teachers’ strike means that students are set to
return to school. On the basis of their experiences
during the strike, they are likely to once again, face
the reality of a wide gap between theory and
practice. In the area of mass communication for
instance, many students may have to grapple with
the real meaning and nature of communication.
Having learnt that written communication is
generally superior to other forms such as oral
communication and body language, they would not
easily comprehend why the choice of writing as a
channel of communication by former President
Olusegun Obasanjo (OBJ) with President Goodluck
Ebele Jonathan (GEJ) elicited so much anger from
some people. Did the many angry commentators
read Obj’s letter about which they made pedestrian
comments?
If so, did they come across the aspect where the
man said the letter in issue was not his first to GEJ?
Why then, is this particular one special-is it
because it was made public? Did OBJ not impute
that it was because the previous ones were not
responded to? Did those who argued that an
informal chat between the two leaders would have
been a better option not comprehend OBJ’s
allegation that access to oral communication had
become tedious? Again, why were people wasting
their energies on who leaked the letter- can a letter
whose author wanted to make his feelings public be
described as leaked? Even if OBJ’s motive was as
mischievous as his detractors would want the
public to believe, the letter was no doubt useful to
GEJ, his government and people of Nigeria. This is
because it articulated inaccuracies/half- truths,
false alarms, rumours, gossips, as well as publicly
held allegations into a package for more robust
handling. OBJ thus served as a channel to the
people’s leader to have first-hand knowledge of the
popular grapevine so as to nib public dissatisfaction
in the bud. Here, other national leaders fell below.
Another great leader that this season of letters has
thrown up is President GEJ himself. His reactions to
the former President’s letter repackaged him as a
humble leader. Many African leaders including OBJ
may not have been that tolerant. GEJ’s first reaction
was reportedly an order to his aides to say nothing
but to assure the nation that he would personally
respond appropriately which he has since done. He
in fact took time to explain the rational for joining
issues with OBJ. By his general demeanour, our
President with the awful powers at his disposal
behaved in line with an adage in my clime which
says a great leader is that man of colossal strength
who hardly fights. As usual, some people did not
see his response as good enough. Such critics
were not impressed with the argument that many
societal ills were created before the era of
Jonathan-they expected him to solve them so as to
justify the people’s confidence in him. They also felt
he should have frontally dealt with the issues of his
own time like the armoured car scandal.
Some other persons are however happy with the
response which they believed has turned the initial
tempo of fear and anxiety which followed OBJ’s
letter into mere national discourse. In particular,
people were relieved that the alleged political
watch-list was categorically refuted. As for the
electoral issues contained in the letter, many
Nigerians are wise enough on the basis of our
convoluted political system not to believe either the
allegation or the denial. In short, Nigerians have lost
nothing because letters were written and replied.
The letters have indeed not deprived written
communication of its value of being a qualitative
mode of transmission of messages. Unlike body
language which can easily be misread, written
communication gives room for opinions and
responses to be well considered and constructed.
Again, unlike oral communication which can easily
be subjected to several versions, written
communication is a permanent source of record
which is difficult to deny. For example, if the
controversial agreement on one term tenure
between the President and some governors was
written, the disputations on it would not have arisen.
Under certain circumstances however, written
communication is ill-advisable. They include the
writing of a letter to the blind or an illiterate person
or when a man wants to communicate with his wife
in their bedroom on a purely private matter that is
not of public interest. African culture probably
provides another example-abomination; where a
child chooses to publicly abuse his parent. But when
the subject is a matter of public interest, to write is
no harm. It is by far better than to act like many
statesmen in Nigeria who always play the ‘good
guy’ by doing nothing to upset the person who for
the time being is in power even if to so act does not
favour the nation. At the same time, some other
leaders who cautioned OBJ against letter writing
only sent a dangerous signal perhaps inadvertently
because what their caution suggests is that the
content of Obj’s letter is correct but it should not
have been sent through a letter.
It would have been a different ball game if those
who condemned the letter had said clearly that
having had the opportunity to discuss the issues
canvassed in the letter with the President, they
were sure OBJ’s letter was mere false alarm. Put in
question form, why did the leaders not controvert
OBJ instead of faulting mere methodology?
Amusingly, some other leaders took the former
President’s letter to be a case of the pot calling the
kettle black as if that means that the kettle is not
black.
In all, Obasanjo and Jonathan’s letters appear
better for democracy, because while silence which
creates vacuum destroys, information empowers.
So, people especially statesmen should learn to
speak-out on national issues which can keep the
nation in good stead all the time. If as the saying
goes: those who speak will die and those who do
not speak will also die, it means those who do not
speak before they die will die without speaking to
help humanity
No comments:
Post a Comment