By Chris Uchenna Agbedo
Public Forum
In recent times, a new trend has emerged within the asynchronous spaces of digital communication: the formation of WhatsApp groups, dubbed the ‘Committee of Friends,’ (CoF) dedicated to pooling funds either for burial expenses of a deceased pal or underwrite a friend’s shindig. This practice, while seemingly borne out of a spirit of camaraderie and support, raises several troubling issues. This latest craze in mercantile mourning, as our focus of discussion here, is increasingly becoming disturbing especially when it involves the burial of individuals with whom there was little or no personal connection. The perplexing fad highlights significant issues of unsolicited inclusion, violation of privacy and consent, undue burden of public donations, loss of compassion in digital translation, risk of mismanagement and fraud, misaligned priorities and exploitation, true spirit of community support, and the imperative of embracing people-oriented politics. These issues form the thrust of analysis in this piece.
The experience of being unexpectedly added to a WhatsApp group for the burial of someone scarcely known, or merely known in a public capacity such as a politician, can be quite jarring. The initial shock is often compounded by the immediate and unceremonious request for financial contributions. This abrupt involvement in a deeply personal matter, devoid of any prior affiliation or meaningful relationship, is both invasive and unsettling. The core issue lies in the blatant disregard for personal consent and privacy. Being added to such groups without prior consultation is a violation of digital etiquette and personal boundaries. It imposes a social obligation on individuals who may not wish to participate, forcing them into a situation where their choices and preferences are disregarded.
One of the most disagreeable aspects of these groups is the implicit pressure it places on individuals to make financial contributions. In a public forum, the act of giving is no longer a private gesture but a public performance. Members may feel compelled to contribute more than they can afford to avoid judgment or to meet the expectations of their peers. This coercive element undermines the sincerity of the contributions and can lead to financial strain for some individuals. Once included, the pressure to donate can be intense. The social dynamics within these groups often create an environment where individuals feel compelled to contribute to avoid judgment or criticism. This pressure is particularly egregious when the deceased had little or no significant relationship with all the members of the group, turning a voluntary act of charity into a coerced obligation.
The impersonal nature of digital communication further exacerbates the problem. Sensitive matters such as funeral arrangements require a level of discretion and sensitivity that is often lost in the chaotic and informal setting of a WhatsApp group. Discussing and managing funeral arrangements in a WhatsApp group can lead to a lack of sensitivity and respect for the grieving process. The familiarity and casual tone of these groups can feel exploitative, especially when the requests for money come from individuals seeking to leverage their social networks without regard for genuine connections or relationships. Details about the deceased and the family’s financial situation might be exposed to a wider audience than is appropriate, leading to discomfort and potential breaches of confidentiality.
The traditional ways of offering support to bereaved families have always been deeply personal and community-driven. Visits, condolence messages, and direct financial aid provided a sense of solidarity and genuine compassion. However, the digital age, with its penchant for convenience, has introduced a new, somewhat impersonal method of showing support.
The creation of WhatsApp groups for monetary contributions, though efficient, strips away the personal touch that is vital during such emotionally charged times. The digital collection of funds, while convenient, is fraught with risks. Without proper oversight, there is potential for mismanagement or even fraud. Trust in the individuals managing the funds is crucial, but the informal nature of these groups often lacks the necessary checks and balances. This can lead to situations where funds are not used as intended, exacerbating the distress of the bereaved family on one hand and stirring up suspicion among strange bedfellows on the other.
The practice often exposes a troubling exploitation of social connections, whereby sometimes, people with tenuous or non-existent relationships to the deceased are solicited for funds, turning what should be an act of goodwill into a transactional obligation. This exploitation can breed resentment and diminish the authenticity of community support.
In the light of the foregoing, there is need for communities to re-evaluate how they mobilise support during times of loss. Ethical practices should include prior consultation and consent before adding individuals to fundraising groups. Clear communication and respect for personal boundaries are paramount. Furthermore, alternative methods of support that prioritise personal engagement and genuine emotional support should be encouraged. As at the time of writing, a hot debate was raging on a WhatsApp platform, which this writer suddenly found oneself.
The platform had become a fierce battleground between supporters who extol the politician’s virtues and push advocacy for generous contributions and skeptics who decry the transactional nature of the appeal for a figure they feel had little positive impact, all of which highlights deeper issues of consent, authenticity, and the ethical dimensions of community support. The group’s supporters, often those with political affiliations to the deceased, are fervently praising the politician, urging others to donate generously as a sign of respect and allegiance. Their arguments are met with strong opposition from members, who criticize the initiative as a coercive and disingenuous effort to honour someone whose legacy they question.
Central to this controversy are the core issues of forced inclusion, authenticity versus coercion, legacy and impact. Many individuals find themselves added to the group without prior notice or agreement, facing immediate pressure to contribute financially. This approach disregards personal autonomy and places undue social and moral pressure on individuals who may not wish to participate or who may disagree with the positive portrayal of the deceased. The appeal for funds often takes on a transactional undertone, which is particularly disturbing when the deceased was a public figure like a politician.
The insistence on donations can feel more like a demand than a request for voluntary support, undermining the authenticity of the gesture. This coercion creates an uncomfortable dynamic, where contributions are made out of obligation rather than genuine respect or compassion.
Another layer of complexity arises from the conflicting views on the deceased politician’s legacy. Supporters argue from a place of loyalty and personal connection, while critics point to a perceived lack of meaningful contributions to the community. Different strokes for different folks. This debate not only reflects differing personal experiences but also raises questions about the criteria for communal support and honour.
To navigate these complex dynamics, it is essential to adhere to ethical practices. Forming such groups should involve clear communication and consent from all potential members. The purpose of the group and the nature of the requests should be transparently outlined. This approach respects personal boundaries and ensures that participation is truly voluntary. Moreover, discussions within the group should be moderated to maintain respect and sensitivity, especially in emotionally charged situations like funerals.
Encouraging a culture of empathy and understanding can help bridge the gap between differing perspectives and foster a more supportive environment. Perhaps, most central to the trendy WhatsApp group formation frenzy is the contentious issue of the emotional baggage that dogs a typical Nigerian politician – self-centredness and a woeful disregard for good governance and the common good. The core of the controversy lies in the disconnect between the call for honoring the deceased and the politician’s actual legacy.
Nigerian politicians often evoke strong emotions. Supporters in the WhatsApp group are praising the deceased, urging generous financial contributions as a mark of respect and loyalty. On the other hand, some members express frustration at being coerced into honouring a figure they feel did little to advance the public good. Many Nigerian politicians are often criticized for their self-centeredness and neglect of the public good. When such figures pass away, it seems hypocritical to ask those they disregarded in life to contribute to their burial expenses. This forced generosity can feel deeply unjust to those who experienced the politician’s indifference firsthand.
This dichotomy reflects a broader societal split regarding the legacy of political leaders in Nigeria. The criticisms from group members highlight a crucial point: many Nigerian politicians are perceived as prioritising personal gain over the common good. This perception stems from widespread issues of corruption, poor governance, and a lack of genuine concern for public welfare. When such figures pass away, the call to honor them financially can seem hypocritical and unjustified, further fueling the controversy.
The request for donations in such contexts forces a reevaluation of the politician’s legacy. Critics within these groups often highlight the deceased’s lack of impact on the common good, emphasizing the disparity between the public image being promoted and the reality of the politician’s actions. This dichotomy raises essential questions about who truly deserves communal support and honour.
Perhaps still, it becomes pertinent to advise our politicians to learn to draw the line between their own circle of associates and those who never mattered while helping themselves to the spoils of office. The practice of coercing individuals into WhatsApp groups to donate for the burial of a politician who showed little concern for them in life is deeply troubling. It beggars belief that individuals are coerced into WhatsApp groups and pressured to donate money to honour a deceased politician who hardly cared for them during their lifetime.
This practice underscores the urgent need for politicians to genuinely connect with and support the masses, not just in times of political need but consistently throughout their careers. Honouring the deceased should not come at the expense of personal autonomy and genuine compassion. In any case, do politicians really need to be reminded that most Nigerian citizens are roundly disappointed with their selfish disposition?
The answer is evident in the widespread disillusionment and frustration among the public. The core issue lies in the legacy of selfish rule. Politicians often fail to address the needs and concerns of the masses, focusing instead on their personal gains, creaming off the commonwealth of the people with a touch of irredeemably insensate alacrity. This approach has led to significant socio-economic problems, including corruption, poor public services, decrepit infrastructure and consequential existential challenges such as crass poverty, hunger, mental health challenges, and avoidable deaths.
Citizens are understandably frustrated and disillusioned by the so-called leaders who seem indifferent to their struggles and treat them as third-class or even gradeless class of human beings! This self-serving attitude has eroded public trust and fueled widespread disillusionment with the political class. The pressure to donate often carries an implicit transactional undertone, reducing communal support to a social obligation rather than a heartfelt gesture. This transactional nature of politics is perceived as a reflection of the broader political culture, where public resources are used for personal enrichment, and genuine public service is a rarity.
However, there remains a chance for public office holders to turn over a new leaf, resist the allurements of primitive wealth accumulation, and connect genuinely with their constituents through people-oriented programmes. They must recognize the vanity of life, as highlighted in ecclesiastical teachings, and understand that their legacy should be built on service and integrity, not on amassed wealth and power. The teachings of many religious traditions remind us of the impermanence and vanity of material wealth.
Politicians should take these lessons to heart, understanding that their true legacy will be determined by the positive impact they have on their communities. By embracing this wisdom, they can reorient their priorities towards meaningful and lasting contributions to society. By resolving to be people-oriented, it becomes needless for political actors to engage in crowd-renting and subtle extortions under whatever guise when next Fate, the grim reaper irreversibly comes knocking on our doors as mortals.
When politicians focus on meaningful and lasting contributions to their communities, they naturally foster trust and respect, making coercive tactics unnecessary. Crowd-renting, where individuals are paid to show support at political events, is a clear indicator of the disconnect between politicians and the public. It reflects a lack of genuine support and trust. By engaging sincerely with their constituents and addressing their real needs, politicians can cultivate authentic support. This eliminates the need for artificial displays of popularity and ensures that public backing is based on genuine approval of their actions and policies.
Subtle extortions, where social pressure is used to extract contributions, thus pressuring individuals to donate to causes under duress, further alienate the public. If politicians truly served their constituents and built strong, respectful relationships during life time, the need for such coercion would naturally disappear. The public would willingly elect to accord appropriate homage to their deceased leader, who consistently demonstrated their commitment to the common good during their lifetime. The politicians should learn to reckon and identify with the masses when it matters most knowing full well that they will definitely need them when the chips are down. They need to learn to reckon and identify with the masses when it matters most, not just during election campaigns.
Genuine engagement and support should be a continuous effort, reflecting a real commitment to the welfare of the people. By doing so, politicians can build lasting trust and respect, ensuring they have the support of the masses when it is most needed. Only then can they begin to rebuild the trust and address the significant challenges facing Nigeria today.
In rounding off this discussion, it is important to reiterate the imperative of embracing more respectful and ethical practices in the course of setting up CoF WhatsApp platforms. Before adding individuals to such groups, it is essential to seek their consent and explain the purpose of the group clearly. This approach respects personal boundaries and allows individuals to make informed decisions about their participation.
Furthermore, there is no gainsaying the fact that the sudden and unsolicited inclusion in WhatsApp groups for the burial of someone with whom there was little affinity violates personal privacy, imposes undue pressure, and often reeks of impersonality and exploitation. In specific terms, mourning Committee of Friends, for instance, needs to foster support in a manner that respects individual boundaries and maintains the dignity of the deceased and confidentiality of the bereaved family.
By prioritising consent and genuine connection, we can ensure that acts of charity remain strictly volitional and genuinely compassionate.
• Agbedo writes from University of Nigeria, Nsukka (UNN).