Nine Negative Implications of President Tinubu’s Failure to Address Demands of Protesters

By Umar Ardo, Ph.D

Strategically, the failure of President Bola Tinubu to address any of the demands of the nationwide protesters in his national broadcast yesterday is wrong and fraught with serious political consequences within our democratic milieu; whatever reasons that may have informed the decision. These consequences are nine and severe, and mainly political.

First, granted the president may be adopting a strategic stance by appearing calm and unflappable to avoid escalating tensions, as quickly responding to their demands might be giving them more legitimacy that could potentially embolden further protests and demands, like the Kenyan situation. But a cogent counterargument to this reason makes the decision politically unwise.

Clearly, ignoring the demands of the protests, like the president did, would only exacerbate public anger and frustration that would lead to more intense and widespread unrest. But acknowledging the protests would have demonstrated that the government is listening to its citizens, potentially calming tensions. But by appearing detached, the president risks losing public trust and support, making it harder for him to implement future policies.

Second, by not addressing the protesters’ demands directly but, as it were in his broadcast, emphasizing his commitment to long-term benefits of his economic reforms against short-term hardships, the president is prioritizing policy agenda over hushed public sentiments. However, political expediency demands that in situations such as the ones impelling the protests – hunger and poverty – long-term reforms should be pursued while simultaneously addressing immediate public concerns. Balancing both illustrates a holistic approach to governance and capacity to lead well under pressure. Conversely, by ignoring public sentiment the president is unwittingly undermining the very reforms he is trying to implement, as public cooperation and support that are crucial for successful policy execution would be lost.

Third, the president’s advisers might be counseling him to maintain a composed demeanour to project stability and control, that addressing the protests head-on might be interpreted as being weak and indecisive. But maintaining a composed demeanour does not preclude acknowledging public grievances. Addressing the protests demands can be done in a way that would project stability and control without appearing weak in any way. But his failure to engage rightly indicates an aloofness or disregard for people’s sufferings, hence weakening government’s legitimacy.

Fourth, the president’s non-engagement with the protesters is also a sign of underestimating the scale and impact of the protests, thinking that they will dissipate without substantial intervention. But such approach will only lead to exacerbating the situation. Accurate and timely intervention in such concerns is essential for effective governance.
Transparent communication and proactive engagement can always help manage public expectations and mitigate acrimony.

Fifth, not withstanding the president’s vast experience in politics, which he may be employing to weather the storm, expecting that the public outcry will simply vanish on its own as his envisioned reforms benefits take effect, however, failure to address pressing public concerns erodes political capital over time. Also, public dissatisfaction will lead to loss of support from key political allies and the general populace. It will equally lead to a loss of credibility, making it difficult for the president to govern effectively.

Sixth, even if the president plans to address the protests issues at a later stage, delaying engagement can worsen the situation, as people may feel ignored and undervalued. Only timely communication can prevent the escalation of unrests.

Seventh, if the president is not taking the protests seriously because he perceives them as politically motivated rather than as genuine expressions of public discontent, it could have serious consequences as it can alienate genuine protesters and exacerbate feelings of disenfranchisement. Engaging with all segments of society is therefore crucial for inclusive governance. Besides, acknowledging and addressing genuine grievances will always help distinguish between legitimate concerns and politically motivated actions, thereby strengthening government’s position. Proactive communication that addresses public grievances while outlining future plans can build trust and patience among the populace.

Eighth, though Nigeria has a long history of protests and civil unrests and the government might be relying on historical precedents where protests were managed without major policy changes, this strategy is risky as each protest has unique dynamics and drivers. Ignoring current protests based on past experiences is therefore a serious miscalculation given the driving forces of the protests – hunger and poverty! Hence, proactive and adaptive responses to current issues can prevent the repetition of past mistakes and demonstrate a forward-thinking approach to governance by the president.

Finally, refusal to engage will portray the president as tending to rely on the state’s
security forces to repress the protests. Other than the fact that this strategy is unlikely to succeed as the protests appear nationwide, it will also turn the president from a democrat to an autocrat. Nothing good would come out of this other than coalescing massive oppositions against the government and create chaos and instability.

While these arguments may seem speculative, in reality they are not. They highlight the complexities and considerations that might inform a leader’s public response during periods of significant civil unrest such as the ones currently raging across the country. In other words, the president is better off addressing these issues than not.