Writing for Leaders and Decision Makers
Every writer on Facebook or in Social Media has his or her own audience. As I have told a friend a few years ago, the utility of a given work or essay is ABSOLUTELY NOT in relation to the strength of the debate accompanying it or the number of those clicking on the like or love icon, or sharing it. It is the strength of the impact on the target audience. The jolt factor. That's what matters.
Most often, when the rebuttal to a contentious essay comes up from the targeted audience or an interested party, not many people can connect the dots. Only the author and his audience or the interested party are in the picture. In this essay, I will cite four instances - two from Nigeria and two from the United States - where rebuttal happens without any reference to the essay or view that motivated it.
It is in that light that I explain the recent warning from Mr. President, directed at the organizers of the EndSARS Peaceful Protest and my recent essay, titled "The Persecution of the EndSARS# Peaceful Protesters and the False Coup Narrative of Northern Governors." I argued that the warning from the Nigerian Police Force was motivated by the outcome of the communique issued by the Northern Governors after their emergency meeting in Kaduna. I described it as imposing regional values on a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic nation-state. What the President did yesterday, was simply damage control on behalf of the Northern governors that it wasn't a regional decision, but that of the Presidency. You have to know your audience to decipher when a rebuttal comes.
June 2013, following the hoopla that accompanied the abrogation of the Boko Haram sect by the Jonathan Administration, Punch newspaper published a story titled "North kicks against a ban on B’Haram, Ansaru." And it was widely read. Not because of the content of the story per se, but for the dominant comment accompanying the story.
I wasn't a fan of President Jonathan; nevertheless, when he proscribed the Boko Haram sect and declared a state of emergency in Adamawa, Yobe, and Borno State, I wrote a piece on the same subject, calling on Nigerians to ignore Mallam El'rufai and Retired General Buhari incendiary comments, and rally round our President. I sent the essay to some major newspapers and Sahara Reporter, but they declined to publish.
So, when Punch's story came, "North kicks against a ban on B’Haram, Ansaru," I saw an opening for me and an opportunity to publish my views unedited. I cut and pasted my story verbatim in the commentary box of Punch's story. And I signed it as Nonaligned Progressive (I didn't use my name). The moment my piece appeared at the commentary box, it became the major story, supplanting the original story by the Punch newspaper. My comment received more than 100 thumbs-up and more than 400 comments - all of them, endorsing my views.
Given the massive positive response to the essay for an extended period, I anticipated a response from either the Arewa Conservative Forum Group or an academics from Bayero University. A few days later, the rebuttal came. Not from Bayero or from the ACFG. But from Mallam Nuru Ribadu, at a speech he delivered to a certain student union group at ABU, Zaria. And the focus was on TYRANNY.
First, let's revisit the word, tyranny as used in my essay and then as used by Mallam Nuru Ribadu in his rebuttal.
This is the concluding paragraph of my essay, dwelling on "tyranny."
"As Professor Wole Soyinka would say, “the man dies in all who keep silent in the face of tyranny.” If the Borno occupation by the sect is not a tyranny, I wonder what it is. Therefore, all of us must stand with the President and support our Military in their collective commitment to liberate the supposedly free people of southern Kaduna, Plateau, Borno, Yobe, and of Adamawa State from the siege and grip of the Boko Haram sect." Alex Aidaghese.
And here is Mr. Ribadu at his speech at ABU a few days later, addressing "tyranny" a few weeks later.
“The tragedy of our democracy is that it is one in which the yearnings of the youth are stamped down in order to perpetuate a tyranny of interests. Tyranny it is when a certain slim range of people impose their private interests on the majority; tyranny it is when the agents of change are left on the cliffs of unemployment, poverty, insecurity, substandard education and, worse still, policies destroyed by our heritage of corruptions.” - Nuru Ribadu.
Dr. Rueben Abati, the Press Secretary to Mr. President, thought Mr. Ribadu was talking to his boss, and he went ballistic on poor Ribadu, lobbing uppercut on him from left to right. But like the thousands of other Southern intellectuals and commentators, he was missing in action on the real issue.
Now a few instances from America.
About twelve years ago, I used the word "neophyte" in the same sentence to describe the way this gentleman handles a certain important national matter. And that evening the gentleman, was in the news. At a well-televised press conference, he alluded to the term, neophyte as he was tagged by some people earlier in the day, but went ahead to explain the reason for his action. That discussion was just between me and a friend on this same Wall. No one else was involved. Beginning from that day, I came up with zero tolerance for obscenity or abusive words by anyone when responding to my comments or responding to other commentators. I came up with that decision because I am writing for a global audience and the majority of them are not even on my friends' list.
The second instance was during the 2012 US Presidential election. After the publication of "OBAMA: Citizen United, Invisible Resistance, and the Hacking of American Democracy" on June 08, 2012, I decided to take a break from writing or commenting on the looming US Presidential election. I took that decision when I realized that each time I post a comment on my Facebook Wall or on my Blog, Republicans would flip the argument immediately to the advantage of their candidate. Upon that realization, I went on a timeout.
However, one faithful morning, I acted contrary to the oath, when I came upon a discussion on a friend's Wall centered on the absence of religious factors in the Presidential campaign and debates. I stated in a brief post that, but for the fact that Governor Mitt Romney the Republican candidate is a strong member of the Mormon Faith, Ralph Reed of the Christian Coalition (a conservative group) would have turned the campaign into a religious show, smearing President Obama ignominiously. To my utter disbelief, what took place immediately was the most daring exercise in talking points rebuttal.
That afternoon the Republican campaign team, flew Mr. Ralph Reed from his base in Atlanta or wherever he was at the time to Washington DC. He appeared at a joint press conference with Mr. Ryan, who was Mr. Romney's presidential running-mate, and use the opportunity to label President Obama anti-Christ, amongst other disparaging epithets. It was disgusting and unbecoming of a religious figure of national repute. It is another way of saying, bring it on, Mr. Alex, we are watching you. We can inject religion into the debates and campaign and label your candidate satanically of we want, I watched the press conference in total amazement, but at the same time, marveled at the American pristine sense of partisanship during an election. (Please, what happened or is happening between President Donald Trump and the President-Elect, Mr. Joe Biden is an aberration. It should not be used to define or gauge American democratic values).
Finally, a few years ago, I published an essay that would likely take about ten to fifteen minutes to skim or peruse. And the moment it was posted, some dude was already liking it. How? I just shared it! I reasoned out loud. I went to his messager and unleashed a catapult: Do Not Do it Again, Buddy, you are not doing me a favor or conferring any bankable honor or benefit on me by clicking on the "like" button. Do yourself a favor, read it and learn something new. Alternatively, read it to broaden or alter your perspectives on the subject matter. That is how intellectualism is made. It is about you, the audience, not the writer. And certainly not the number of likes or debates. I know who you are. Who you are writing for. And what you are writing about.