THE #EndBadGovernance protest, which started on August 1, 2024 and formally ended on August 20, 2024 has continued to raise discussions across the country and beyond, especially within civil society groups. More than 1,400 people who took part in the protest have reportedly been arrested and detained by security agencies with indications that the government is still trying to hunt-down suspected sponsors of the protest.

One of the important lessons from the protest is that the storm clouds seem to be really gathering towards a totalitarian state – a system characterised by a strong central rule that attempts to control and direct all aspects of individual life through coercion and repression. 

In political science, totalitarianism is the extreme form of authoritarianism, wherein all power is held by a dictatorial nanny state that promotes group-think through blackmail and propaganda. Group-think, according to the American social psychologist Irving Janis who coined the term, is “the mode of thinking that persons engage in when concurrence-seeking becomes so dominant in a cohesive in-group that it tends to override realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action.”  In group-think, loyalty to the group requires individuals to avoid raising controversial or non-conforming issues and ideas or even alternative solutions.

The first lethal blow to liberal democracy by totalitarians is the ‘chilling of speech’.  This refers to a situation where individuals or groups refrain from exercising their constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech (both verbal and symbolic, such as organising peaceful protests) for fear of running afoul of a law or regulation. The ‘chilling of free speech’ is a form of ‘prior restraint’ (a form of censorship that allows the government to review the content of printed materials to decide whether such should be published or not). When free speech is successfully stifled, even an honest opinion could be construed as an incitement by the totalitarian state which then uses it as a pretext to come after purveyors of the speech it does not like. As the American jurist Wendell Holmes famously put it in Gitlow v New York (1925): “Every idea is an incitement… The only difference between the expression of an opinion and an incitement in the narrower sense is the speaker’s enthusiasm for the results”.

Totalitarians come in different guises, usually rationalising their desire to chill free speech by hiding under higher values. A good example is the ‘end of politics’ sycophants in the Tinubu government. This is an overzealous but self-serving group which, in the wake of the Supreme Court affirmation of Bola Ahmed Tinubu as the President after the controversial 2023 presidential election, began an aggressive quest to muzzle free speech by those they consider as opposition elements. 

They did so (and still do) using various mantras such as “the time for politicking is over, it is now the time for governance” or “the President should be allowed to concentrate on governance”, the “President should not be distracted”, “those who lost elections should wait until 2027”, etc, etc. 

The irony is that the advocates of “the end of politics” are themselves being political. They are either trying to stifle the voices of opposition or blackmail critics of the government, both of which are needed in a democracy to keep the government on its toes for optimal performance. Ironically, some members of this in-group flaunt their ‘democratic credentials’ by constantly reminding us of their roles in the struggle for the revalidation of MKO Abiola’s mandate.  The truth is that not all who partook in the noble struggle to re-validate MKO Abiola’s mandate were democrats. Some were drawn into the struggle by different motives, including defence of ethnic pride.

Just like the DSS infamously went after people who expressed an honest opinion of supporting an interim government after the 2023 elections and sought to blackmail the public into believing that such expressions of honest opinion amounted to intentions to commit treason, the ‘end of politics’ zealots, (many of who are linked to the government), are going overdrive to criminalise protest. 

I fail to see any crime not just in peaceful protests but also in the ‘sponsorship’ of such protests – which is actually a way of encouraging citizens to become active participants in the political process. And talking of sponsorship, are various state agencies such as the National Orientation Agency and others that provide myriad forms of political enlightenment campaigns not also engaging in ‘sponsorship’ when they devise schemes for citizens to identify more with the government of the day, including funding pro-government or counter protests? The only difference is that while one group is presumably ‘sponsored’ to voice its displeasure with the government (which is constitutionally allowed), another group is ‘sponsored’ to identify with the government of the day. 

Of course supporting citizens to become active participants in the political process through ‘sponsoring’ peaceful protest must be distinguished from sponsoring an insurrection or encouraging violent protest or vandalising   people’s property, which is condemnable. 

In the run-up to the protest, Bayo Onanuga, who had in the aftermath of the 2023 presidential election in Lagos proclaimed himself a Yoruba irredentist and weaponised ethnicity, accused Peter Obi of being the secret sponsor of the #EndBadGovernance protest. Others linked to the government have also variously accused Atiku Abubakar, the North, some senior military officers from the North, the Igbos and foreign interest of being the sponsors of the protest. There was also a threat to start a campaign for Igbo-Must-Go from August 20 2024 to force the Igbos to vacate Lagos and all the states in the South-West (so far no arrest has been made about the sponsors of the genocidal campaign).  

Recently, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Tajudeen Abbas, introduced a so-called Counter Subversive Bill 24 (now withdrawn), which proposed harsh penalties for Nigerians who refuse to recite the national anthem, destroy national symbols, or deface places of worship or who organise “an unlawful procession”. I see all these as gangster methods of chilling speech through the spreading of fear across the camps of opposition forces. 

Once free speech is successfully chilled, our current liberal democracy, as imperfect as it is, would be further corrupted into George Orwell’s dystopian account of a totalitarian state in his book, ‘Nineteen-Eighty-Four’. Since the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, it is important that anti-democratic forces, in whatever guises they come, are not allowed to gain an upper hand. 

It is germane to note that the very First Amendment to the American Constitution in 1791 was to protect freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. This is because free speech, and the marketplace of ideas which it creates, is the foundational structure of democracy. Without it, democracy dies.

To be concluded