The recent call by the group
National Coalition Against Tobacco, asking Governor Fashola to reject the
Tobacco Company’s investment in the State appears misguided and inappropriate.
Whilst many perfectly understand the need to regulate the tobacco sector, it is
also well known and accepted that tobacco is a legal industry and hence asking
them not to interact with government and its agencies is mischievous and does
not in any way affect the drive to reduce tobacco consumption. Clearly after
several years of concerted efforts by different NGOs, globally, to stop tobacco
consumption, it appears that the strategy applied has had minimal effect and
needs to be changed. Many hard line activists continue to aggressively attack
the industry and hoodwink several governments to legislate the tobacco industry
out of existence, ensuring that governments lose tax incomes as criminals’
smuggling activities continue to fill the void that stringent regulation
creates.
It is worthy to note that a major
tactic of the anti-tobacco advocacy groups is what they call “denormalisation”,
which apparently means to make the various intentions and activities of the
tobacco companies appear abnormal. The aim here, they say is to dissuade
several government agencies or others from interacting with a legal entity.
This is clearly a tactic that is borrowed from many of their parent bodies from
whom they are franchised. Whether this is logical or ethical is a debate for
another day. Obviously, their modus operandis is something that needs further
probing into.
The motives around NGO work and
activism in these parts of the world is indeed questionable, one begs to demand
for more transparency and code of conduct to guide their utterances and
practices. Looking critically at the style of operations, it appears to twist
issues out of context to suit their intentions and go against the very
principles which they ask of the tobacco companies or even other controversial
industries such as the oil industries.
Interestingly, quite a number of
products have come under the scrutiny of the global health sector in recent
times and these include but are not limited to sugar and beverages. Therefore,
one wonders why there isn’t a holistic approach to these issues, looking at the
need to address the health sector as a whole as opposed to singling out
specific industries to imbibe.
These companies, tobacco et al
are the ones that are also trying to invent healthier consumer appealing
products for their customers. I have, therefore, tried in vain to seek for a concerted
effort by these NGOs to look for alternative options for the tobacco smokers or
even push for ways to educate these consumers of the ills of smoking.
Asides from the recent campaign launched on-line to educate young ones, years
of activism have seen them attacking the big tobacco companies and
misrepresenting their every intention. We have seen changes in these companies
e.g. no more bill board adverts, no more big public events, no TV
advertisements and working with local government agencies(boroughs, councils or
counties) to address other regulatory
issues which by the way are often times not mandatory. They, therefore, must
also be extremely stupid if they are really doing most of the things they are
accused of by these NGOs especially seeing that it affects their reputation.
For many, who are becoming tired
of the “going back and forth” in the tobacco control bill debate , this
over-riding focus of their campaign on the cigarette manufacturing companies is
nothing short of pushing for sensationalism, with little or no value add to the proposed cause of their campaign.
Is there any benefit in having
tobacco companies, sugar companies around? If they are not around what will
happen? are we, the NGOs attacking them looking at this side of the story?
Where were these NGOs when smuggling was rife in the country? How many
smugglers did they challenge or face in the cause of their campaigns? How many
Nigerians have they educated with the funding they have received? What other
activities do they engage in asides from attacking these entities? How intensive is it compared
to the various on-going campaigns against cigarette making industries? i.e. how
much funding have they put into helping the smoker quit smoking or even educate
the people on making the right life
style choices?
Issues must be looked at from an
holistic point of view , this is the same tactic employed by the NGOs operating
in the Niger Delta for many years, yet the people are still impoverished. Was
problem in the region solely that of the oil majors operating in the area? what
part did the sabotage to the oil pipelines play in the environmental
degradation of the different communities? What role did the state government
have to play in it? How else could the NGOs have improved the lives of the
people by deploying financial resources
into community development and re-orientation than by attacking the oil majors?
We must push for a new era of activism, whilst holding businesses and
definitely not only multi-nationals but many indigenous companies accountable
for their actions, activists for the sake of their prosperity must also address
all other issues which are not as sensational as been on the pages of
newspapers but which can bring about real added value to the lives of thousands
whom they say they are defending. There
are thousands of other NGOs quietly
doing their work and making more impact and changing lives and this is the way
it should be.
The “Delta beyond oil” initiative
of Dr. Emmanuel Uduaghan is a laudable and extremely progressive initiative
that is expected to drive sustainable development outside of dependence on oil,
this is one that should have come years before now but thankfully it’s here now
and we hope that the vision will be driven conclusively in a way that will
bring about additional value to the communities of Delta State.
This initiative is similar to the
progressive looking approach of Lagos State. Activism must be localised
irrespective of the models and approach of their franchised origins in
developed countries, localising solutions is the best approach to solving
issues. The fear may be that this form of approach may not necessarily attract
funding but it is really what works at the end of the day that matters and if
it does then it will definitely attract funding. Localisation of solutions is the only way
value can be generated. And this is the new trend for many other organisations,
asides from the Uduaghan initiative, Tony Elumelu is also now trending on his
model of AfriCapitalism another home grown solution to indigenous issues. For
the government agencies and the legislators that these activist are addressing,
this is the way to go, we must not be hoodwinked into a venture that is been
dictated by foreign organisations who haven’t successfully implemented it in
their own side of the world. We must remember that our issues are even more
complicated here. We don’t have the same type of enforcement capability that
they have or even the type of transparency that will deter corruption from
creeping in, so let’s define our strategies within our context. Their so called
hard funding can be diverted to doing more good than fighting against companies
that if taken out will make the situation worse.
In a twisted way, the ethics or
principles which are meant to guide these campaigns looks like they have also
been thrown out of the window. In one vein the NGOs accuse these tobacco
companies of recruiting young people, in another vein they are also using
children in their tobacco campaigns, worse still they accuse the tobacco
companies of giving Journalists gifts and incentives, in the same vein they are
complicit in using monetary gains in attempting to seduce Journalists to
influence their writing. What a mess! Where is the red line? and what is the
code of conduct guiding them? With new entrants to the scene in the likes of
CTFK, it seems that the ethics may have completely gone out of control.
On a final note: what are secret
parties? Are organizations capable of having secret parties in a civilized
environment such as ours? the use of rhetoric and concepts which are not true
of the realities on ground can be deemed to be mischievous and not befitting of
their status. This kind of tactic must change, it brings no value to the cause
and funding received and does not address the issues which are at the heart of
the advocacy.
Governor Fashola is an
intelligent and experienced governor who is aware of all the issues, his
statements were balanced and is accepted by many. This investment is welcome,
what is not welcome is the absence of appropriate regulations and education of
the populace to whom we owe it a duty to support and this is the issue that
must be faced.
Oluwatodun Amosun, Partner,
African Center for Ethics and Good Governance
0 comments:
Post a Comment