A tale of two protests – two official responses

This has been a particularly hot summer around the world – in more ways than one.

Around the world, from Nigeria to the United Kingdom and locations in between, protesters are tackling their leaders over a number of grievances, ranging from economic hardship, illegal immigration, and even to disputed elections. No sooner have the recent protests in Kenya died down than a rash of new protests broke out (as if triggered by the Kenyan example) in Africa, Europe, South America and Asia.

2024’s summer of discontent first burst into flames when young people in the East African nation, angered by the government’s planned legislation (known as the Finance Bill) to increase taxes and levies on essential commodities (ostensibly to shore up its revenues) embarked on demonstrations that began peacefully but then turned violent, culminating in the tragic loss of more than 20 lives. The protests eventually forced President William Ruto to withdraw the offending legislation and dissolve his entire cabinet.

At the time of this writing, protests are ongoing in Bangladesh, India and Venezuela, as well as in Nigeria and the United Kingdom. While some have taken the form of a blazing conflagration (with deadly results), others are simmering like a slow-burning fire.

On August 1, protesters hit the streets of Nigeria, complaining about the high cost of living and soaring prices of foodstuffs. Tagged ‘#EndBadGovernance‘, the protest, which is scheduled to hold for 10 days, was organised by the so-called “Take It Back” Movement in collaboration with other groups such as Concerned Nigerians, Nigerians Against Hunger, Initiative for Change, and Human Rights Co-Advocacy Group, among others. Their demands include an end to what they described as ‘anti-people’ policies, a reversal of the fuel price, an increase in the national minimum wage (to the tune of N300,000), a reversal of the hike in tertiary education fees, transparency and accountability in governance, electoral reforms (including the autonomy of the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC), as well as a transition of Nigeria’s governance to a unicameral legislature, and the reform of the security agencies to put a halt to perceived human rights violations.

And in the United Kingdom, violent protests have erupted in towns and cities across the country after three girls were killed in a knife attack at a children’s dance class in the northwestern city of Southport last week. Following reports that the suspected attacker was an immigrant and a radical Islamist, anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim groups reacted in anger, which did not abate even after investigations confirmed that the suspect was born in Britain. The protests have resulted in dozens of arrests as shops and businesses were vandalised and looted, and several police officers were injured. As a result of the unrest, a sizable number of Britons have demanded the return of immigrants to their countries of origin, as they believe that immigrants are the ones causing unrest in the UK.

The right to protest and air one’s grievances over perceived social wrongs or detrimental government policies is fundamental in any democracy worthy of the name, even though it is ALSO the duty of every responsible government to balance this right with the imperative of maintaining law and order and ensuring that demonstrations do not threaten lives and property, or jeopardize the stability of the state.

However, a key element in the maintenance of this critical balance is the behaviour (and especially the utterances) of political leaders. Some leaders, when faced with a grave national crisis, have been able to defuse a potential conflagration with a display of statesmanship (especially in the choice of words with which they have addressed said crisis), while others have only exarcebated an already volatile situation with a display of unwarranted bragadoccio and the use of toxic rhetoric aimed at scoring points, settling scores or demonizing  political adversaries.

The respective responses of the President of Nigeria, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Sir Keir Starmer, to the situations that have unfolded in these two countries over the past few days, serve to highlight the contrast between statesmanship and its opposite (by whatever name it is called) and what they say about each leader’s style of dealing with crisis.

In the first place, Tinubu’s and Starmer’s responses have upended long-standing stereotypes about the political cultures of Nigeria and the UK (a country which many Nigerians usually characterize as a ‘saner clime’) and the ‘maturity’ or otherwise of their political actors. In his nationally-televised speech on Sunday, President Tinubu sounded a conciliatory and statesmanlike tone as he acknowledged the legitimacy of the protesters’ demands while reaffirming his determination to ensure that public order is maintained. “I have heard you loud and clear,” he told the protesters. “I understand the pain and frustration that drive these protests, and I want to assure you that our government is committed to listening to and addressing the concerns of our citizens. “He went on to highlight the achievements of his administration in the 14 months since his assumption of office, but also characterized the protest as a wake-up call and a challenge to his government to do more. He ended by calling on them, even as they expressed their grievances, to keep their eyes on the bigger picture. “The task before us is a collective one,” the President said, “… and I must stay focused on ensuring that the benefits reach every single Nigerian as promised … Let nobody misinform and miseducate you about your country or tell you that your government does not care about you. Although there have been many dashed hopes in the past, we are in a new era of Renewed Hope. We are working hard for you, and the results will soon be visible and concrete for everyone to see, feel, and enjoy.”

Tinubu’s speech was in sharp contrast to the combative, even partisan, remarks made by Starmer in the wake of the UK riots – which he blamed on ‘right-wing thugs’. “It’s not (a) protest,” Starmer declared. It’s crime… clearly driven by far-right hatred.” Starmer spent more time describing the modus operandi of the rioters – and speculating as to who might be behind them and how his government plans to apprehend and punish them – than on addressing the root causes of the crisis.

Given the above examples, perhaps the time has come to re-evaluate the ‘saner clime’ stereotype. For ages, the West (and especially the UK, our former colonial master) has presumed to lecture us on the right political behaviour. Perhaps – as we have seen in the respective responses of the Nigerian and UK leaders to the current crises – it is time for the West to lecture less and listen more.

Keem Abdul, publisher and writer, hails from Lagos. He can be reached via +2348038795377 or [email protected]