This restriction of freedoms safeguard everyone's freedom within the polity.It means, for example,that everyone within the system operates according to the laws of the system.
One of those laws is that the views of the majority take precedence over those of the minority,ideally speaking.It implies that those in charge should not rig elections.It implies that they should abide by the results of votes of the majority and should not try to subvert the decision reached by those votes. Such an effort at subversion is represented by the historic experience of June 12 in Nigerian history in which Chief Moshood Abiola's election to the Presidency of Nigeria was truncated by incumbent President General Ibrahim Babangida who annulled the election when it was becoming clear that Abiola had won that election.
The Nigerian intelligentsia has been at the forefront of the criticism of such truncations of the democratic ideal in Nigeria.It is true,however, that members of this intelligentsia also have found it difficult or impossible to live by such ideals within the public space.
An example of this is my experience with Amatoritsero Ede,the founder and moderator of the Nigerian writers and social critic's listserve Krazitivity.
Amatoritsero has been one of the most vociferous critics of the Nigerian system and of Nigerians on Nigerian centred liserves.He has referred to Nigerians as fools for letting themselves be ruled by bad leaders.And yet on the little space he controls,the listserve Krazitivity, he has shown those very anti-democratic qualities that are so often denounced in African leaders.
The core of it is this: Amatoritsero tried,without success, to get me removed from his group Krazitivity.Having failed in that effort, he contrived to make sure that my voice,which he found offensive,for purely personal reasons,was no longer heard on the group, by making sure that none of my posts ever reach the group.
Towards the end of last year,2009,Amatoritsero,as 'owner/moderator' of krazivity, instituted a poll on Krazitivity as to whether or not I should be banned from the group. The poll results were decisively in favour of my not being banned.Amatsoritsero stated that he had to abide by the dicates of the poll but that he would moderate my posts rigorously.After that,I observed that only one of my posts got through to the group.Not a single post from end of last year to this month,out of perhaps hundreds I sent,was posted on the group.
Amtoritsero's failure to remove me emerged from his need to operate in terms of the democratic rules set up in the group in the first place.His subsequent effort to make sure I was no longer heard on the group represents his failure to live to up to that democratic ideal.
I admire the existence of that ideal in the group in the first place.
Next time we criticise others for being anti-democratic even though they are operating within a democratic system, we might do well to look closely at ourselves.
A few months ago I sent an email to Amatoritsero to enquire what was happening to my posts but he did not respond.I wrote privately to two members of the group to help me find out what was happening and they promised to do so but did not get back to me.My emails to them requesting feedback were not answered.
Now,why did Amatoritsero call for my banning in the first place?
He wanted me banned because I posted on the Wole Soyinka Society listserve the statement of purpose of Krazitivity.He described that as a breach of the confidentiality of the group.That puzzles me, because Krazitivity is not a secret society.
In what context did this incident emerge in the first place?
It emerged in the context of my criticism of an effort to portray Nollywood,the Nigerian film industry, as centred in grisly,doomsday images in the book on Nollywood by photographer Pieter Hugo as well as Chris Abani and Zina Saro-Wiwa who provided the text for a book of photographs by Hugo.In this book various images created purely by Hugo and not shots from Nollywood movies,were combined to to communicate a defamatory and false representation of what was described as quintessential Nollywood.
This critique of mine can be reached at this link: "Treachery on a Stage of Lies:Chris Abani and Zina Saro-Wiwa Collaborate with Phtographer Pieter Hugo and TIME Magazine to Denigrate and Falsify Nollywwod and Nigeria".
Amatoritsero took me to task for being slow to post the same critique to Krazitivity where Chris Abani,as a member of the group, could see it and respond.I did post it eventually and Abani never responded.
I posted on various listserves and on my blog my summary of my argument with Amatsoritsero on this subject:"The Gathering Dust: Amatoritsero Ede and the Nollywood Defamation Saga:Part 1"
Amatoritsero's behaviour brings to mind the question people are provoked to ask about the African elite.Whose interests do they serve? Why should Amatoritsero demand that a critique of a book distributed globally be placed on a single lisetserve in the name of making that critique available to one person?
Is Amatoritsero's loyalty to the larger cause of Nollywood,his national film industry, to the service of truth,or is with with Chris Abani who collaborated with others to tell lies about Nollywood?
I am speechless at this point.
Truly,the life of democracy must mean the death of self serving attitudes among those who operate within a system.
Thanks
Toyin Adepoju
Also blogged at Cognitive Diary
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
No comments:
Post a Comment