Power, Solidarity and the Language of Peace: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Official Responses to the #EndSARS and #EndBadGovernance Protests in Nigeria
This study employs critical discourse analysis to demonstrate that official peace-oriented responses to Nigeria's #EndSARS and #EndBadGovernance protests are most effective when institutional power is discursively paired with empathetic solidarity to reframe conflict as a shared problem.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
In the study of how people talk to one another, language is rarely just a way to share information. It is a tool that shapes reality, builds bridges, or tears them down. When a society faces deep conflict, the words chosen by those in charge can either pour fuel on the fire or help cool the flames. This field of inquiry looks closely at the mechanics of that power. It examines how leaders use their official status to command attention, and how they use shared feelings to build a sense of "we" rather than "us versus them." The core idea is simple: peace is not just the silence that follows a fight; it is an active process of communication that requires both authority and empathy to work. Without the right balance, a leader's voice might be heard as a threat rather than a solution.
A new study by Ramoni Stephen Kasimawo investigates exactly how this balance plays out in Nigeria during two major moments of public unrest. The research focuses on the official speeches and statements made by political leaders during the #EndSARS protests in 2020 and the #EndBadGovernance protests in 2024. These were times when citizens took to the streets to demand change, and the government had to respond. The author collected nine public texts from key figures, including the President, state governors, and an international figure, to see how they tried to calm the situation. The goal was to understand the specific language strategies these leaders used to de-escalate tension and whether they relied more on their power to command or their ability to connect with the people.
The analysis reveals that the most effective peace-building language does not choose between being strong and being kind; it combines them. The study found that when leaders spoke, they most frequently used their official standing to claim legitimacy and influence, accounting for nearly half of all the power-related language used. They also leaned heavily on moral authority, framing the need for calm as a shared ethical duty rather than just a rule to obey. However, these displays of power were almost always paired with what the researchers call solidarity. This is the language of connection, where leaders express that they feel the same pain or share the same hopes as the protesters. The data shows that emotional alignment and trust-building were the most common ways leaders tried to show this solidarity.
One clear pattern emerged from the texts: leaders who wanted to stop the violence rarely used their power in isolation. When a governor or the President asserted their right to speak, they almost immediately followed it with words that showed they understood the people's struggles. For example, a leader might state that they have the authority to investigate a crime, but they would pair that statement with a promise to listen to the community or an expression of shared grief. This combination allowed them to maintain order without sounding purely hostile. The research suggests that when authority is softened by empathy, the message is more likely to be heard as a cooperative effort rather than a command from above.
The study also looked at how leaders tried to define the situation. Instead of simply banning protests or labeling the crowd as troublemakers, many officials worked to reframe the conflict. They described the protesters' actions as a legitimate desire for change and positioned the government as a partner in finding a solution. In some cases, leaders physically placed themselves alongside the crowds or used phrases like "our people" to erase the distance between the ruler and the ruled. This linguistic move helped turn a potential battle into a shared problem that everyone needed to solve together. The findings indicate that this approach is crucial for keeping a situation from spiraling into greater violence.
While the study highlights these successful patterns, it also notes that the approach is not a magic formula. The research is based on a specific set of nine speeches, and it focuses on what the leaders said, not necessarily on how the public reacted to those words. The author suggests that while these strategies appear effective in the texts, their real-world success depends on whether the people believe the leaders are being genuine. If the words of connection are not backed by real action, the trust can break down quickly. The paper argues that peace discourse is a skill that can be learned and improved, requiring a careful calibration of power and empathy.
Ultimately, this work offers a practical guide for anyone involved in resolving conflict, from politicians to community mediators. It shows that the language of peace is not about avoiding difficult topics or pretending that everything is fine. Instead, it is about using the weight of one's position to create a space where difficult conversations can happen safely. By pairing the strength of institutional authority with the warmth of genuine understanding, leaders can create the conditions for de-escalation. The study concludes that in a world where conflict is often driven by polarizing words, the deliberate choice to speak with both power and solidarity remains one of the most important tools for building a stable society.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.