Nigeria: See What Facebook Can Do [opinion]

I’ve been on the Mo Ibrahim Governance for Development in Africa (GDIA) Fellowship at the University of London for the past two months, but, trust me, I’ve kept a close tab on events in Nigeria. As I was putting finishing touches to my research, news broke that President Goodluck Jonathan had reversed his decision to withdraw Nigeria from international football for two years. At first, I said: “Another Yar’Adua is born!” The late President Yar’Adua was popularly known for changing his mind every second.

But, on a second thought, I was pleased that Jonathan changed his decision. His spokesman, Mr. Ima Niboro, said the president decided to reverse the decision because of the opinions expressed by a broad range of Nigerians on the social networking website, facebook. Why was I pleased? It helped my research! Rather than condemn the president, I would rather say “good move”. It is always good to listen to public opinion on some issues – public debate could be very useful.

The area of my research was “New Media and Participatory Governance in Africa: An Inquiry”. The general idea is: how can “new media” offer citizens a space to have influence over public policy? By “new media”, I refer to the internet and mobile telephony as platforms for ordinary citizens to air news and views, as different from the “traditional media”, namely newspapers and radio/TV stations which are run by professional journalists.

Facebook, twitter, blogs and mobile telephony belong to the “new media” platform. This platform offers a very good prospect for “participatory journalism” and “citizen journalism” (that is, citizens, even though not professional journalists, act as journalists by providing news and views). “Participatory governance”, on the other hand, is the involvement of citizens in the decision-making process of government. Citizens “participate” in this process through public debate with the aim of influencing public policy. “New media” is a very good platform for participation – both in journalism and governance.

Obviously, democracy has a problem – the problem of participation. You call that a contradiction? Yes, it is a contradiction. Democracy itself is participation. It is the right of the people to determine their destinies. Democracy is the right of the people to decide what and who they want – as opposed to monarchy or aristocracy. Voters elect representatives and then entrust them with the mandate to take decisions on their behalf. But the representatives, once in power, often choose to take decisions without recourse to the voters.

Nigeria is a country of 140 million people. Less than half are registered to vote. Less than half of those registered actually vote. And when you elect about 500 people to take decisions on behalf of 140 million, the representatives are in fact a minority. They may decide to do whatever they like when they get into government. The voters are no longer consulted. The voters’ voice is no longer heard, much less heeded. They are cut off. They do not participate in the democratic process except at election times when politicians remember that they need them again. We end up with the tyranny of the elected representatives who are more or less completely disconnected from the citizens. That is a major problem with democracy not just in Africa but globally.

How then do you involve citizens in the decision-making process? The idea of a free press is fundamental to democracy. But who owns the media? In Nigeria, most newspapers and broadcast stations are owned by politicians or by entrepreneurs who are beholden to politicians. Globally, citizens are fast losing faith in the traditional media. They believe the media is censored or censors itself because of political and economic interests.

Therefore, the citizens on the streets fear that what they are reading is highly censored. They also fear that their own views may not be published. So they resort to self-help by setting up a form of new media to air their views. Some scholars actually believe that the new media is more open, more democratic because the operators do not necessarily have any political or economic interest to protect. Or, put some other way, everybody is free to participate in the new media no matter the interest or bias. Everybody is a commentator. Everybody is an analyst. Everybody has a voice.

There are a lot of problems with that for sure – issues of ethics, libel, credibility and all that. In fact, there is a sense in which new media can be seen as anarchy. People can take advantage of it to malign others, settle political scores and publish absolute falsehood. That is a very present danger. While professional journalists may be conscious of the possibility of libelling someone and facing court action, the “citizen journalists” are not.

They believe they can write anything and publish anything even if there is no proof. These are clearly shortcomings. But, really, I am more interested in the positive use of new media to influence public policy. We cannot throw the baby away with the bath water. Governments can create websites or set up an SMS service to allow citizens to participate in public debates. President Jonathan, for instance, has set up a facebook account for comments and contributions to the electoral process. That is modern governance. US President Barack Obama used the new media platform very well during his novel campaign. Offering this kind of platform to citizens is very good for participatory governance.

Should government subject every decision to public debate? It can be argued that by electing representatives into government, you have entrusted them with the power to take decisions on your behalf. You believe in them that is why you voted for them. So you have to trust them whatever decision they take.

But this kind of argument is unhelpful. We assume that every decision is alike. We assume that reaching a decision on, for instance, taking a World Bank loan, is the same as taking a decision on building an amusement park. There are decisions that require technocratic expertise. But there are decisions that do not. If my village has problems with water supply, and the government decides to build an amusement park there, this is completely out of tune. The community needs to be asked – what are your most pressing needs? That way, they would feel they have been consulted. They will feel they're part of governance. Also, government will be meeting the community's needs as defined by them and not as defined by a technocrat operating inside an air-conditioned office.

New media forums, like facebook, are also good as feedback mechanism. Government often does things without allowing the citizens to appraise the output and the outcome. For instance, if government provides streetlights in a particular place, wouldn’t it be good for the citizens to be able to report on how well the lights are working? They can also offer suggestions on maintenance in a workable, sustainable manner. Through this same mechanism, they can be encouraged to report any faults or vandalism to the appropriate authorities. Indeed, a wise government will incorporate the new media into its policy process. It gives the citizens a sense of belonging. It is a very good platform to make the people see government as their own.

There are challenges, of course. How many people have access to internet? How many have access to mobile phones? Even among those who have access, how many can actually make meaningful contributions to public debate? How do you deal with the various comments and contributions? And, sure, there are loads and loads and loads of them! More so, are you going to be taking decisions based on the comments of the internet mob? All these are real problems, obviously, but they do not invalidate the importance of new media in the governance process. If anything, new media can supplement and strengthen governance processes.

At least, according to the President Jonathan, commentators on facebook had a say in upturning the decision to withdraw Nigeria international football. Don't forget, too, that the molestation of Uzoma Okeke by naval ratings was captured on video by "citizen journalists". The "new media" cup, I would suggest, is half full, not half empty.

 

And Four Other Things...

Zoning and Power Rotation
The new chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Dr. Okwesilieze Nwodo, is in the eye of the storm over his statement that “zoning is dead”. My concern is that we are not getting the terms properly defined. Zoning has been with us since Independence.

It has been employed both in military and civilian eras. That is why the president and his deputy do not come from the same zone. However, what we have been debating since President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua died is “power rotation”, not zoning. “Power rotation” is a concept adopted by PDP for a North-South rotation of the office of the president to “heal the wound of the nation” after the annulment of June 12. Zoning, on the other hand, applies to the sharing of positions/offices in parties and in government in a way to reflect the federal character.

The sharing usually depends on which section of the country produces the leader. It is only natural to zone offices, even if informally, in a plural society like ours. My point is: let’s not confuse the terms as the debate continues.

Orji’s Brave Move
The decision of Governor Theodore Orji of Abia State to defect to the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) from the Progressive Peoples Alliance (PPA) is a good move. I am not suggesting that Orji is right or that APGA is a better party. No. Personally, I don’t believe any party is better than the other.

 I have taken time to study the structure, funding, internal democracy and decision-making in our political parties and I have come to the conclusion that they are all alike. But it is very fashionable to pick on PDP and describe it as anti-democracy. After all, as the biggest party, PDP’s failings will be more obvious. My joy with Orji’s defection is that he did not choose PDP as most people do. It is very convenient to defect to PDP in order to use “federal might” to win elections. Therefore, anybody who does not choose the easy way out really makes my day.

A Spain in the Neck?
The 2010 World Cup comes to an end today, with Spain and Netherlands fighting it out to decide the new champions of world football. This year’s tournament has produced a lot of firsts – the first to hold in Africa; the first in which the host country (South Africa) did not make it beyond the group stage; the first in which the previous finalists (Italy and France) were knocked out at the group stage; and the first in which the two finalists (Spain and Netherlands) have never won the cup before – since 1954). Well, it is also the first in which an octopus has taken the centre stage in making predictions which have been 100 per cent accurate so far.

The octopus says Spain will win. No matter who wins today, the truth is that neither of them has been majestic or imperial in this tournament. Spain has been best at possession, yes, but 1-0 margins are not majestic. Overall, I was very impressed with Argentina and Germany, but if the Spanish win, they are certainly the best among the rest.

Good Night, Funso
We were bereaved last week. Our Abuja judicial editor, Mr. Funso Muraina, died while on medical leave. Because I’ve not been in the country since May, I really did not know he was seriously ill.

His death was so sudden to me. It’s so painful. Late last year, we were together in Abuja and he was discussing his future plans with me. He said he wanted to launch a book as part of his 50th birthday this year. But now it would never be. He had sent me an email last month to wish me well in my programme, joking: “Please buy Agege bread from London when you’re coming back.” Death is so cruel.

simonkolawole@thisdayonline.com

- July 7, 2010 by Simon Kolawole

....................

Source: www.thisdayonline.com/nview.php (accessed on 09.07.10)