The fire ignited on social media by Joke Silva’s support for the All Progressives Congress presidential (APC) campaign is still burning. Those supporting the seasoned actress did not take their analysis on the issues beyond trivial arguments of Silva’s “right to choose” and “freedom of speech.” Unfortunately, this shabby apprehension of democratic rights has made Silva and her supporters the real enemies of democratic rights.
For instance, one commentator who supports Silva demanded for social media regulatory laws to prevent a recurrence of the attacks Silva received. Are people so soaked in their conservatism that they do not even realize when they undercut their own arguments? How do you simultaneously advocate for Silva’s freedom to make her political choices and still ask the government to clamp down on others’ freedom to respond to her as they may deem fit? Why is it a triumph of democratic freedom when Silva picks a partisan side but a breach of that freedom when people respond to her? Actually, the concept of freedom of speech as articulated by seasoned scholars as J. S. Mill and Joel Feinberg protects you from government censorship, not from individuals who can unleash a torrent of vitriol. I am sure those defending Silva are not aware of this.
In addition, the case of Silva and her social media critics is not merely reducible to “cyber bullying” or “cyber lynching” by an “intolerant” cyber mob as some commentators like Reno Omokri insipidly characterized it. What they witnessed is a dis-investiture of an actor by a segment of the public who thinks her values no longer align with theirs. It is not a uniquephenomenon. There are some public figures whose political alliances or even public conduct attract a disproportionate degree of either praise or scorn and that is because those people’s public relevance is built through their moral relationship with society. Such people include actors, celebrities, influencers, traditional and religious leaders, activists, writers, public intellectuals, etc.
For the Nigerian film industry where their fixation with issuing moral instructions frequently outweighs the entertainment value of their productions, any actor that aligns with the national disaster called the APC betrays the same values they have constantly hawked to the public through the screen. If a film were to be written about 2022 Nigeria, it is doubtful anyone supporting the APC will be characterized as anything other than a villain. Silva’s choice to do so in real life makes her look like a hypocrite, and people are right to point it out. As someone who embodies values accrued through many years of acting righteous on television, Silva cannot expect that her real-life choices will not be interrogated through the images she sold on the screen.
Those who keep arguing that she has a right to her political choice and that her critics should let her be need to ask themselves—on what other basis did the APC select her (and her fellow actors) to be part of their campaign other than the fact that she has some social capital that they wanted to appropriate for partisan gain? Silva’s choice to publicly pitch her tent with the APC despite the pain and punishment they have inflicted on Nigerians since 2015 means she does not align with the desire of the fraction of the public who have committed themselves to overturn this present darkness. If the same people who invested her with the popularity that the APC is capitalizing on to shore up their campaigns decide to withdraw it, why not? Social relationships are a transaction of value. When the currency of trade between the parties no longer carries mutual recognizable value, a bitter and publicly enacted split can ensue.
Consequently, if there is any lesson in the drama of Nollywood, electioneering and the pushback against actors as political endorsers, it is not the “freedom of choice” because choice does not go in a unilateral direction. Actors can make their choices, of course. Their followers too retain the right to respond to those choices with either approbation or opprobrium. The moral of this is that the respect that an adulating public confers on a public figure is fickle. When the beneficiary diverges from the values s/he has always symbolized to the community, one can expect them to take back what they gave.
That said, even though such dis-endowment can get acrimonious does not mean anyone should spend their entire life pandering, afraid to take a stand that might irritate people. Anyone who wants to extricate from the expectations they have always personified to people should also prepare for a raucous breakup. If you are the kind of public figure whose values are consistent, you will ultimately be fine despite the tension. But if you are the one whose opinions on what constitutes good governance fluctuate according to which of your friends are in power, your hypocrisy will be revealed. Watching a jeering public withdraw what they endowed you can be humiliating, especially for an actor who has reached the peak of her career like Silva, but one cannot have it both ways.
