. If someone has made destructive criticism, the media officers of the government or those supporting it may choose to exercise their right of reply. No more no less!
The beauty of democracy is that the traditional media law has a way of dealing with mischief-makers who deliberately publish falsehoods against the government or fellow citizens. There is the law of libel; there is also the law of defamation targeted at any medium which publishes libelous information. The fact that new media has been making it difficult to punish those who publish falsehood is the reason governments all over the world are calling for new laws to regulate it; just like it obtains for Facebook, X, WhatsApp, etc.
With new media, so many things can be thrown into the public space by anonymous authors. In fact, new media has turned everyone into a journalist, which is not so with the traditional media because not everyone acting as journalists in new media today was trained to be one. Newspaper editors will not accept for publication many of the materials we see on new media because they are not ethical and are injurious to society and the public space.
In effect, new media is potentially capable of abusing the public space because it is abusive of people with dissenting opinions; it also contains falsehood or deliberate distortion of facts and figures. In Europe and America, more and more people are calling on the government to look for ways of streamlining the use of new media. In fact, in China and some Asian countries, new media is not licensed to operate. One other common source of abuse of the public space is when non-experts on a subject insist that everyone on a platform must accept his view as an authority on the issue at hand . Such persons often easily resort to abusing people with dissenting opinions.
In conclusion, the most important role of the public space is that, in a democracy, it allows everyone to speak their mind without fear of intimidation. The public space provides for freedom of expression and the right of reply, both of which make abuse or attack unnecessary. This is more so as there are ready laws to tame offenders”.
The only aspect of this beautifully-crafted piece that I disagree with is where Wale posits that critics need not provide suggestions; I think they should for many reasons.
One: It will drastically reduce the number of ignoramuses who simply jump on board, especially on social media, to run their mouth. Two: The suggestions they make will let us know the stuff of which they are made. Three: Those in government do not have a monopoly of knowledge; therefore, suggestions from all manner of places will be of benefit to everyone. Four: Scriptures say in the multitude of counsel, there is safety (Proverb 11: 14). So, counsel and advice cannot be too much. Five: It is a known fact that many of those who walk the corridors of power seldom tell our leaders the truth. Leaders are often cut off from reality; they get caged. A high-ranking senator made this same allegation recently. Six: Since we all have a stake in getting our problems solved and making our country better, offering possible solutions is one way of contributing our own quota to making the country great.
If, truly, the rules of the public space is as Wale has said, then, it should quickly be amended to put a burden on critics. Otherwise, criticism just for the sake of criticism is mere hot air; a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing! Apologies, William Shakespeare! Aside from political partisans, skit makers and comedians qualify as some of the most vicious violators of the rule of the public space. How to rein them in without violating their freedom of speech is a challenge.