The detached majority
Revolutions are never
enacted by a handful of fist-wielding hotheads daring a reigning order to its
worst ego fight. And when genuinely threatened, neither can revolutions be
taken down by a passive citizenry, or at best a motley band of largely self-interested,
if not contracted, cheerleaders of the status quo heckling away the threatening
revolutionaries. Effective revolutions and counter-actions are deeply engaging
exertions: outcomes of keen involvement by any set of people.
Semantics can be
exasperating, and it has been a sticking point for us here in Nigeria over the last
couple of weeks in evaluating the gravity of the intent of the #RevolutionNow protest called by brash
activist and presidential candidate in the 2019 general election, Omoyele
Sowore. But if we may work with book definition, revolution is “an attempt by a
large number of people to change the government of a country, especially by
violent action.” (Hornby, Oxford Advance Learners Dictionary, 2010)
The evidence of history
shows that true revolutions and counter-actions invariably involve role-play by
massive crowds. The Russian ‘October Revolution’ of 1917 was the outcome of a
Bolshevik-led armed insurrection by workers and soldiers that successfully
overthrew the provisional government and transferred all its authority to
grassroots community assemblies dominated by soldiers and the urban industrial
working class known as the Soviets. But we need not go that far back in history.
In contemporary times, we have seen a stalemated revolution unfold in Venezuela
where rival protests in support of President Nicolás Maduro, on the one hand,
and his self-proclaimed interim successor Juan Guaidó, on the other, paralysed
the Latin American country a few months ago. Both rival protests drew many
thousands of Venezuelans respectively supporting the contending leaders, who
dug their heels in on the streets of Caracas – Guaidó’s supporters, in
courageous defiance of forceful repression by Maduro’s security forces.
Even now as we speak,
Sudan is only just working through a tricky solution to its people’s revolution
that forced the ouster of former President Omar al-Bashir from power last
April. The Sudanese uprising, which was originally sparked by rising costs of
living but later morphed into a pressure campaign to flush al-Bashir out of
power, involved several thousands of citizens who remained unrelenting in the
face of lethal takedowns by the country’s military, and not just a handful of
daring objectors to the established order.
It is doubtful any
so-called revolution is worth that tag without demonstrated role-play by ‘a
large number of people,’ as stated in the dictionary meaning of the word. Was
Sowore’s #RevolutionNow adventure
then an intended revolution indeed, or was it an impetuous hype by upstart
activists? That may be a question for our judiciary to adjudicate on in the
days to come, against the backdrop of heavy security sleigh of hand the
campaign elicited. There is no question as it is, however, that it was a
people-less ‘revolution’ bid, which is a contradiction in terms.
‘It is moot to a high degree that the silent majority out
there is available for enlistment into political dueling one way or the other’
But then, the reigning
order apparently wasn’t wired to brook the fine nuances of the #RevolutionNow tag. Sowore was
preemptively arrested and is yet under lock by security services, which insisted
he was up to a tryst with high treason. The Presidency weighed in to say he was
calling for a “violent overthrow of a democratically-elected government.” Only
that on the set date, just a feeble rump of Sowore’s followers showed up and
they were smashed down by security agents before they could take position for
their threatened action. Reports said in few cities where demonstrations held,
security operatives deployed to stop the protests outnumbered protesters. Besides,
some conceptual befuddlement was revealed on the activists’ part by the fact
that their campaign was anchored on a set of demands from the Muhammadu Buhari
presidency against which ‘revolution’ was threatened.
Rights defenders like
Nobel laureate Professor Wole Soyinka decried the security clampdown as a
shameful throwback to the era of jackboot savagery we once experienced in this
country, while the government insisted it was necessitated to head off a slide
into anarchy. I suspect however that the sore point between the reigning order
and the activists was less the brandished tag of ‘revolution,’ but more a duel
for the hearts of the silent majority presumed available to be enlisted in the
citizenry.
Sowore injected that
line in the #RevolutionNow narrative
by boasting in advance that 85 percent of Nigerians were in support. Only that
such application of statistics was so evidently spurious it would be shocking
if anyone took it seriously. Not only is it not clear how the touted sample
size could have been polled, the very population size of this country as of
today is a crude and fleeting projection between 180million and 200million, of
which it is impossible to ascertain any given figure – even if accurately
polled – as a reliable percentage. Besides, the activist squad betrayed its
boast to be all gas by subsequently deploying the social media to mobilise
citizens’ participation in its planned action.
But the Muhammadu Buhari
administration was no less hooked on the ‘silent but available majority’
playbook. On the heels of the collapse of the protest last Monday, it applauded
Nigerians as rooting for democracy by shunning the protesters’ rallying call.
“Today, millions of Nigerians went about their businesses: work, seeking
employment, attending school/college and caring for their families. By so
doing, the millions defended our country’s hard-won democratic rights –
ignoring calls on the social media to join a phantom ‘revolution,’” Special
Assistant on Media and Publicity to the President, Garba Shehu, said in a
statement.
It is moot to a high
degree, in my view, that the silent Nigerian majority out there is available
for enlistment into political dueling one way or the other. Even the suggestion
that those millions were decidedly holding fort for the democratic order,
although passively, is self-serving when you consider that only 34.7 percent of
some 83million registered voters turned out for the February 23rd
presidential election. This not only marked the lowest percentage of voter
turnout since the enthronement of Nigeria’s Third Republic in 1999, it was
reckoned the lowest for all elections recently held in Africa, and second
lowest ever in the entire electoral history of the continent. The question is:
where were those silent millions said to be minded enough to hold fort for the
democratic order last week?
The bitter truth may be
that a huge majority of Nigerians are currently in thrall to basic existential
battles that have tuned them off contestations by the political elite for
spoils of public office. Reputed activist and former presidential aspirant, Oby
Ezekwesili, once hyped this possibility by accusing the political class of
deliberately impoverishing masses of Nigerians just so to keep them in
perpetual subjugation. Nigeria’s notoriety as the poverty capital of the world
is not news. Because they are fighting for basic economic survival, the silent
majority is apathetic to the political order and not available for enlistment
into ideational causes.
The #RevolutionNowners were audacious in their expectation (if indeed
they nursed such) to whip up street fervour akin to the Arab Spring of the
early 2010s in the Middle East. Not that there isn’t a red line of hardships
that could inevitably ignite such street fervour. But the Nigerian nationhood
is work in progress and the citizens are uncommonly resilient.
The flip side, however,
is that the detached majority also can’t be a ready bulwark against genuine
threats to our democracy, the way Turkish civilians rose up to foil a July 2016
coup by renegade soldiers against President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, unless
widespread economic deprivation is redressed and the people retuned to
collective ideals.
Comments