THE PROTEST: HAS THE “WHY” JUSTIFIED THE AFTERMATH? AND A SLAP IN THE FACE OF DIPLOMACY

• By Professor X

“In the days when hyenas of hate suckle the babes of men, and jackals of hypocrisy pimp their mothers’ broken hearts, may children not look to demons of ignorance for hope.” – Aberjhani, The River of Winged Dreams

How do we expect the world not to get burnt when we fight fire with fire? How do we expect a quick resolution when we fight a conflict with a protest? These questions have kept me imprisoned in my thoughts as various forms of disgruntlement keep escaping the cords of the students after the indefinite break imposed on them by the Management of the institution, consequence of the violent protest that broke out on Thursday, 4th April, 2019 over the stabbing of an Engineering student, leaving a number of casualties and scores of damaged properties.

In a generalised conception, there is inadequacy to the security on campus. Therefore, as a result of this inadequacy, and away from the fallible reason that might have precipitated the protest and the compromise in the brotherhood of students on campus, the wolves in sheep clothing have posed a significant threat to the security of everyone on campus and the togetherness of the students at large. This point may apparently seem off the track of the discourse, but it needs to be highlighted because the war the institution is fighting against insecurity is a multifaceted fight, and to every problem seeking practical solution, there is a corresponding source of the problem.

To every fragrance of injustice against a sect, there’s an urge to seek a liberation – that is apparently the closest relative assumption as to why the protest broke out. The victimized side, the side of who was stabbed in the the head, felt the stench of pain of the stark brutality against their entity as a whole, and thus, rather than settling for diplomacy, went on a protest. But what are the aftermaths of that supposed peaceful protest that metamorphosed into a radical and violent one? Halt in academic activities, prolonged break, compromise in the School’s academic calendar, interruption in the economic activities on the part of business owners on campus, and lots more. Thence, brought about the question “has the ‘why’ of the protest; the stabbing of that student, justified these aftermaths?”

Conversely, at the break of the incident of the stabbing, many students harboured in their minds, the conception of a retaliation, while many envisaged a diplomatic approach to make resolution, which evidently wasn’t feasible because in the face of staunch brutality, diplomacy is always forgotten.

The rule of diplomacy is, the truth of situation isn’t a matter of fact, it’s a matter of consensus. In relation to the violent protest, the fact of the situation was that a protest might not be necessary, but since the protest came in place, it incited that the consensus reached said otherwise. But what could have warranted sets of student to neglect diplomacy and chose a radical protest? Many assumptions can be made, but the undulating one is perhaps the surrounding circumstances on campus don’t facilitate students settling for diplomacy. After all, there’s a notable saying that the only thing Management of a school understands is protest.

In conclusion, at the break of injustice – insecurities – on campus, settling for diplomacy isn’t a big bag of a deal, but the questionable thing is, does the circumstance always give room for diplomacy? The answer is an unequivocal no, and to buttress this point, I would employ the words of an American Statesman, Colin Powell, that says “diplomacy is listening to what the other guy needs. Preserving your own position, but listening to the other guy. You have to develop relationships with other people so when the tough times come, you can work together.”

In lieu of the above, has the circumstance on campus brought about students developing relationships with one another? Has it facilitated one listening to the other guy while preserving one’s position? Has the circumstance brought about peaceful coexistence? Such that when the tough times come, like times of the conflict that led to stabbing of the Engineering student; like times when hyenas of hate suckle the babes of men; like times when jackals of hypocrisy pimp their mothers’ broken hearts, the aggrieved party wouldn’t trail the path to look to demons of ignorance – protest – for hope, but rather seek resolution and hope in diplomacy – the art that restrains their power.

In the end, in the absence of diplomatic approach to resolutions, the protest wouldn’t matter again, the consequences would, and by then the gravity of the consequences may not justify why the protest should come in the first place.

About The Author

Press Council TPI

See author's posts