The Techniques Of Subliminal Political Seduction In Nigeria

Little by little, as 2003 draws nearer and nearer, the political landscape of Nigeria gets more and more supercharged with all manner of overt and/or covert political persuasion, benign sycophancy, and unrestrained propaganda. Nigerians, as usual, will be inundated with disinformation overload inflicted relentlessly on their senses, in the months leading to the elections in 2003. This is the crux of our argument.

The major assumptions inherent in our argument, based on Nigeria’s recent history, are that:

· Nigeria, as at now, is actually in transition from 29 cumulative years of the military dictatorships of Generals Ironsi, Gowon, Mohammed, Obasanjo, Buhari, Babangida, Abacha, and Abubakar.

· Paradoxically, General Olusegun Obasanjo (OBJ), Major General Mohammadu Buhari (WAI), and General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida (IBB), are also participating actively in the transition from military dictatorship (in which they were all active participants), to a stable civilian democracy!

· Consequently, the trajectory of Nigeria’s transition politics could culminate in the entrenchment of any of the following possibilities: (1) a stable democracy, (2) an unstable democracy; (3) an unstable authoritarian rule; (4) a stable civilian autocracy; (5) a stable military dictatorship.

· Democratisation theories have focused on successful transitions to democracy without considering the factors that sustain authoritarian rule.⁽¹⁾The opposite of a political transition to a stable democracy is not just a transition to authoritarianism, but rather, a transition to stable (civilian or military) authoritarian rule.

· Just because authoritarian regimes can survive without legitimacy does not mean that they prefer to survive without legitimacy.

· Legitimacy and leadership (including charisma and prevailing local myths) sustain authoritarian rule, and counter the effects of structural parameters like socio-economic development, economic crisis, or even the opinions of the international community.

· Before Nigeria’s transition from 29 cumulative years of military dictatorships to a stable civilian democracy happens, some of the conditions that sustain authoritarian rule will have to change. In other words, impunity and authoritarian behaviour will have to diminish drastically, or else, the leadership (or/and its strategies) will have to change.

· Many (civilian or military) authoritarian regimes tailor their political strategies in ways intended to shore up public approval through subtle/overt manipulation of public opinion: i.e. propaganda.

· As far as we are concerned, democracy is the process of thinking and discussing both independently, and together.

Consequently, the purpose of this article is to arm the average Nigerian with facts and pre-emptive antidotes, in readiness for the onslaught of the propaganda to come.

Any first time English-speaking extra-terrestrial visitor, say, from Planet Venus, to Nigeria, could be completely disoriented by the Freudian slips and psychosexual triggers that are firmly embedded in Nigerian political grammar. The lexicon of Nigerian politics is replete with copious expressions of terms like, “The beautiful bride”, “The rape of democracy” (i.e. coup d’état), “Strange bedfellows”, “Virgin territories”, “Rendering the opposition impotent”, and so on, and so forth.

It is no longer news that official sycophancy, ego massaging, and daily praise-singing have been incorporated into the science of political correctness, and indeed, sustainable political survival in Nigeria: Sycophancy is in fact mandatory in the general Nigerian culture space. Moreover, the reflex invocation of the authority of certain celestial beings like God, Allah, Angels, Cherubs, Seraphs, and several other anthropomorphic heavenly entities, in the articulation of political intentions, has become so normal that it would be very strange to find any Nigerian politician (starting from the President, and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, to Ministers, Distinguished Senators, Executive Governors, Honourable Members of the House of Representatives, Commissioners, Honourable Members of the State Houses of Assembly, Councillors, Local Government Chairpersons, Top Government officials, right down to the humble village party thug) who does not, somehow, drop allusions of divine dynamics in their daily activities, including their strategic political objectives.

In essence, propaganda is opinion expressed for the purpose of influencing the feelings and actions of individuals or groups of persons. ⁽²⁾ Basically, the propagandist tries to “put something across (good, or bad), while avoiding detailed scrutiny and criticism. His objective is simply to bring about a specific action. Period! However, dangerous propaganda crumbles before close scrutiny and criticism.

What follows is a brief introduction to the techniques of political persuasion: from praise singing and ego massaging, to brazen propaganda.

Strange, as it might seem, the study of propaganda is of relevance to contemporary Nigerian politics. Understandably, most Nigerians readily associate propaganda with the massive psychological campaigns waged by Okokon Ndem of the Voice of Biafra, during the First Nigerian Civil War (1967 ~ 1970), and Adolf Hitler’s Director of Propaganda and Enlightenment, Goebbles, in the 1930s, during the Second World War. Moreover, since nothing comparable to psychological warfare is being waged in Nigeria today, most Nigerians believe naively that propaganda is no longer an issue.

Nevertheless, propaganda can be as blatant as the sign of the swastika, or as subtle as saying, “I dey kampe”. Politicians, image launderers, housewives, public relations gurus, radio and television celebrities, lovers, advertisers, sycophants, mistresses, journalists, concubines, and others, who are interested in influencing human behaviour, frequently apply the winning techniques of effective propaganda. Propaganda may be used to accomplish positive social ends, such as in the campaigns to reduce HIV/AIDS, or discouraging driving under the influence of alcohol, or fighting paedophilia, or in the rehabilitation of juvenile delinquents. However, propaganda is also used to win elections, and to sell brandy. Everyday, Nigerians are bombarded with a myriad of persuasive messages that are directed, not through the give-and-take processes of argument, reason, and debate, but through the subtle manipulation of symbols, language, and basic human emotions.⁽³⁾

For better or for worse, Nigeria is firmly entrenched in an Age of Propaganda, an offshoot of the Information Age. With the growth of information technology and communication tools like the Internet, the flow of persuasive messages has been boosted exponentially. For the first time ever, Nigerians, like many other earth beings worldwide, are participating in uncensored exchange of information and ideas about their collective future. This is an extraordinary development, but then, it also has its cost. Certainly, the Information Revolution has also led to information overload.

Daily, people encounter zillions of data, information, advertisements, news, and messages. And although few studies have looked at this phenomenon, it seems reasonable to suggest that many people respond to information overload by processing messages quicker, and, when possible, by taking mental short-cuts. However, propagandists love short-cuts, particularly those that short-circuit rational thinking! They encourage this by agitating emotions, by exploiting insecurities, by capitalising on the ambiguity of language, and by bending the rules of logic. As history shows, propaganda can be quite effective and lucrative. The analysis of propaganda exposes the tricks that propagandists apply, and suggests ways of withstanding the short-cuts that propagandists encourage.

This piece is a review of the various techniques of propaganda. It provides contemporary examples of their application in the Nigerian political environment. We propose workable strategies of psychological self-defence for Nigerians, especially in view of the progressive rise in the tempo of political manoeuvrings that will certainly precede the elections of 2003. Propaganda analysis is our pre-emptive antidote to the excesses of overt or/and subliminal political seduction.

The Institute for Propaganda Analysis (IPA) was first established in the United States of America in 1937. Managed by a pioneer team of sociologists, psychologists, political scientists, journalists, and others, the IPA was charged with the mandate to educate the citizens of the United States of America about the pervasive nature of political propaganda. The IPA is best known for identifying the following seven (7) key propaganda techniques: (1) Name-Calling; (2) Glittering Generality; (3) Transfer; (4) Testimonial; (5) Plain Folks; (6) Euphemism; and (7) Bandwagon. These seven (7) devices have been reported so frequently in the literature ever since, that they have now become virtually synonymous with the practice and analysis of propaganda in all of its aspects. ⁽⁴⁾

It is crucial for Nigeria’s political transition (from 29 cumulative years of military dictatorships, through militaristic so-called civilian presidency, militarised executive governorships, and autocratic local governance, to a relatively stabilised demilitarised democratic society) that we learn how to think, and learn how to make up our minds. We must learn how to think independently, and we must learn how to think together. We must come to conclusions, but at the same time, we must also recognise the right of other Nigerians to come to opposite conclusions. That is the beauty of democracy: the right to think independently, without molestation, or the paternalism of self-imposed “teachers” of “correctness”. Unfortunately, but understandably, most of these basic freedoms of expression (and thought) are alien to Nigerians, after having gone through 29 cumulative years of the military dictatorships of Generals Ironsi, Gowon, Mohammed, Obasanjo, Buhari, Babangida, Abacha, and Abubakar.

The following are details of the seven (7) classical techniques of effective propaganda, for the benefit of thinking Nigerians:

Bad names have played very powerful roles in the history of the world, and in our own individual lives. Bad names have ruined reputations, stirred men and women to outstanding accomplishments, sent others to prison, and made men mad enough to fight wars and kill their fellow human beings. They have been, and are applied to other people, groups, gangs, nationalities, clubs, football teams, political parties, genders, neighbourhoods, states, geopolitical zones, religions, and races. The name-calling technique links a person, or an idea, to a negative symbol: demonisation. The propagandist who uses this technique hopes that his audience will reject the person or the idea, based on the negative symbol, instead of looking at the finer details and contexts of available evidence.

For example, in contemporary Nigeria, the most obvious “bad names” include: “Abacha politician”; “almajiri”; “drug baron”; “tribalistic”; “treasury looter”; “abandoned property”; “confrontational”; “Ghana-Must-Go”; “scarcity”; “dictatorial”; “cultist”; “vandalisation”; “corrupt”; “policeman”; “fascist”; “anti-party activities”; “anti-Ndiigbo”; “anti-June 12”; “NEPA”; “restive youths of the Niger Delta”; “OPC”; “Shut up!”; “Hausa-Fulani oligarchy”; ”ethnic militia”; “presidency-induced crisis”; “destabilisation”; “marginalisation”; “Biafran”; “un-presidential fingering of the nostrils”; “arrogant”; “incumbency factor”; “showdown”; “the Ngbati press”, “pro-Sharia”; “Supreme Egbesu Assembly”, “secessionist”; “Bakassi Boys”, “anti-Sharia”; “coup plotter”; “NITEL interconnectivity”; “diabolical”; etc

A more subtle form of name-calling involves words or phrases that are selected because they possess a negative emotional charge. For example, those who threaten the sustainability of incumbency of the present President, or Governor, or Local Government Chairman, including questioning some of their well known executive excesses, may be labelled, “disrespectful”, “enemies of progress”, “selfish”, “ambitious”, or even “misguided”. Supporters might prefer to describe them as “God-sent”, “visionary”, “progressive”, or indeed, “Messiah-in-waiting”. Incidentally, both the negative and positive labels refer to the same behaviour in the same person, but have very different connotations! Other examples of negatively charged words include “Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP)”, “political re-engineering”, “retired generals”, “rigid”, “Ijaw youths”; stingy”, “undue radicalism”, “feudal”, “riverine”, “conservative”, “offshore-onshore dichotomy”, “money bags”, “sponsored crowds”, “impeachment”, “consensus”, “carpet-crossing”, and “party hijackers”.

Whenever we spot an example of name-calling (e.g. “abandoned property”), we should ask ourselves the following questions:

· Does the idea in question have a legitimate connection with the real meaning of the (demonising) label?

· Is an idea that serves my best interests being short-circuited, diverted, or dismissed by giving it a label I do not like?

· Leaving the label out of consideration, what exactly are the merits (or/and demerits) of the overall idea being presented?

Normal human beings believe in, fight for, and live by certain words about which they have deep emotions. Such words include “civilised”, “Akaso Consciousness”, “Islam”, “proper”, “elders”, “respect”, “maturity”, “correct”, “true democracy”, “decent”, “unity”, “better life”, “motherhood”, “reliable”, “faithful”, “disciplined”, “incorruptible”, “Shango Worship”, “honest”, “infrastructure”, “love”, “security”, “family support”, “poverty eradication”, “anti-corruption”, “child care”, “Judaism”, “empowerment”, “self-determination”, “continuity”, “stability”, “progress”, “liberalisation”, “Christianity”, “ resource control”, “illustrious”, “award-winning”, “strategist”, and “patriotic”.

For the purposes of propaganda analysis, we will call these virtue words “glittering generalities”. We will focus attention on a very dangerous attribute that they possess, given that they mean different things to different people, and as such, can be used in different ways. Indeed, “glittering generalities” make up the supply reservoir of the vocabulary of flatterers, sycophants, ego massagers, and official praise singers. This is not a criticism of these words, as we understand them. It is a criticism of the uses to which propagandists put the enchanting words and beliefs of unsuspecting people.

When someone talks to us about “democracy”, we immediately think of our own fixed ideas about “democracy”, the ideas we learned at home, at school, with friends, at work, in the mosque, or/and in the church. Our first and natural reaction is to think that the speaker is using the word in our own sense, and that he believes, as we do, on this crucial subject matter. This lowers our resistance, and makes us far less suspicious than we ought to be when, for example, the speaker begins telling us the things we must do in order to preserve our “nascent democracy”

In short, the “glittering generality” technique is “name-calling” in reverse. While name-calling seeks to make you form a judgment to reject and condemn, without examining the evidence, the glittering generality seeks to make you approve and accept, without examining the evidence. In attuning yourself to the glittering generality technique, all that has been said regarding name-calling must be kept in mind. ⁽⁵⁾

We suggest a number of questions that you should ask yourself whenever you are confronted with this technique of persuasion:

· Does the idea in question have a legitimate connection with the real meaning of the word?

· Is an idea that does not serve my best interests being sold to me merely through its being given a name that I like?

· Leaving pleasant sounding (virtuous) word out of consideration, what are the merits (and demerits) of the idea itself?

Transfer is a technique by which a propagandist carries over the authority, sanction, and prestige of something we respect and revere, to something he would have us accept. For example, most of us respect and revere our synagogue, or mosque, or shrine, or temple, or church, and our village. If the propagandist succeeds in getting synagogue/mosque/shrine/church, or village/ethnic group/geopolitical zone to approve a campaign on behalf of some programme, he subsequently transfers that authority, sanction, and prestige to his programme. Thus, we may accept something that otherwise we might reject.

In the transfer technique, symbols are constantly used. The cross represents the Christian Church. The green-white banner represents the Sokoto Caliphate. The green-white-green flag represents Nigeria. The green-white-red flag represents the PDP, and so on, and so forth. Those symbols stir emotions. At their very sight, a whole complex of feelings that we respect (or hate) is aroused. Thus, the transfer technique is used both for, and against ideas. ⁽⁴⁾That is why we continue to wonder why the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria should pose against a background of the Nigerian national flag, and the flag of the Armed Forces of Nigeria, both while making his State broadcasts, and in still photographs hanging statutorily in public offices, halls and on posters. Furthermore, the tautology of appending the title of “Commander-in-Chief” to the title of the President of Nigeria has definite subliminal militaristic connotations. The impunity is rather unabashed.

When politicians open or/and close their speeches with prayers, or interject their normal day-to-day discussions and utterances with phrases like “by the special grace of God”, or “insha Allah”, they are actually subtly attempting to transfer religious connotations to the ideas that they are advocating. As with all propaganda devices, the use of this technique is not limited to any side of the political spectrum. It can be found in the speeches of radical activists, and in the sermons of moderate or conservative politicians. In a similar fashion, propagandists may attempt to transfer the reputation of “technological advancement” or “the information super-highway”, or “childcare systems” to a particular project or set of political ideas.

These techniques can also take a more ominous turn. For example, even the most flagrantly anti-intellectual ethnic chauvinist may want to dress up his arguments with terms and carefully selected illustrations, drawn from science or religious dogma, presented out of context. Indeed, the propaganda of Nazi Germany rationalised racism by appealing to both science and Christianity. This does not mean that religion and science have no place in political discussions. The point is that an idea or programme should not just be accepted or rejected simply because it has been linked to a symbol like “technology”, “Islam”, “democracy”, “Christianity” or “God”.

When confronted with the transfer technique, we should ask ourselves the following questions:

· In the most simple and concrete terms, what exactly is the proposal of the speaker?

· What is the real meaning of the thing from which the propagandist is seeking to transfer authority, sanction, and prestige?

· Is there any legitimate connection between the proposal of the propagandist and the revered thing, person or institution?

· Leaving the propagandistic trick out of the picture, what are the true merits (and/or demerits) of the proposal when viewed alone?

A traditional ruler is seen promoting an unknown political aspirant in his opening speech, in his capacity as the Royal Father of The Day, at the venue of the Holy Matrimony of the daughter of a party stalwart. A clique of Pentecostal clergymen have “endorsed” an aspiring gubernatorial candidate, and Bootsy Colins said that Yamaha XL149 moog synthesizers, multiplexed with real-time spectrum analysers, quadraphonic sample-and-hold sound envelopes, and speech-to-music advanced voice decoders (vocoders) enhance the tonality of his bass guitar. The lead singer of a very popular Fuji-Owambe band appears on stage at the public launching of the “memoirs” of an expired tyrant, with blatant announcements that solicit his fans to support en masse, the “new breed” surrogate of an ex-treasury looter, arms dealer, and an actively retired elder statesman, the indefatigable, respected Chief General (Sir) Dr. (Honoris causa) Barrister Engineer Photographer Orji Uzor David Mark Dogonyaro (GCFR; fss; mss; pss; Honorary WASC, Agricultural Extension, University of Agriculture, Maiduguri; MBA Harvard).

These are all classic examples of the abuse of the testimonial technique that comes to the minds of most of us when we hear the term. We recall it indulgently, and tell ourselves how much more sophisticated we are than our grandparents. However, with our next breath, we begin a sentence with, “The Guardian said …”, “Oliver De Coque said...”, “Abuja said ...”; “CNN said...”, “His Excellency said...”, “Buhari said...”, and “Oga said...” Some of these testimonials may merely give greater emphasis to a legitimate and accurate idea (a fair use of the technique). Others, however, may represent the sugarcoating of a distortion, a falsehood, a misunderstood notion, a bald-faced lie, or even an outright anti-social suggestion.

There is nothing wrong with citing a qualified source. The testimonial technique can be used to construct a balanced argument. However, it is often used in ways that are unfair and misleading. The most common misuse of the testimonial involves citing individuals who are not even qualified to pass judgements about a particular issue. For example, in 1992, Barbara Streisand supported Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign, while Arnold Schwarzenegger threw his weight behind George Bush (Snr.). Both are superstars, but there is no reason to think that they also know what is best for all the citizens of the United States of America!

Unfair testimonials are usually obvious, and most of us have probably seen through this rhetorical trick at some time or another. This probably happened because a person that we did not respect provided the testimonial. When an admired person provides the testimony, we are much less likely to be critical.

You should ask yourself the following questions when you encounter this technique:

· Why should I regard this person (or organization or publication) as having expert knowledge or trustworthy information on the subject in question?

· What does the idea amount to on its own merits, without the benefit of the testimonial?

By using the plain-folks technique, Nigerian politicians attempt to convince their target audience that they, and their ideas, are “of the masses”, and that they feel the pulse of the “grassroots”, relate to the “down-trodden”, “less-privileged”, and the “common man on the street”. Advertisers and politicians use this technique of mind manipulation very often, and very well.

For example, all presidential and gubernatorial aspirants in Nigeria today, are actually multi-millionaires, yet they go to great lengths to present themselves as ordinary folks. They hug motherless babies (and baby-less mothers), to the full glare of press cameras. Most of them eat suya, tuwo shinkafa, roasted corn (with coconut or/and ùbé), roasted plantain, and roasted yam (with palm oil), swallow èbà, ákpú (fufu), pounded yam, or àmàlà, drink water from newly commissioned rural pipe borne water supply taps, drive newly donated tractors and bulldozers to the awe and admiration of their fans and flabbergasted subjects. They regularly read local and foreign yellow-page journals, gossip newspapers, glossy quasi-pornographic magazines, and comics. Some of them have a very down-to-earth disposition while in the informal company of their chains of concubines, girlfriends, and “spare tyres” in parties they regularly organise in their executive guesthouses nationwide. In the United States of America, for example, ex-US President George Bush hated broccoli, but loved fishing (Oh! How natural and simple!). Ex-US President Ronald Reagan was often photographed chopping firewood (Really humble indeed), and ex-US President Jimmy Carter presented himself as a humble peanut farmer from Georgia (Wow! How absolutely down-to-earth!). Meanwhile, each and every one of these seemingly very “sweet” and “humble” ex-US Presidents was a multi-millionaire, long BEFORE being President of the US of A.

We are all too familiar with political aspirants who campaign as unwilling, humble, God-fearing, reluctant, church-going, disinterested, political outsiders, promising to “clean out the Aegean stable”, “to restore our past glory” (whatever that means!), and to “set things straight” in Abuja, Port Harcourt, Benin City, Lagos, Awka, Kaduna, Lafia, Oshogbo, Umuahia, etc, since they would not condone “business as usual”. The Nigerian political terrain is dotted with politicians who challenge a mythical “power elite” (e.g. Kaduna Mafia, retired generals; Ijebu Igbo Mafia, Port Harcourt Mafia; Sokoto Caliphate, Abacha Boys, IBB Boys, Buhari Boys (almajiri), OBJ Boys, Emeka Offor (EO) Boys), presumably aligning themselves with “ordinary Nigerians” or “the masses”, in search of “power shift”.

We are beginning to see Ministers dressed in stone wash denim jeans, (while inspecting federal highway construction projects across the country, or while visiting the site of the destroyed armoury of Ikeja Cantonment), Senate Presidents who gyrate exuberantly to Makossa (Awilo) music, and First Ladies that enjoy listening and dancing majestically to pure and unadulterated P-funk, Jazz-rock, Chachacha, Kokoma, Highlife, and nursery rhymes. In all of these examples, the plain-folks mind manipulation technique is at work.

When confronted with the plain-folks technique, we should suspend judgement immediately, and ask ourselves the following questions:

· What are the propagandist’s ideas worth when divorced from his or her projected personality?

· What could he or she be trying to cover up with the plain-folks approach?

Applications of glittering generalities and name-calling symbols in effective propaganda attempt to arouse the target audience with vivid and emotionally suggestive words. In certain situations, however, the propagandist may want to pacify his listener in order to make an unpleasant reality more palatable. This is accomplished by using words that are bland and/or euphemistic.

For example, since war is particularly unpleasant, military briefs are full of euphemisms. In the 1940s, the United States of America changed the name of its War Department to the Department of Defence. Under US President Ronald Reagan, a very lethal arsenal, the MX-missile was suitably renamed “The Peacekeeper”. During wartime, civilian casualties are referred to as “collateral damage”, and the word “liquidate” is used as a synonym for “kill”.

In the wake of the First World War, traumatised veterans were said to be suffering from “shell shock”. After the Second World War, people began to use the term “combat fatigue” to mean the same condition. The phrase is a bit more pleasant, but it still acknowledges combat as the source of discomfort. Therefore, in the wake of the US-conceived War Against Communism in Vietnam, people referred to the same condition as “post-traumatic stress disorder”: a phrase that is disconnected completely from the reality of a very brutal war that was going on in far away South East Asia! Makeshift coffins are called “body bags”.

The propagandist hires an auditorium, rents radio and/or television stations, posts high-quality banners and posters, mounts giant billboards across the country, fills a massive stadium with millions marching earnestly in full support, or at least a lot of men and women are seen to be “endorsing” an aspirant, in a seemingly spontaneous show of solidarity, at a parade. He employs the symbolism, colours, music, movement, and all the pageantry involved. He gets us to write letters, to send e-mails, to visit his website, and to contribute (generously) to his cause. He appeals to the desire, common to most humans: The desire to follow the crowd.

Because he wants us to follow the crowd en-masse, he directs his appeal to groups already held together by common ties of ethnic or regional identity, religious denomination, profession, gender, or socio-economic status. He calls it his political machinery! Thus, propagandists campaigning for or against a programme will appeal to us as Roman Catholics, Shango worshippers, Anglicans, Born-Agains, Methodists, Moslems, female journalists, Shiites, Jehovah’s Witnesses, White garment Churchgoers, Ahmadiyyas, Sunni, or Jews. As engineers, doctors, lawyers, lecturers, members of the Rotary Club, “women of substance” or as a trade Union; market women, prayer groups, Knights, Old Boys, “Okada” riders, homemakers, or as fellow “Up-Landers”.

With the aid of the other propaganda devices, the anaesthetic effects of flattery, praise singing, and advanced sycophancy are applied to exploit the fears, hatreds, prejudices, biases, threats, convictions, and ideals that are common to a group. Thus, emotion is made to push, and/or pull us as members of a group into a bandwagon.

The basic message of the bandwagon appeal is that “everyone else is doing it, and so too should you”. Since few of us want to be left behind, this technique can be quite successful. However, there is never quite as much of rush to climb onto the bandwagon as the propagandist would want us believe there is.

When confronted with this technique, it may be helpful to ask yourself the following questions:

· Regardless of the fact that others are supporting this programme, why should I support it?

· Does the programme serve or undermine my individual or/and collective interests?

At this juncture, let us take a close look at an excerpt from the speeches of one of the masters of effective propaganda in the history of mind manipulation in this planet, Adolf Hitler of Germany, as shown below:

“The streets of our country are in turmoil. The universities are filled with students rebelling and rioting. Communists are seeking to destroy our country. Russia is threatening us with her might and the Republic is in danger. Yes - danger from within and without. We need law and order! Without it our nation cannot survive.”

When Adolf Hitler warned his target audience that disaster would ensue if they did not follow a particular course of action, he was using the fear appeal. By playing on your deep-seated phobias, the practitioner of this technique hopes to redirect your attention away from the details of a particular proposal, and to focus your efforts towards steps that you can take to reduce your fears. This technique can be highly effective when wielded by a fascist demagogue or a military dictator. Nevertheless, it is often used in less dramatic ways, even in democratic settings.

· A television commercial portrays a horrendous car accident on Eko Bridge (the fear appeal), and reminds viewers to always wear their seatbelts (the fear-reducing behaviour).

· The Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, and President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria reminds the traumatised citizens of Bayelsa State (shortly after his troops ravaged Odi village, leaving a trail of burnt houses, raped young girls and married women, and destroyed farmlands), that, indeed, the Nigeria-Biafra War was caused by a desire to monopolise the benefits of revenues accruable from crude oil (the fear appeal), and follows it up with lecturing them about the attendant evils of “resource control”, and the need to stop such agitations, in the overall interest of Nigerian unity, peace, progress and sustainable development. (the fear-reducing behaviour).

· An alarm raised by a geopolitical (quasi-ethnic) lobby group begins by describing a lawless Nigeria in which only tribal militias, like OPC and the Bakassi Boys, own automatic machine guns, grenades, talismans, cutlasses, daggers and clubs (the fear appeal), and concludes by asking Nigerians to support one of its executive members, a presidential aspirant, so as to ensure adequate security, accountability, the entrenchment of enduring discipline, and the total eradication of corruption for the benefit of all Nigerians (the fear-reducing behaviour).

Ever since the end of the Second World War, social psychologists and communication experts have been conducting empirical studies in order to learn more about the effectiveness of fear appeals. All other things being equal, the more frightened a person is by a message, the more likely he or she is going to take positive preventive action.⁽²⁾ This technique could, however, backfire if the subject is not frightened, or does not believe in the story being fabricated by the propagandist. This is the big problem of all the state-owned radios, television stations, and newspapers: Most Nigerians do not believe them any more because they have over-flogged, abused, and misused the fear appeal, and most of their “Governor-centred” news are laughable hard-boiled, bald-headed lies. The misapplication of propaganda has its costs!

For example, when Nigerians were told, rather patronisingly and paternalistically, that there would be dire consequences of “monumental proportions” if the incumbent President, His Excellency, General (Chief) Olusegun Aremu Mathew Obasanjo (GCFR, pss; fss, OBJ) does not contest the 2003 presidential elections, nobody believed His Excellency’s subtle blackmail! Why?

· Fear appeals will not succeed in altering behaviour if the audience feels powerless to change the situation.

· Fear appeals are more likely to succeed in changing behaviour if they contain specific recommendations for reducing the threat that the audience believes are both effective and doable.

In summary, there are four key elements to a successful fear appeal: (1) a threat, (2) a specific suggestion about what the audience should do, (3) audience perception that the recommendation will be effective in addressing the threat, and (4) audience perception that they are capable of performing the recommended action. When fear appeals do not include all four (4) elements, they are very likely to fail. From the point of view of effective propaganda, the President, His Excellency, General (Chief) Olusegun Aremu Mathew Obasanjo (GCFR, pss; fss, OBJ) simply made an unverifiable utterance. Period.

In line with the theory of propaganda, during the 1964 Presidential election campaigns in the United States of America, an aspiring candidate, Lyndon Johnson, swayed many voters with a well-known television commercial that portrayed a young girl being annihilated in a nuclear blast. The commercial neatly linked nuclear warfare to Barry Goldwater, Johnson's opponent, and then proposed a vote for Johnson as an effective and workable way of avoiding the threat.

In contemporary Nigerian politics, the fear-appeal continues to be widespread. When politicians agitate the public’s fears (of irregular power supply, bad roads, substandard medical facilities, quota system, ethnocentric marginalisation, federal presence, educational disadvantage, catchment area, fuel scarcity, under-representation, true federalism, armed robbery, teenage prostitution, the conflicts between settlers, indigenes, and non-indigenes, or treasury looting, secret cults), and propose that voting for them would reduce the threat, they are [ab]using the fear appeal technique. When confronted with swaying messages that exploit our fears, we should ask ourselves the following questions:

· Is the speaker exaggerating my fears, handicaps, inadequacies, or threats in order to win my support?

· How legitimate is the fear that the speaker is trying to provoke in me?

· Will performing the recommended action actually reduce the supposed threat?

· When viewed objectively, what are the true merits (or demerits) of the speaker’s proposal?

Logic is the process of drawing a conclusion from one or more premises. A statement of fact, by itself, is neither logical nor illogical, although it can be true or false.

As an example of how logic can be abused, consider the following argument, which has been widely peddled, comic, as it might seem:

Premise 1: General (Chief) Olusegun Aremu Mathew Obasanjo (GCFR; pss; fss) solemnly swore on a Holy Bible on May 29, 1999, to defend the Abdulsalami Abubakar Constitution (1999) of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

Premise 2: In the 21^st century, heads of democratic governments swear to defend their country’s constitution, worldwide.

One way of testing the logic of an argument like this is to translate the basic terms and see if the conclusion still makes sense. As you can see, the premises may be correct, but the conclusion does not necessarily follow.

· Premise 1: All members of the Cherubim and Seraphim Church in Nigeria believe in God.

· Conclusion: In Nigeria, all members of the Cherubim and Seraphim Church are Muslims.

This is a rather extreme example of how logic can be abused. It should be noted that a message can be illogical without being propaganda. We all make logical mistakes, from time to time. The difference is that propaganda deliberately fine-tunes logic, and adjusting contexts here and there, in order to provoke a desired response, while promoting a specific cause.

The tendency to make long-range predictions about the future, based on a few available (and possibly trivial) facts, is a common logical fallacy. It is easy to see the persuasiveness in this type of argument. By pushing his case to the very limit, a propagandist can force you into a weaker position. The whole future is lined up against you. Driven to the defensive, you find it hard to disprove something that has not yet happened. And so, you agree!

Extrapolation is what scientists call such predictions, with the warning that they must be used with extreme caution. A simple illustration is the trans-Africa safari race driver who observed that there were nine (9) petrol filling stations along a kilometre stretch of the Kachia highway in the vicinity of Kaduna Refinery, and concluded that there must be plenty of petrol, kerosene, and diesel oil, all the way to the Sahara desert! You plot two or three points on a graph, draw a curve through them, and extend it indefinitely, to infinity! This kind of logical abracadabra often provides the basis for an effective fear-appeal.

· If the State Assembly passes a legislation limiting the use of “okadas” (motorcycles) for intra-city commuting, Port Harcourt will slide down a slippery slope of nightmarish traffic chaos, mass unemployment, and crime, which will result in the complete breakdown of law and order, the destabilisation and subsequent annihilation of our nascent democracy, and ultimately lead us into a totalitarian police state.

· If the President does not travel out of Nigeria very frequently, foreign investors will be afraid to come to Nigeria and invest, because of the damage done to the country’s credibility by the 16 selective years of the military dictatorships of Major General Mohammadu Buhari, General Ibrahim Babangida, General Sani Abacha, and General Abdulsalami Abubakar, and millions of jobs and factories will disappear from the map of Nigeria, leading to an economic collapse of unimaginable magnitude.

· The introduction of modern communication tools such as GSM will lead to a radical transformation of Nigeria’s telecommunications infrastructure and capacity, enhance the dissemination of information, resulting in the dramatic decongestion of our highways, the decentralisation of decision-making in governance, enhanced political participation, and the take-off of a modern Nigerian nation state.

When anyone attempts to convince you that a particular course of actions would lead either to disaster or to utopia, it may be helpful to ask yourself the following questions:

· Is there enough and verifiable data to support the speaker's predictions about the future?

· If there are many different ways that things could turn out, why is the speaker painting such an extreme picture with one particular?

In order to illustrate our points, we took a random shot at the contents of some Nigerian dailies published recently. We end this piece with some exercises on mind manipulation techniques discussed here, based on those newspaper excerpts. Below are a few examples of both subtle and brazen manipulation of opinion. See if you can spot the specific technique(s) of propaganda or sycophancy, applied in any of the newspaper articles cited below. A preliminary content and context analysis is provided subsequently. Have fun!

The Nigerian Navy has linked the spate of robberies in the nation’s territorial waters to the access granted to prostitutes and their pimps to board ships at harbour.

The Commanding Officer, NNS Olokun, made the observation at the Naval Base, Apapa, while handing over four (4) suspects, including pirates and fraudsters arrested by the Navy, to the police for prosecution.

Noting that sea robbery, which the free girls encouraged, was denting the good culture of the nation’s maritime industry, the Commanding Officer warned all those involved, as the law enforcement agents were fully prepared to confront the culprits.

The Federal Government will release details of investigations by the Independent Corrupt Practices and other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) on three (3) state governors next week.

The expected announcement, to coincide with the third anniversary of civilian rule in the country, is one of the major achievements of the government whose key programmes include the fight against corruption.

The document released by the Senior Special Assistant to the President on Media and Publicity noted that “corruption is no more brazen”, and that there is a high awareness among Nigerians on the consequences of corruption!

Let us give honour to whom honour is due. Arise! Dr (Mrs.) Kema Chikwe, and take a bow, for you have done what many men could not do. The old ugly scenes at the airport, which made Murtala Mohammed Airport look like Jebako Motor Park have vanished. The airport complex is now fully air conditioned, with cleaners regularly picking up bits and pieces dropped by the public.

At first, I thought this could not be Nigeria. Dr. Chikwe’s catalogue of successes in the aviation industry has convinced me that one has to be properly focused, and must completely ignore some criticism in order to succeed… The greatest success of the Obasanjo Administration today, is Nigeria Airways.

Is it really possible to link the spate of robberies in Nigeria’s territorial waters, indeed the 200 nautical miles-wide exclusive economic zone of maritime activities, within the jurisdiction of Nigerian Navy operations, to prostitutes and their pimps who board ships at Nigerian harbours? Why are they (prostitutes and their pimps) allowed aboard merchant and naval vessels at Nigerian harbours? Why not arrest them at the harbours before they board any ship? Why wait until they get to Nigeria’s territorial waters? Were the four (4) prostitutes, pirates, and fraudsters that were handed over by the Commanding Officer of battleship NNS Olokun, apprehended in the high seas? When the Navy arrested them, were the prostitutes carrying out robbery in Nigeria’s territorial waters? How do prostitutes encourage sea robbery? What aspect of the culture of Nigeria’s maritime industry do prostitute dent? Is the Navy a law enforcement agency? Why must the Navy confront Nigerian prostitutes and pimps in Nigeria’s territorial waters? Is that their job?

Why is the Senior Special Assistant to the President on Media and Publicity announcing, one week in advance, coinciding with the third anniversary of Obasanjo’s presidency, the fate of three (3) corrupt state governors? Why not now? Is anti-corruption really a major achievement of Obasanjo’s government? Is it not really true that corruption is no more brazen in Nigeria? Is there is a high awareness among Nigerians on the consequences of corruption? What are the consequences of corruption? How does “Transparency International” rate Nigeria now?

This is simply an example pure and unadulterated official sycophancy, praise-singing, and ego massaging of the most blatant, unrepentant, and nauseating kind! Over 80% of its content is palpably false! No further analysis is necessary.

1. Darren Hawkins: “Sustaining Authoritarian Rule: Democratization Theory Meets Cuba”; Presented at the 21^st Latin American Studies Association Conference in Chicago, Illinois, USA; (September 24-26, 1998).

2. Alfred McLung Lee & Elizabeth Bryant Lee: “The Fine Art of Propaganda”; Institute for Propaganda Analysis; Harcourt, Brace & Co.; New York; USA; (1939).

3. Anthony Pratkanis & Elliot Aronson: “Age of Propaganda: The Everyday Use and Abuse of Persuasion”; W.H. Freeman & Co., New York; USA; (1991).

4. James Combs & Dan Nimmo: “The New Propaganda: The Dictatorship of Palaver in Contemporary Politics”; Longmans Publishing Group, New York; USA; (1993).

5. Institute for Propaganda Analysis: “Propaganda Analysis”; Columbia University Press, NY; USA; (1938).

6. The Tide: “Navy Links Prostitution To Piracy”; The Tide Vol. 6, No. 328; Rivers State Newspaper Corporation, The Tide Newspapers, Port Harcourt; (Friday, May 24, 2002)

7. National Interest: “FG To Name Corrupt Governors & Ministers Next Week:”; Vol. 2, No. 502; Common Interest Communications Ltd, Lagos; (Friday, May 24, 2002)

8. Femi Robinson: “Chikwe: A Woman Of Substance:”; Nigerian Tribune, African Newspapers of Nigeria plc, Ibadan; (Wednesday, May 8, 2002)