PUBLIC SPACE AND DEMOCRACY
Public space allows everyone to say their mind without fear of intimidation, argues Wale Ajao
Public space can be defined as any medium or avenue made available for citizens to express views on the public affairs of a society. Such a medium could be above the line channel or below the line or on – line channel. Among above the line channels are magazines, newspapers and electronic channels like radio and television. One major characteristic of above the line channels is that vast or mass audience can be reached at a time. For example Tokyo Daily in Japan or Washington post in America can circulate up to five million copies daily. Below the line channels include leaflets , posters and interpersonal communication channels such as letters or intra organization communication channels like house journal or newsletter and other new media avenues like a Whatsapp group where up to two hundred members of the platform can exchange ideas by chatting up one another. On – line channels are usually new media avenues like e-mail Facebook, X and Whatsapp. On- line channels can disseminate information faster than traditional media like newspapers and magazines . New media can also reach vast majority of communication consumers more than newspapers and magazines. But electronic channels can reach the audience faster than any new media channel. The common characteristic of any public space channel is that it is an avenue for exchange of ideas. In effect in the public space there is bound to be advertisement and divertissement of ideas. This is so because in the public space it is ideas and opinions that are in competition not the owners of the ideas or opinions. It is views that are competing for attention in the public space. It is clear therefore that in a democracy the public space is open to all the stakeholders to express their views. In popular language the right of a stakeholder to express his or her opinion is what is described as the fundamental human right of a citizen to express his opinion on any issue of public interest. This means that each citizen has equal right of access to the public space like any other citizen. No citizen has a right to inhibit other citizen to express his opinion. Therefore the first thing all users of the public space must accept is that each citizen has equal access or equal right to the public space whatever their opinion. In effect it is clear all users of the public space cannot have the same opinion on any issue. Therefore the first condition for proper use of the public space is that all users of the public space must allow others to express their views without bully or harassment or intimidation. In a democracy the right of everyone to express his opinion is known as the poetic license of a citizen which is also the natural right or the fundamental human right of a citizen. One major demand which the public space makes on all it’s users is what is known as the right of reply. Just every citizen has a right to express his opinion it is the right of everyone to reply to whatever has been put on the public space which they disagree with.
·
·
One very clear role of the public space is that it gives everyone the right to react to whatever they disagree with. This means for example if Mr Julius Akpojiovi is fond of writing only negative things about Nigeria other users of the public space should form the habit of responding by publishing their reply and they should always mention what is good about Nigeria. That is how to use the public space. Whenever someone expresses an opinion that is not acceptable to others those who disagree have the right of reply which is the poetic license or the fundamental human right of all users of the public space . It becomes clear at this point that democracy thrives on differences of opinions because it has provided for right of expression and right of reply. So if Mr Julius Akpojiovi cannot but publish negative things about Tinubu or APC or Nigeria those who disagree with him should always exercise their right of reply by stating all the good things they know about Tinubu or APC or Nigeria. It is as simple as that. In a democracy no one should abuse another person just because of difference of opinion. Moreso on a platform of school mates or former work mates that for decades have never had any disagreement among each other. Moreso among old school mates who are not full time or part time politicians. Those opposing the style of Julius Akpojiovi have no right to abuse or fight him for his always negative views about Tinubu or APC or Nigeria just as Julius Akpojiovi has no right to abuse or fight those who see nothing wrong in APC or Tinubu or Nigeria. This is so because those who believe everything about Nigeria and APC and Tinubu are entitled to their opinion just as those who think that everything about Nigeria or APC or Tinubu is negative are also entitled to their opinion. The public space can accommodate all of them because it has provided freedom of speech or freedom of expression as well the right of reply. It is an abuse of the public space to abuse or attack someone just because of his or her opinion. All a good user of public space has to do is to exercise his right of reply whenever and wherever necessary.
When stakeholders refuse to abide by the freedom of speech or expression and right of reply they endanger democracy by unwittingly resorting to gagging the press or polluting the public space. When people are threatened or attacked just because of their opinion the society looses because it is when two opposing camps engage in debate that stakeholders have a deeper understanding of the issues at hand.
·
·
One common manifestation of abuse of public space is to resist or be openly intolerant of dissenting opinion. Critics of government are often regarded as enemies of government just because they have criticized government. Supporters of government often say that those who criticize government should come out with alternative views or suggestions for government to consider. But the rules of the public space does not include making suggestions to government. In other words a critique who does not have suggestions for government has not violated the rules of the public space just because he has not made suggestions to government. In fact his duty is not to make suggestions
·
His duty is to criticize. If someone has made destructive criticism those media officers of the government or those who are supporting government have to exercise their right of reply and disprove all the facts in the destructive criticism. No more no less.
·
·
One beauty of democracy is that traditional media law has ways of dealing with mischief makers who deliberately publish falsehood or propaganda or blackmail against government or fellow citizens. There is the law of libel and law of defamation which make it possible for the law to give punishment to a medium which publishes libelous information. The fact that new media has been making it difficult to punish those who publish falsehood is the reason government all over the world are calling for new laws to regulate new media like Facebook, X, WhatsApp, etc. Under the new media so many things can be thrown into the public space by anonymous authors. In fact new media has turned everyone to a photo journalist because everyone can snap a photo and throw it on WhatsApp for further circulation.This is not possible under the traditional media because not everyone is trained as a photo journalist and a newspaper editor will not accept many of the photos we see on WhatsApp for publication because they are not ethical and are injurious to society and the public space.
·
Similarly most of the self edited articles people throw into WhatsApp platforms will not and cannot be published in a serious newspaper or magazine. In effect the new media are potentially capable of abusing the public space because they contain abuse of people with dissenting opinion or they contain falsehood or deliberate distortion of facts and figures. In Europe and America more and more people are calling on government to look for ways of streamlining use of new media. In fact in China and some Asian countries new media like Facebook WhatsApp, X and others have not been licenced to operate. One other common source of abuse of public space is when someone who did not study political science or history in a university and has never practiced politics insists that everyone on a platform must accept his view as the authority on the issue at hand . Such persons often easily degenerate to abuse of people with dissenting opinion. In conclusion the most important role of the public space is that in a democracy it allows everyone to say their mind without fear of intimidation. The public space provides for freedom of expression and right of reply both of which make abuse or attack on one another unnecessary. This is moreso because the law also have means of giving appropriate punishment to those who publish libel or defamation. One hopes that those who will benefit from this article will henceforth keep in mind the rules of the public space which gives equal right to all users of the public space.
· Ajao writes from Lagos
