What rules apply in public spaces?

In my article “Finding Lasting Solutions to Nigeria’s Problems” published on June 11, 2024, I commented on a post sent to me by my colleague and classmate from “Great Ife”, Wale Olajire Ajao, titled “The Role of Public Space in Democracy”. In that post, I disagreed with Wale that critics do not necessarily have to make suggestions; the role of defending the government, he said, rests entirely on the shoulders of the government’s public relations managers.

Today I keep my promise to publish Wale’s treatise in its entirety (with minor editing due to space constraints) and to further explain why I disagree with some of his views. Read on:

“A public space can be defined as any medium or avenue made available to citizens for expressing their views on public affairs of society. Such media can be above-the-line, below-the-line or online channels. Above-the-line channels include magazines, newspapers and electronic media such as radio and television. One of their main characteristics is that they can reach a huge or mass audience at a given time. For example, Tokyo Daily in Japan or Washington Post in the US can circulate up to five million copies per day.

Below the line channels include flyers, posters, and interpersonal communication channels such as letters or intra-organizational communication channels such as home diaries or newsletters and other new media channels such as WhatsApp groups where up to two hundred members of the platform can exchange ideas by chatting with each other. Online channels are usually new media channels such as email, Facebook, X, and WhatsApp. Online channels can disseminate information faster than traditional media such as newspapers and magazines. New media can also reach the vast majority of communication consumers more than newspapers and magazines. However, electronic channels can reach audiences faster than any new media channel.

The common feature of every channel of public space is that it is a way of exchanging ideas. In fact, in public space there must be advertising and de-advertising of ideas. This is because in public space it is ideas and opinions that are in competition; not the owners of the idea or opinion. Views compete for attention in public space. It is therefore clear that in a democracy, public space is open to all stakeholders to express their views. In everyday language, the right of a stakeholder to express his opinion on any issue of public interest is what is referred to as the basic human rights of a citizen.

This means that every citizen has an equal right to access public space. No citizen has the right to prevent another citizen from expressing his or her opinion. Therefore, the first thing that all users of public space must accept is that every citizen has equal access or an equal right to public space, regardless of their opinion. As a result, it is clear that all users of public space cannot have the same opinion on a given topic. Therefore, the first condition for the proper use of public space is that all users must allow others to express their views without harassment or intimidation. One of the main demands that public space makes to all users is what is known as the right to reply. Just as every citizen has the right to express his or her opinion, so everyone has the right to respond to anything that has been posted in public space, with which he or she agrees or disagrees.

One of the very clear roles of public space is that it gives everyone the right to respond to what they agree or disagree with. This means, for example, that if Mr. Julius Akpojiovi only likes to write negative things about Nigeria, other users of public space can respond by posting what is good about Nigeria. This is how public space should be used. Whenever someone expresses an opinion that is unacceptable, those who disagree with it have the right to respond.

Democracy thrives on differences of opinion because it provides the right to express opinions and the right to reply. In a democracy, no one should bully another person just because of a difference or divergence of opinion. Public space can accommodate everyone because it provides freedom of speech or freedom of expression, as well as the right to reply. Abusing public space is bullying or attacking someone just because of his or her opinion. All a good user of public space has to do is exercise their right to reply whenever and wherever they feel it is necessary.

When stakeholders refuse to respect freedom of speech and the right to reply, they endanger democracy by unwittingly resorting to gagging the press or polluting the public space. When people are threatened or attacked simply because of their opinions, society loses because it is when two opposing camps engage in debate that stakeholders can better understand the issues being discussed.

One common manifestation of abuse of public space is opposition or open intolerance of opposing opinions. Critics of the government are often seen as enemies of the government simply because they have criticized the government. Supporters of the government often say that those who criticize the government should present alternative views or suggestions for the government to consider. However, the rules of public space do not include making suggestions to the government.

In other words, a critic who has no suggestions to make to the government has not violated the rules of the public square simply because he has not made any suggestions to the government. In fact, it is not his duty to make suggestions. It is his duty to criticize. If someone has made destructive criticism, government media officials or supporters may decide to exercise their right of reply. Nothing more, nothing less!

The beauty of democracy is that traditional media law has a way of dealing with schemers who deliberately publish lies against the government or fellow citizens. There is defamation law; there is also defamation law aimed at any media that publishes defamatory information. The fact that new media make it harder to punish those who publish lies is why governments around the world are demanding new laws to regulate them; as is the case with Facebook, X, WhatsApp, etc.

Thanks to the new media, so many things can be put into the public space by anonymous authors. In fact, the new media have made everyone a journalist, which is not true for traditional media, because not everyone who works as a journalist in the new media today has been trained to be one. Newspaper editors will not accept for publication many of the materials we see in the new media because they are not ethical and harm society and the public space.

In fact, new media are potentially capable of abusing public space because they abuse people with different views; they also contain falsehoods or deliberate distortions of facts and figures. In Europe and America, more and more people are calling on the government to find ways to improve the use of new media. In fact, in China and some Asian countries, new media are not licensed to operate. Another common source of abuse of public space is when people who are not experts in a given topic insist that everyone on the platform accepts their view as an authority on the matter. Such people often easily resort to abusing people with different views.

In conclusion, the most important role of public space is that in a democracy it allows everyone to express their opinion without fear of intimidation. Public space ensures freedom of speech and the right to reply, which makes abuse or attacks unnecessary. All the more so because there are ready-made laws that tame criminals.”

The only aspect of this beautifully written work that I disagree with is Wale’s statement that critics don’t have to offer suggestions; I think they should for a number of reasons.

Number one: it will drastically reduce the number of ignorant people who simply jump on board, especially on social media, to spout nonsense. Number two: their suggestions will let us know what they are made of. Number three: those in government do not have a monopoly on knowledge; therefore, suggestions from all sorts of places will benefit everyone. Number four: the Scripture says that in the multitude of counsel there is safety (Proverbs 11:14). So there can be no such thing as too much advice and counsel. Number five: it is a known fact that many of those who walk the corridors of power rarely tell our leaders the truth. Leaders are often cut off from reality; they are caged. A high-ranking senator recently made the same accusation. Number six: since we all have a stake in solving our problems and making our country better, offering possible solutions is one way to help make our country great.

If the rules of public space are indeed as Wale says, then they must be changed quickly to incriminate the critics. Otherwise, criticism for the sake of criticism is just empty air; a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing! Sorry, William Shakespeare! In addition to political partisans, sketch artists and comedians are among the most vicious violators of public space rules. How to stop them without violating their freedom of speech is the challenge.