The frustration and anger expressed by the Nigerian military whenever it feels hard done by negative publicity and a lack of public support are understandable. Despite the challenges faced in curbing insecurity in parts of the country, it is important to acknowledge the efforts of officers who, day and night, are on the frontline sacrificing their lives for the security and safety of their countrymen and women. Many people who fall short of showing support for the armed forces will never know what it is like to serve in the military. Often, the all-too-common demoralising phrase is that these gallant people “knew what they were signing up for”. Yet, officers and men of the armed forces are not ghosts. They are humans just like the rest of the public with emotions and loved ones left behind to defend the country against both internal and external aggressors.
Since 2009 when national security took a different dimension with the activities of terrorists in the Northeastern part of the country, the Nigerian armed forces have been stretched both in manpower and resources. Many young and vibrant officers have been lost to the fight against terrorists and violent extremists. Many of the officers who have survived the worst experience in the battlegrounds carry permanent trauma and other emotional damages; many are badly injured. There are family members, friends and dependents who may not recover from the grief of losing their loved ones who served in the armed forces.
Certainly, show of support and understanding by the public will go a long way in boosting the morale of men and women of the armed forces and will enhance mutual trust. And in ensuring that the people shore up support for their troops, the military high command and the media have critical roles to play.
On its part, the military high command must ensure that public confidence in the military is enhanced. When the public trusts an institution to deliver on its mandates and uphold the social ccontract between it and its government, we say public confidence in such institution is high. Conversely, public trust could plummet, be dented or drained when a large part of the society treats a public institution with suspicion and thereby withdraws goodwill and support for such institution based on mistrust. Public trust in an institution has a direct correlation with its approval ratings, which could be an important parameter for gauging performance or result. Public confidence in public institutions is also a crucial element in building a cordial relationship with the public.
For the public to better support the military, credibility, professionalism integrity and civility have to define civil-military relationship. Nothing boosts public confidence – thus support – like a relationship founded on high moral principles, professional standards and politeness. As they say, integrity espouses legitimacy.
Over the last two decades, defence and intelligence communities in many countries have responded to the possibility of external forces moulding their citizens’ perception on national security by designing research-based, robust and all-encompassing communication strategies. These strategies are aimed at implementing an information dissemination system to connect the people to issues of national security. This follows from the fact that the military, like any other organisation, has become a brand to the populace that competes with other brands in such a way that if it fails to endear itself in the minds of the people it seeks to defend, enemies of state could manipulate public perception against national interest.
Often the military’s communication lacks in coordination and synergy. Its messaging is often inconsistent, it duplicates effort, and at times indulges in unhealthy bureaucratic and competitive behaviours of the various branches of the armed forces. Such shortcomings reduce confidence and trust. The military should also understand that public opinion research is an important part of information gathering. It involves the systematic gathering and interpretation of information about individual, group and organisational attitudes and behaviour in order to both guide and enable to develop communications capable of persuading target audiences for support.
Of course, the role of the media on any issue concerning public buy-in cannot be overemphasised. Conscious of its effect as regards moulding public opinion and influencing government policies and decisions, the media has come to be perceived as an important agent of national stability. The military, therefore, needs the media because news items are competing for space and an institution can only be appraised when it is heard. Also, if vital information in public interest is not shared with the media, they are going to write or broadcast something anyway, and it might involve getting the information (or another version of it) from a source the military may not like.
However, the Nigerian press is not without its own shortcomings. Lacking the required capacity for investigative, accurate and verifiable reporting, the Nigerian media has often resorted to speculative and inaccurate theories in information dissemination.
Without considering their implication on public confidence, the same fabricated news items are sensationalised to attract attention. Sensationalism in reporting therefore uproots the taproot of journalism credibility and strength, exposing it to a higher form of debasement in Nigeria. Yet, the media can be a friend in garnering support for our troops.
It is important for the general public to know that support for men and women of the armed forces is an obligation; a sort of civic responsibility which contributes immensely to the rate at which they succeed in their operations. The sacrifices made by our troops and their families should not only be acknowledged by every well-meaning Nigerian. They should be applauded and supported to continue to do more.
