The fact remains that competition is healthy because it improves, strengthens, and increases one’s chances of success. This is widely acknowledged in business and politics. In the context of Charles Robert Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” which contends that competition is not only beneficial but also natural, it carries an air of scientific validity.
However, as Maxwell A. Cameron, professor at the Centre for the Study of Democratic Institutions, University of British Columbia argues, the tremendous evolutionary advantage that humans have comes from our ability to cooperate, not compete, because competition, by itself, has never been the foundation of a great society.
This train of thought was what occupied my mind recently as I read the series of propaganda and outright falsehood being bandied about by mostly supporters of the presidential candidates of the major political parties: the All Progressives Congress (APC), the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the Labour Party (LP).
The fact that it is the first time we are seeing the emergence of a potent third force in our presidential elections since the return to democratic rule in 1999 has meant a triplication of the usual competitive tendencies of the electioneering campaigns.
More than most countries, the competitive Nigerian election experience has given evidence to the claim that “elections are war by other means,” an extension of the quote of Prussian General Carl Philipp Gottfried von Clausewitz (1780-1831), who believed that war is the “continuation of politics by other means” in his seminal work ‘On War,’ which became a standard textbook for the military leaders of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
From the election campaigns that followed the return of power to civilian control up until this historic three-way pre-campaign propaganda, the country has witnessed a hotbed of political tensions, unbridled violence and a combination of misinformation and disinformation campaigns to sway the voter’s thinking one way or another in much the same way as military generals do in the war theatre.
When former President Olusegun Obasanjo stated that the election that would determine his successor would be a ‘do-or-die affair’ in 2007, he was expressing the crudeness of this reality.
Obasanjo was insisting on the PDP retaining power in the 2007 general election and putting every machinery in government’s control and beyond, to see that the party did and it was a success. There was violence and rigging in certain parts of the country as the PDP muscled its way to retain power at all costs.
If anything, it got even worse in 2011 in the election cycle before the general election with Goodluck Jonathan on the PDP ticket and both Muhammadu Buhari and Nuhu Ribadu representing the opposition.
Despite that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), under Attahiru Jega’s leadership, made efforts to introduce reforms, at least 800 people were killed in three days of post-election violence, according to the Geneva-based Human Rights Watch. The pontificators who evoked that violence began with propaganda during the campaigns.
In addition, even though Nigeria did not record a large number of deaths, following the 2015 elections that brought the incumbent to power, the weeks before then claimed the lives of 58 people, at least, killed across the nation during election-related violence between December 2014 and February 2015, according to the National Human Rights Commission.
This was considered a good outcome in the end, because the fear of a full-scale war was very real, with many families who had the means relocating abroad to avoid being caught up in the crossfire, especially after the vitriolic levels of hate campaigns that preceded the polls. Perhaps, the acceptance of the election results by Jonathan spared further bloodletting.
As we approach another election season, this dangerous warring by other means through the instrument of campaigns has started. That is why, as I witness pre-campaign shenanigans begin to sow seeds of division, distrust and even hate before the campaigns begin proper next month, I am considering it a duty to sound a strong note of warning.
Our natural tendencies to be competitive must be balanced by our collective responsibilities to ensure that the country that we call our own before the elections next year continues to exist during and after the results have been announced and a winner has emerged. The smoke of misinformation and disinformation typical to the propaganda of elections often points to the existence of an unwatched fire that has the potential to bring the house down to ashes if caution is thrown to the winds and our need for peace and coexistence is sacrificed on the altar of victory at all costs.
The attribution of the supporters of one candidate as card-carrying members of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), a nationalist separatist group aimed at the restoration of the Republic of Biafra via a breakaway from Nigeria, is the exact type of political mudslinging that cannot but foster virulent outbursts and can go off the rails to result in actual violence against those on the other side of the divide.
There was enough vituperative back and forth going on online, with a popular newspaper columnist publishing an article that twisted the “Obidient” movement of the Labour Party presidential candidate with the title ‘Obi-tuary” that the author became the target of real threats of violence and, at the very extreme, death. And, that is a path down the rabbit hole that is best avoided.
This warning is made more paramount because the main distinction in political propaganda today is not necessarily the content, but the audience that it targets. Political propaganda may now reach more people faster and much more easily than ever, partly due to the Internet and social media, as well as a media industry that is pushed by sensationalist reporting because it is profitable.
As we have experienced recently, some governments that frequently employ propaganda have taken over official and private media outlets, allowing them to disseminate their propaganda through these channels and give it a false air of legitimacy. Donald Trump, for instance, disseminated his propaganda via social media and the assistance of a small number of supportive media outlets, such as Fox News. However, the mainstream media did contribute by identifying and disseminating the false information. The act of spreading his messages, regardless of the circumstance, promotes their propagation even when it is done to elicit criticism.
Political propaganda, however, is more than just a means of deceiving people. Instilling mistrust by leaving people unsure of the facts is a crucial component of propaganda. In the long run, this will lead to people completely tuning out of political conversation since it will be too difficult to choose who to believe.
That was why the Ghanaian president’s debunking of fake news attributed to him and emanating from the pre-campaign disinformation cycle in Nigeria was a warning to everyone: the political parties, their fervent supporters and the general voting public.
President Nana Akufo-Addo took to Twitter to officially remove his name from claims on Facebook that he had asked Bola Tinubu (APC) to give Peter Obi (LP) a chance, while the APC leader sought treatment for his health, calling the claim “completely false and mischievous, with no iota of truth whatsoever in it.” This followed another prominent call out from the eminent Professor Wole Soyinka, who distanced himself from the political leanings of the National Association of Seadogs, popularly known as the Pyrates Confraternity, which he co-founded, and members of whom were seen in a viral video making fun of Tinubu’s health.
These are just two examples of a growing wave of propaganda actions that are gaining in spread, but which those who know how they can go off the rails and degenerate into a lawless free-for-all must immediately call out and stand against.
National progress is based on our ability to empathise, solve social problems and make moral decisions.
As humans, we would not have evolved language, tools, art, or even war without our capacity to copy, cooperate, learn from and comprehend one another, if we only competed and waged war. We must learn not to be driven to extremes.
Despite Obasanjo’s declaration of the 2007 general election as a do-or-die matter for his candidate and party, neither the retired General himself nor any of the other participants in the extreme verbal political campaigns died. Rather, it was a set of unidentified Nigerians that undoubtedly were sacrificed as a result of the tension, bloodshed, and fraud that surrounded the elections. Those who evoked violence during the 2011 campaign cycle also are still active in politics and may be seen on the streets today.
We must not let ourselves become victims of this cycle. As we support those whose manifestos and policies resonate with the type of country we want to belong to, it is our responsibility to practice high standards of political engagements without rancour or bitterness, argue policies, debate standards, disagree on principles and vote on convictions without sowing seeds of division, distrust and hate. We need to remain a country and our coexistence will be hinged on how we can navigate the campaigns in peace for the brighter tomorrow we seek.
About the Author
