Courage or Competence? What Advocacy Demands of the Advocate
luckyIn every domain of advocacy, particularly concerning the rights of LGBTQ persons in Nigeria, the relationship between courage and competence has become extremely important. Recent clampdowns on certain advocacy endeavors have led numerous groups and initiatives to close down their virtual spaces and halt their activities for fear of confrontation. Despite being highly competent—which is code for having the best team—some of these organizations have retreated in the face of adversity. As a sociocultural observer, I was forced to make a small comparison between the variables of courage and competence, to understand whether such actions as taking down social media pages, albeit temporarily, is a long-term solution, and to argue that courage is more important than competence in advocacy and the fight for the protection of fundamental human rights.
Advocacy requires not just the ability to navigate legal and social systems but also the moral fortitude to stand up against injustice, even when it is dangerous or unpopular
The Problem of Retreat
The tendency of advocacy groups to withdraw under pressure is not new. It however raises critical questions about the nature of advocacy itself. When faced with issues like holding elected governments accountable, many of us in Nigeria become passive, showing a stark contrast to our Kenyan counterparts, who have demonstrated a willingness to call for change. Closing down virtual spaces in such circumstances is a phenomenon that can be likened to a scenario where a skilled surgeon refuses to operate during a critical emergency because of fear of legal repercussions. Dr Ben Carson, the world-renowned neurosurgeon calls it an ‘irrational aversion to risk’. In the end, lives are lost that cannot be brought back. This is the overall trouble with the state of advocacy in Nigeria. The technical skill (competence) is present, but the lack of moral courage to act renders the skill useless. Advocacy requires not just the ability to navigate legal and social systems but also the moral fortitude to stand up against injustice, even when it is dangerous or unpopular. This culture of retreat and fear, deeply ingrained in the socio-political fabric of our country, undermines the very foundation of advocacy, which is supposed to be the vanguard of change and justice.
The Nigerian socio-political landscape is marked by a peculiar paradox: a population that is vociferous about mundane issues but eerily silent when confronted with profound injustices.
The Nigerian socio-political landscape is marked by a peculiar paradox: a population that is vociferous about mundane issues but eerily silent when confronted with profound injustices. This silence can be interpreted through the lens of social philosophy as a form of moral relativism, where the discomfort of challenging the status quo outweighs the moral imperative to act. It is akin to living in a house with a leaking roof and choosing to paint the walls while ignoring the structural damage. The retreat of advocacy groups in the face of governmental crackdown sends a chilling message: that the fight for equality is only worth pursuing when it is convenient and safe. This “selective activism’’ is detrimental, as it emboldens oppressors and leaves marginalized communities without the robust support they desperately need.
Taking social media pages and websites down during crises is counterproductive and ill-advised. It is akin to a lighthouse turning off its light during a storm because of the fear of being struck by lightning. It signals weakness and encourages attackers, suggesting that merely raising accusations can silence advocacy efforts
NCA (Necessary Condition Analysis) of Courage and Competence
Advocacy requires both courage and competence, but a deeper analysis reveals that courage is in short supply even though it is the more critical component. Competence involves the skills and knowledge necessary to advocate effectively, such as understanding legal frameworks, policy analysis, persuasion, and strategic communication. However, without the courage to stand firm in the face of opposition, competence alone is insufficient. It is the difference between having a map to navigate a treacherous terrain and actually stepping onto the path despite the dangers. Courage and fortitude are indispensable, especially in environments where advocacy can attract severe backlash. The analogy of a skilled but timid warrior comes to mind—one may have all the weapons and strategies but without the bravery to engage in battle, those skills remain unused and ultimately, ineffective. Taking social media pages and websites down during crises is counterproductive and ill-advised. It is akin to a lighthouse turning off its light during a storm because of the fear of being struck by lightning. It signals weakness and encourages attackers, suggesting that merely raising accusations can silence advocacy efforts. This practice must be re-evaluated to maintain the integrity and impact of advocacy work. In this context, the advocacy groups’ actions reflect a deeper societal issue—an ingrained fear of authority and repercussions that stifles meaningful activism. The courage to persist, even when facing significant threats, is what transforms advocacy from mere rhetoric to impactful action.
When advocacy groups, despite being capable and resourceful, choose to retreat, they inadvertently strengthen the oppressive structures they seek to dismantle
The Implications of Silence
When advocacy organizations go silent, they inadvertently send a message of defeat. By closing accounts and halting activities, they not only abandon their cause but also weaken the broader movement for social justice. This behavior fosters a climate of fear and compliance, which is detrimental to the pursuit of equality and justice. The social implications of such retreats are profound. They create a precedent that advocacy is only viable within the confines of safety, thereby negating the essence of advocacy, which is to challenge and disrupt unjust systems. This withdrawal not only demoralizes supporters but also sends a message to the broader community that the cause is not worth the fight. The psychological impact on marginalized communities is devastating—they see their advocates retreating, and their hope for justice dims. Policy implications are equally significant. When advocacy groups fail to challenge unjust laws and policies, they allow discriminatory practices to persist unchallenged. This lack of resistance undermines efforts to achieve legal and social reforms necessary for protecting minority rights. It is a vicious cycle where fear begets silence, and silence begets even more fear. The social implications of retreating in the face of adversity are profound. When advocacy groups, despite being capable and resourceful, choose to retreat, they inadvertently strengthen the oppressive structures they seek to dismantle. This creates a domino effect, where the silence of one group emboldens the government to suppress others, leading to a broader culture of fear and compliance.
Legal Perspectives
From a legal standpoint, the implications of advocacy groups retreating are concerning. Legal frameworks exist to protect freedom of expression and the right to assemble peacefully. However, these rights are meaningless if not exercised. Advocacy groups must use legal protections to push back against government crackdowns. Organizations like ours have demonstrated resilience by refusing to take down our content, thereby challenging the notion that defending the constitutional rights of LGBTQ persons in Nigeria is a crime.
The current situation highlights a paradox: preaching equality while running away when challenged. Advocacy organizations have not posted illegal content; therefore, their fearful closures are unwarranted. As earlier observed, this behavior sets a dangerous precedent, where a baseless accusation can silence an entire movement. The legal frameworks in place should serve as a shield for advocacy groups, allowing them to challenge unjust laws and practices without fear of retribution. However, these frameworks are only as strong as the willingness of individuals and organizations to utilize them.
In conclusion, advocacy demands more than just competence; it requires unwavering courage. The retreat of advocacy groups in Nigeria, especially concerning the rights of LGBTQ persons, reflects a broader cultural issue of fear and compliance. To effect real change, advocates must stand firm, use their competence with courage to face adversity. By doing so, they can create a resilient and impactful movement that champions equality and justice, regardless of the challenges.
Written by Chukwuebuka Alex Ozoani.
