The psychology of political communication in Nigeria

It is election season again, in Nigeria, and political communication is taking up all the space and soaking up all the oxygen everywhere you turn.

The intention behind most political communication is invariably to advance the cause of one political camp or other, but how precisely it is to achieve that is often not well spelt out or thought out. The usual method is by arming a bellicose army of ‘word-warriors’ to attack not only the opponent, but all citizens who deign to count him worthy of support. Examples of some of the ratiocinations for such behavior include ‘That’s how the game is played’, ‘Our spokesman is an old warrior in the game’, and even ‘That’s what the people expect’.
The purpose of communication is to influence people.

The elements of communication include the forming of an intention to pass across a message, the phrasing of the message, and the actual communication process – including the ambience and modality of delivery. The concluding part of the transaction is the message that is received by the intended target.

In Nigerian political culture, the intention of political messaging, in so far as it can be put into words, is to win by any means necessary, drawing on what precedents there are concerning what works.

A core part of the reason for the poor culture in political messaging and marketing, unfortunately, is a common failure to define the ‘target’. Who, truly, is the target in the political message?

The politician, pressed, would say – ‘the people’.
‘What do you want to achieve with the people?’
‘To persuade them that I am the best man for the job.’

Most political communication in Nigeria, especially when done by ‘professionals’ or designated spokesmen, does not make a pretense of being objective. At the very least it will have done some ‘selective abstraction’ – harping on those parts of the argument that favour the cause and playing down on facts that do not fit. It makes its point with vehemence and conviction that assumes the manifest justification of its position and brooks no contradiction. Almost invariably it is speaking to the already converted.

There has been, and continues to be, a great deal of ‘carpet crossing ‘in Nigerian politics. The carpet crosser’s ‘persuader’ is mostly tribe, money, the promise of office or perquisites,the promise, even if unstated, of relief from facing the consequences of past misdeed, such as EFCC investigation, or other affinity.‘Such is the fickle nature of the prevalent logic that ‘loyalty’ counts for nothing, and such ‘defecting’ can take place back and forth several times even within the same electoral cycle.

There is no evidence that any significant part of this back and forth traffic across party lines is due to the political messaging that is so expensively procured and deployed by the players, and that represents a major part of ‘normal’ expenses that make electioneering in Nigeria among the most expensive in the world.

Even the ‘political rally’- the staple activity in Nigerian election culture, and one of the highest cost-centres, is of dubious value, if the purpose, as is often stated, is to persuade the electorate or sell the message of the party to them. Who goes to a political rally, in reality? More than ninety percent would be people who are already members of the ‘rallying’ party, or who have been ‘bussed’ in, usually for a fee, with face caps, t-shirts and take-away food thrown in. Perhaps there would be a few members of the public, driven by curiosity, or out to collect souvenirs and ‘empowerment’.

To put it in religious terms, the Nigerian political rally, despite its portrayal as a sine qua non for electoral success, is not a place for winning new souls.
So, the rally and the loud, ‘take no prisoner’ spokesmen stirring up the air in the mainstream press and social media, what do they achieve for the cause?
Their value can be advertised as follows:

• They fire up the base (but ‘the base’in Nigeria is not held together by ideas – whether progressive, retrogressive, or even racist – like Donald Trump’s base. Most often here they are held together by a sense of collective interest which is, unfortunately, often primordial. In reality the mind of ‘the base’ is already made up and it does not require much ‘firing’.

• ‘In your face’ (‘We are going to win, and there is nothing you can do about it’). The classical example of this mind-set is the story of the Deputy Governor of the old Western Region of Nigeria, who is reputed to have announced to the masses in a radio broadcast ‘Be e se ti a, bee se ti a, Demo o wole’(‘Whether or not you vote for us, we will win’). He was, of course, speaking from inside knowledge that the election would be massively rigged, and his party would ‘win’, which it went on to do, plunging the whole nation into crisis. The triumphalist posture of the rallies of President Jonathan’s ‘TAM’ Ambassadors in Lagos and other places in the 2015 elections, with Police and militiamen swaggering about, flaunting their guns, had a similar flavor, and could have been attended by similar consequences.

It may still be argued that even if they are not great value for money, and even if they don’t help the cause (whatever that is) a great deal, at least the truculent newspaper and social media warriors don’t really do any harm to anyone.

Unfortunately, this is most emphatically not true.
Sometimes, as it is now, it is all a bit too much. The hot air heats up the polity. For many citizens who just want to get on with their business and their lives without ‘wahala’, the noise of the verbal combat, and the violent emotions it generates, is definitely discombobulating.
Beyond that, the ugliness of the exchange can be a turn-off for the undecided, or those looking for a change from the present- precisely the sort of people who should be courted in a normal election situation.

The rude, sanctimonious vituperations of a ‘Pastor’ Reno Omokri or the howling, fact-challenged outpouring of an FFK, raining curses and abuse on all who disagree with him, may be just the thing that will persuade many people that while ‘Changi’ may not be working, becoming ‘Atiku-lated’ may not be the answer either. It is noteworthy that these gentlemen certainly achieved similar unintended effects for their principals in the last election.

Even where high ideals are not a prime consideration, as is sadly the fact in the state of our political development in Nigeria, and even where money flows and ‘money is not a problem’, as in our cash-and-carry elections, it would still be a useful exercise for political principals, purely on a pragmatic, management basis that takes cognizance of what works and what is counterproductive, to take a more active interest in reining in their messengers and controlling the message that is put out on their behalf.
Just a thought.

Femi Olugbile