- Anti-Buhari protests should be allowed just as Pro-Buhari supporters
Fundamental to the concept of democracy is dissent, and dissent naturally occurs in every human society, even when regimented.
Democracies are a tribute to such human diversities, and hence it is the best and most peaceful ideology known to humans in spite of its shortcomings.
We saw this strength when some Nigerians marched on the streets of London and Abuja to call for the President, Muhammadu Buhari, to either return to his office or resign if his health trammelled his ability to perform the most onerous job in the land.
But that strength attracted a backlash out of sync with any republican principles. During the protest, one of the leaders, entertainer Charles Oputa, slumped from inhaling tear gas unleashed by the police. The Nigeria Police also harassed other protesters, including a journalist.
What the police did recalls days of tyranny and military intolerance, memories that the nation would only remember in agony. The protest that took place in London, of course did not draw any primitive response from the British authorities because it abides by liberal ethos.
But the one held at the Millenium Park opposite the Unity Fountain, Abuja, regressed from being a showcase of the high virtue of a free society to a descent to impulse of barbarians.
This is not about whether or not they are right to ask for Buhari to return or resign. As a matter of fact, no one can say for sure whether the president is well enough to continue as president or not. President Buhari has said his doctors have not given him the green light to proceed home. We have to respect that even though we have little or no information about the state of his health. Mere photo ops with government partisans will do little to obviate doubts from the minds of people not inclined to accept his excuses.
That does not make the protesters right in their view. Part of the glories of democracies is that everyone is entitled to their own foolishness or virtue. No one should stop any articulation of a view or demonstration of a perspective. To do that is iniquitous to the system.
Since the president left our shores May 7, some have gloated while others have demonstrated empathy. These tendencies are inevitably human. Those who gloat should gloat in peace. Those who empathise should empathise in peace. There is room for both in our democracies as long as they don’t disturb the peace.
Charly Boy’s slump did not impress some Nigerians who apparently sympathise with President Buhari. Hence they mobbed him when he carried his protest to the Market place in Wuse, Abuja. His car was vandalised and he abandoned his damaged car and fled for safety. Violence begets violence. The police did not leave peace in their trail at Millenium Park. They birthed a contagion of anti-democratic rage.
Pro-Buhari protests also swarmed the streets in Abuja in reaction to the ReturnOrResign protest. They carried out their activities in peace and fanfare, and the police kept their ill tempers and ammunition in leash. That is the sort of example we expect from them.
The senate as well as the president’s spokespersons spoke against the idea of the protests. That is acceptable. Femi Adesina, the president’s special adviser, was quoted as saying: “The president would always do what is legal and constitutional. What they (protesters) are asking for is not known to our laws.” On behalf of the top law chamber of the nation, Senator Aliyu Abdullahi lashed out: “The president has broken no law and therefore we do not see any justification for this diversion and noisemaking.”
If the president has broken no law, so also did the protesters. They have a right to disagree in peace.
