Analyzing the 2015 elections and the minuses propelled by hate speeches

 

By Evelyn Okakwu

All over the world, election periods are charactarised with series of events that increase the tempo of the political environment.

More so, the situation is apparent in developing countries where electioneering events are accompanied with the presence of security operatives aimed at calming the atmosphere and preventing violence.

In Nigeria, the effects of political affairs have become more vivid in the Democratic dispensation than the previous years, when military dictatorship provoked a unanimous clamour for the civilian government.

Also activities of politicians have only heightened the situation negatively; leaving the people more divided now than ever.

Yet still, the dangerous effect of negative comments,

or the lack of its opposite by political leaders have become a great source of worry to Nigerians at home, and in the diaspora.

In a recent discussion on the social media, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) expressed deep concerns over the increasing use of negatively inciting comments (Hate speech) by political party leaders, in the recent political scene

Titled; “Hate Speech and the 2015 election”, the discussion on twitter was archived with the hashtag #NoHateSpeechNG and anchored by Tolu Ogunlesi, a multiple international award winning journalist and political commentator, while professor Chidi Odinkalu, the chairman of National Human Rights Commission was featured in it.

According to Odinkalu, on his Twitter handle @chairmanNHRC, hate speech is defined as “including the ridicule and slander of persons, incitement to hate, contempt, threat of violence and discrimination against people because of their race, ethnicity, identity, belief, opinion”.

Odinkala added that there are laws, especially the electoral act, that define, prohibit and punish hate speech during election campaign periods in Nigeria. He also said Nigeria is bound by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which further prohibits hate speech.

Rightly noted; Odinkala further tweeted that; “#Hatespeech is even more serious in elections because of heightened public sensitivities: it precedes election violence #NoHateSpeechNg”

That discussion on tweeter by Odinkala gave examples of hate speeches stating that; “The description of a political party as having “Janjaweed ideology” or name calling a party “PDpigs” or its members as “cockroaches”, publishing death insinuation adverts, are examples of criminal hate speech, adding that free expression, though a human right, doesn’t protect one from hate speech.

But has any politician or party loyalists been convicted of the crime of hate speech? Odinkala answers:  “Those responsible for election #hatespeech and violence in #Nigeria in the past have not been held to account. We must change that #NoHateSpeechNg,”.

And if a time is to be slated for this much needed change, one would expect that such a time should be none other than now, when a messiah is highly craved to lighten the weight of the burden caused by the negative political events, in recent times.

Yet how effective have these political leaders fared in the events preceding the 2015 election?

Indeed, grievous remarks have been made by various political leaders, that any rational observer would predict danger for the masses when the elections are over. A case in point is the comment of the River State governor Rotimi Amaechi that the All progressives Congress party, (The APC) will form a parallel government if the Feb. 14th and 28th elections are rigged.

Also the unanimously acclaimed ‘hateful’ advert on various platforms by Ayo Foyoshe of Ekiti state wishing death on the APC aspirant has not gone without its accompanied criticisms

Yet still,  a publication on Vanguard newspapers On May 19 2012 reads:  “What did the former military ruler and former Presidential Candidate of the Congress for Progressive Change, General Muhammadu Buhari mean by saying that, if the national elections in 2015 were not fairly conducted, “the dog and the baboon would all be soaked in blood”? “It seems to be an idiomatic phrase portending evil, especially with the chilly connection of blood in its connotation. Could it have meant that “blood would flow”?

Or that certain elements would be drenched in blood? Who is the “monkey” and who is the “baboon”?

               

The publications further states that; “One believes that the broad interpretation would be that a rigged election, which the nation has suffered before, would provoke a bit of mayhem if it was repeated in 2015”.

Although the report on BBC, which propelled that follow up, was said to have meant something else in Hausa language, which was the language used by the former military leader, and presidential aspirant of the opposition, the APC various analysts have not sopped condemning it, and calling on these politicians to reflect more on the need for caution and always ‘look before they speak’.

Yet still, as a means of insisting the participation of the APC in the on-going presidential election debate, Director of Media and Publicity, PDP’s presidential campaign organization, Chief Femi Fani-Kayode stated regarding the APC that: “We know that they may have a few challenges with the English language; so, if they like they can even conduct the debate in vernacular: we would be prepared to pay for a translator or an interpreter just so that they could understand the proceedings”.

While Kayode may have been trying to compel the opposition to do what many have called a ‘part of the process,’ the use of language can best be described as derogatory.

Scores of Twitter discussants on the topic called on the NHRC to enforce existing laws to serve as deterrent to politicians, clergy, public officials, and other offenders using the social and traditional news media to disseminate hate messages.

Various analysts and media contributors on tweeter also noted the role of the media in helping to curb hate speeches and its many effects.

It is in the light of this that the current role played by some media organizations, (particularly popular television media houses in the country) in the name of political campaigns become worrisome.

Images of major aspirants likened to that of animals, in an effort to create a vivid picture of a proverb have been described by Nigerians as ‘one step too far’.

If pictures  and visuals aid speeches; this sort of visuals can only be regarded as aids to hateful comments, dished without the slightest thought of its effect on certain recipients.

Media organization, more than any other outfits must understand that they have a moral, legal and social responsibility to protect the lives of Nigerian, through their actions or inactions

Also the act of repeating similar broadcasts from the two major political parties, one after the other; has been likened more to attempt to incite hatred, than that aimed at displaying an unnecessary fair publicity.

As indicated by the Sultan of Sokoto, Sa’ad Abubakar III: “Christians and the Muslims are not at war, but the evil perpetrators are the ones waging war against the unity of Nigeria and Nigerians.”

Whether we admit it or not; facts have proven that these evil ones are the politicians among us, who have allowed selfishness to derail them every sense of  social responsibility to the populace.

And if anyone has the responsibility of making these facts known to Nigeria, media organisations, including television media should be at the fore front of such campaign.