Introduction

Social media is arguably the most widely used digital technology for peacebuilding in Nigeria, especially by civil society. For many scholars, practitioners and users, social media is a double-edged sword.1 While true, this framing obscures the nuances of social media’s role in peacebuilding.2 Framing social media as an intricate landscape acknowledges its complexity in peacebuilding and allows for comprehensive appraisal. An intricate landscape refers to complex, context-informed interactions and influences within a system, where multiple interconnected factors collectively shape outcomes in variable ways.

The Use of Social Media for Peacebuilding in Nigeria

Social media is extensively recognized for adding layers of possibilities to peacebuilding efforts in Nigeria. Platforms like WhatsApp, Facebook, and X are valuable in the facilitation of dialogue, enhancement of communication, and supporting participation in conflict prevention and resolution initiatives.3 These uses are sometimes standalone, but often part of more extended processes and strategies for peacebuilding.

Two important themes stand out in the use of social media for peace in Nigeria. The first is the extensive focus on combating hate speech and harmful narratives especially around elections. The second is, as Sokoga noted, how social media has opened opportunities for young people to explore various types of relationships with peacebuilding.4 Much is still unknown, however, about the nature and outcome of interaction of digital technologies, including social media, within the dynamics of these local contexts. A comprehensive body of knowledge showing the true impact and uniqueness of social media peacebuilding strategies in Nigerian environments has not been developed. This further complicates dual-nature representations of social media in peacebuilding.

From Dual-Nature to Intricate Landscape

Framing social media as an intricate landscape beyond simply having a dual nature can shift the focus from a binary view to a more comprehensive framework, which better reflects the multifaceted role of social media in Nigerian peacebuilding.

Nigeria is a complex society with myriad conflicts of various levels of intensity and manifestations.5 These conflicts evolve and change dimension in various parts of the country. Beyond addressing online polarization and hate, social media use in peacebuilding also seeks to respond to and positively transform this context of violence. The dual nature perspective suggests that, in a complex environment such as this, social media has two clear and opposing outcomes (positive and negative), which are applicable across contexts. However, social media’s effects in such environments could be neither purely bad nor purely good; rather, they are shaped by several factors that interact in complex ways. These may include culture, algorithms, politics, economics, regulatory frameworks, community values, and the behaviours of users. As an intricate landscape, multiple and overlapping influences are at play, making social media’s impact context-dependent and fluid.

Much of the usage of social media for peacebuilding in Nigeria responds to user-generated content and human activities. This makes it easy to locate the problem in user agency and consequently, place accountability on users. However, greater acknowledgement of the complex nature of social media platforms and systems, can increase attention to structural and systemic issues.6 As Schirch7 suggests, countering harmful narratives or posting useful content on social media is not enough to balance social media. There is need for regulatory, coordinated, and multi-stakeholder approaches that also address the underlying structures of social media.

This will facilitate further interrogation and response to the role of algorithmic bias, economic interests, and networks in shaping peacebuilding activities such as positive messaging, peace activism, social media data-driven strategies, and early warning, amongst other things. But more importantly, it will help amplify strategies that account for these variables in their process design and encourage advocacy for pro-peace innovation and technology design in Nigeria.

A dual-nature perspective assumes that outcomes can be predictable: good use will produce positive outcomes, and bad use will produce negative outcomes. However, as an intricate landscape, there is immense variability and unpredictability in the outcome of the usage of social media for peacebuilding.8 In one environment, it may produce peace, and in another, the same social media practices may create or fuel conflict.

Conclusion

While Nigeria offers an example of extensive use of social media for peacebuilding, the prevailing representation of such usage within a dual-nature perspective limits our ability to comprehensively understand this peacebuilding landscape. Social media platforms, like other digital peacebuilding technologies, are not neutral. They are embedded with values, biases, and interests. Social media platforms, therefore, do not merely lend themselves to the user’s good or bad intentions. While they have both positive and negative impacts, a more comprehensive framework is useful for deepening the understanding of how they function, interact with local contexts, and their impact on peacebuilding.

Endnotes

  1. Fajimbola, Joshua Olatunde. “Peace Building and the Influence of Social Media in Niger Delta Area of Nigeria.”Journal of Innovative Communication and Media Studies, 2023, 17.
  2. Sokoga, Agasokoa Chiale. “Youth and Social Media: Leveraging the Internet for Peacebuilding in Nigeria.”FUOYE Journal of Criminology and Security Studies 3, no. 2 (2024). https://fjcss.fuoye.edu.ng/index.php/fjcss/article/view/127.
  3. Van Dijck, José, Thomas Poell, and Martijn De Waal.The Platform Society: Public Values in a Connective World. Oxford University Press, 2018. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=wLhwDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=José+van+Dijck+and+Thomas+Poell&ots=VLHz2AZzxs&sig=OT07jGFn0fADOXEYVwPw0JEdBnc.
  4. Abdulmumini, Abduljalil, Babatunde Joseph Ayodele, and Aleyomi Timileyin Paul. “Social Media Approach to Peace Building in Kajuru Local Government.”Wukari International Studies Journal 7, no. 3 (2023): 1–23.
  5. Okpalaibekwe, U. N., and Nnaemeka Hillary Anikeze. “The Role of Digital Tools in Enhancing Peace Education and Community Conflicts Management in South Eastern Nigeria.”Nigerian Journal of Social Psychology 7, no. 2 (June 24, 2024). https://www.nigerianjsp.com/index.php/NJSP/article/view/138.
  6. Sokoga, Agasokoa Chiale. “Youth and Social Media: Leveraging the Internet for Peacebuilding in Nigeria.”FUOYE Journal of Criminology and Security Studies 3, no. 2 (2024). https://fjcss.fuoye.edu.ng/index.php/fjcss/article/view/127.
  7. Ajala, Olayinka. “New Drivers of Conflict in Nigeria: An Analysis of the Clashes between Farmers and Pastoralists.”Third World Quarterly 41, no. 12 (September 8, 2020): 2048–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2020.1811662.
  8. Shehu, Isah Mohammed, Muhammad Fuad Othman, and Nazariah Osman. “Ethno-Religious and Regional Rivalry in Nigeria: An Old and Creeping Trend.”Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 5, no. 5 (2017): 14–24.
  9. Tufekci, Zeynep.Twitter and Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest. Yale University Press, 2017.
  10. Schirch, Lisa.Social Media Impacts on Conflict and Democracy: The Techtonic Shift. Routledge, 2021. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=aLQgEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT13&dq=Social+Media+Impacts+on+Conflict+and+Democracy:+The+Techtonic+Shift.+Alliance+for+Peacebuilding,+2021.&ots=toTzW95QIg&sig=jVKfW28zPXy5qRtOSijS1Rifp1E.
  11. Sokfa, John. “Local Dynamics of Everyday Digital Peacebuilding in Africa.”Kujenga Amani (blog), May 10, 2024. https://kujenga-amani.ssrc.org/2024/05/10/local-dynamics-of-everyday-digital-peacebuilding-in-africa/.
Visited 64 times, 1 visit(s) today