The moment a ban is slapped either on a movie or a drink, that is when it will be in high demand. In pre-war Japan, one of the tricks used by businessmen to make their goods in demand was to convince local rulers to ban the item. After that, it will be in high demand, and the businessman and the local ruler will cash out. In the history of books, those titles or authors that were banned end up becoming best sellers. Copies are smuggled and sold like cocaine. The ban triggers people’s demand for the books to satisfy their curiosity. This is innate.
In the earliest days of implementing Shari’ah, in some northern states, a ban on alcohol did not stop the drinkers; it only made beer more expensive in those states, sold largely underground or at military or police formations. Some travel from Zamfara to Kaduna to get tipsy and return home with ample beer inside a kettle, soft drinks or syrup bottles. In his book “Mecca”, Ziauddin Sardar pointed out how, at the dawn of Islam, banning alcohol made it high in demand and compelled many drinkers to go underground. Some were so fond of alcohol to the extent that they would rather leave Islam than stop drinking.
There seems to be a spree of bans these days. One government or government official is banning this or that. It seems like the only function the government does more frequently and decisively is banning this or that. Some government officials will wear their best babbar riga, go to the office and ban something and then return home exhausted from having completed a daunting task.
The effectiveness of a ban is even more difficult in the digital age. Unrealistic. How can you ban a series run on YouTube, for example? Even if YouTube is blocked in your state, a VPN provides access. Therefore, it is a futile effort, not worth it at all. When NBC foolishly banned a song by Eedris Abdulkareem, it instantly became a hit. His career was revived, and the song recorded huge streaming and downloads. Many people came across the name of Eedris for the first time because of the NBC ban.
The rationale for these bans is good. Instilling morality and sanitising society. The important duty of the government is to protect society. Banning harmful things is a way of protecting people. Promoting good and discouraging evil. The idea of what is right and what is wrong has been exhaustively debated since ancient times. There is more clarity in the works of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) — especially his “Moral Theory” which, among others, noted that morality should not be about the fear of consequences. There is no space here to go into details on this.
Emphasis should be placed on improving the lives of the people, by reducing poverty, supporting the very poor to live with dignity and providing quality healthcare, education, electricity and infrastructure. Suffocating the people with bans while even having access to water is a draining daily struggle that does not make sense. More attention should be given to social justice so that people can trust those instructing them to avoid certain things for their good.
Too much emphasis on imposing morality on people through silly bans and dangling of possible severe punishment is a typical classist and discriminatory method of controlling people and the way they live.
Mr Sanusi writes from Abuja
