As the Nigerian legislature deliberates over a hate speech bill, a point to ponder is whether to go one step further and seek to abolish hate itself. Sure, this sounds whimsical. But, it isn’t. Well, at least not entirely. You see, to grapple with hate speech, we have to first grapple with hate. After all, the first springs from the latter. So, let’s give it a try, understanding hate, that is.

To begin with, everybody hates something or somebody some of the time. Some people hate something or somebody all of the time. And the hate can range from the harmless to the consequential.

People hate lawyers (but regularly retain them). Most people hate politicians (then turn around and prostrate before them). Politicians hate the press (but then hanker for its attention). Presidents are some of the most hated people in the world (as well as the most beloved and revered).

In this sense, we all — our legislators included — indulge in hate speech all of the time. In fact, we probably say “I hate…” more often than “I love….”

Of course, the legislators’ concern is with a different kind of hate speech, the vitriol directed by members of one ethnic group towards another. Yet, it is important to reflect on the continuum of hate to grapple with the challenge of criminalizing hate speech.

You see then that the lead statement about abolishing hate is not a whimsical jab at the Nigerian legislature. It is rather a way of drawing attention to the fact that hate will be expressed for as long as people hate. Hence, it might be more productive to focus on reducing the causes of hate than to criminalize hate speech — vulgar, misguided and subversive as it might be.

Psychologists broadly classify hate as having affective and cognitive basis, that is, prejudices and reason. “In general terms, (the causes) include culture and what it transmits to people, social conditions such as difficult life conditions and the processes they generate, group relations such as conflict, especially intractable conflict, and the personal experience of individuals and the orientation it creates to human beings in general, to the self, and to members of particular groups,” writes Professor Ervin Staub in summarising his chapter in the book, The Psychology of Hate.

One doesn’t have to think too hard to see how all of these factors apply to Nigeria. We all grew up with narratives about other ethnic groups, far and near.  And often these narratives reflect pejorative views of the other and superior notions of ourselves. Sometimes the narratives inhere in myths, things that might have never happened. Sometimes, they reflect actual events that took place in the distant or recent past, such as the Nigerian civil war.

Such experiences provide the context for interpreting and reacting to current events, such as the ongoing atrocities by ostensible herdsmen. They have probably generated more vitriol than anything else in our recent history.

Intentionally or unwittingly, political leaders are catalysts for hate. And no Nigerian leader has fit this bill more than President Muhammadu Buhari. By disregarding the fact that appointments to federal offices are the most tangible evidence of inclusiveness to Nigerians, he has stoked ethnic suspicion more than his recent predecessors combined.

Remarkably, the same thing is happening in the United States, where President Donald Trump’s divisive rhetoric and policies have taken racial animosity to the highest heights in recent American history.

So, what are the antidotes for hate? “They include … constructive fulfilment of basic human needs; humanizing the other and the experience of positive connections to people who belong to different groups,” writes Staub, an emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst.

Staub also recommends: “self-awareness both as an individual and as a group member, which among other benefits enables people to see the impact of their actions on others; and healing from past victimization and reconciliation between groups and individuals who have harmed each other.”

How about that for a challenge to Nigerian legislators?

Case for hate speech

In any case, is hate speech useful in some ways? I’d say yes. Winston Churchill, the World-War II era British prime minister, reputedly said at a White House meeting in 1954 that, “To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war.” He was making the case for patient dialogue with the Soviet Union, the West’s emerging communist nemesis in the years after World War II.

One could take his reasoning one step further to dealing with hate speech.Sure, there is danger when falsehood and incendiary claims are allowed full rein. But criminalizing them beyond existing laws against libel and incitation to violence carries even greater danger.

For one thing, there is the steam effect, the reality that pent-up anger will explode at some point. In contrast, expressing it freely might have a cathartic effect. Thus, social media might be serving as the psychologist’s couch, where people vent their frustrations, whether well-grounded or not.

Moreover, leaders are better off knowing the depth of anger out there, whether the anger is justified or not — whether the leaders are culpable or not. Else, they risk the fate of Queen Marie Antoinette of revolutionary-era France and long before her Emperor Nero of ancient Rome.

In sum, it is much more beneficial to try to combat hate than to criminalize hate speech.