Politics, contents and poverty

Last week, I watched a video with kids lined up in the rain for food. Whether it is an AI-generated video, a real video of “content-humanitarians”, or political messiahs in their theatre of absurdity, it is time to rethink how we use human beings in our politics and content creation. The imagery was striking, but what lingered was not compassion – it was discomfort. Not because poverty was visible, but because dignity was absent. The scene captured a troubling evolution in the political economy of attention, where poverty has become both spectacle and currency.

This phenomenon reflects a distortion in incentive structures. In a digital ecosystem governed by visibility metrics – likes, shares, and impressions – human suffering is increasingly instrumentalised. Politicians, content creators, and self-styled humanitarians respond rationally to these incentives. They produce emotionally charged content because it attracts engagement; engagement converts to influence, legitimacy, and sometimes direct financial gain. Yet, what is rational for the individual actor can be profoundly harmful at the societal level. The poor are no longer merely marginalised; they are staged, curated, and deployed.

This is not charity; it is performative altruism. The moral hazard lies in asymmetry. Those capturing these images retain agency, control narrative framing, and reap reputational benefits. Those being captured – the poor, children, and vulnerable women – are reduced to props. Often, they neither consent nor understand the implications of their exposure. Behavioural biases such as the “identifiable victim effect” further complicate the issue: audiences are more likely to respond to vivid, individualised portrayals of suffering than to abstract statistics. This creates a perverse incentive to intensify the visibility of distress, sometimes at the cost of dignity.

At its core, this trend represents a violation of fundamental human rights. The right to dignity, privacy, and freedom from degrading treatment are not conditional on economic status. Under international human rights law, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, every individual is entitled to respect for their inherent dignity. Filming individuals without consent in vulnerable conditions, particularly children, raises serious concerns under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which emphasises the best interests and protection of minors from exploitation.

In Nigeria, these actions constitute violations of constitutional rights. Section 34 of the 1999 Constitution guarantees the dignity of the human person and prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment. Section 37 protects the right to privacy. When individuals are filmed, exposed, and circulated without consent, especially in contexts that portray them as helpless or destitute, these rights are arguably infringed. The justification that such acts are benevolent does not negate the requirement for consent or the preservation of dignity.

Moreover, labelling individuals as “beneficiaries” does not extinguish their rights. It instead risks creating a psychological framing where harm is discounted because it is accompanied by material assistance. This is a dangerous precedent. It reinforces a paternalistic narrative where the poor must accept indignity in exchange for aid. Behaviourally, it also normalises exploitation, making audiences less sensitive to ethical violations over time.

Globally, there are evolving best practices that Nigeria can draw from. Ethical humanitarian standards, such as those promoted by international organisations, emphasise “do no harm” principles in media representation. Informed consent must be obtained before capturing and disseminating images. Where consent is not feasible, particularly with minors, identifiable imagery should be avoided. Narratives should focus on agency and resilience rather than helplessness. Importantly, beneficiaries should not be coerced, explicitly or implicitly, into participation.

In the digital content space, several jurisdictions are strengthening privacy and data protection laws to address non-consensual media exposure. The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), for instance, provides robust protections for personal data, including images, and mandates clear consent for processing. While Nigeria has made progress with the Nigeria Data Protection Act, enforcement in informal and digital content spaces remains weak.

To curb these practices, Nigeria requires a multi-layered response. First, there is a need for clearer legal standards regulating the capture and dissemination of images involving vulnerable persons. This could include specific provisions under child protection laws and data protection frameworks addressing non-consensual humanitarian and political content. Regulatory agencies should issue guidelines that define ethical boundaries for content involving poverty, aid, and public engagement.

“At its core, this trend represents a violation of fundamental human rights. The right to dignity, privacy, and freedom from degrading treatment are not conditional on economic status.”

Second, enforcement mechanisms must be strengthened. The challenge is not always the absence of law but the absence of consequences. Sanctions, whether civil liabilities, fines, or criminal penalties in extreme cases, must be credible and consistently applied. Platforms hosting such content should also be required to adopt stricter moderation policies, particularly for content that exploits vulnerable populations.

Third, public awareness is critical. Behavioural change is not driven by law alone. Citizens must be sensitised to recognise and reject exploitative content. Audiences play a crucial role in shaping incentives. When engagement shifts away from sensationalised poverty and harmful pranks, the economic logic driving such content weakens.

Fourth, political actors must be held to higher standards. Campaign regulations should explicitly prohibit the use of exploitative imagery involving vulnerable persons. Electoral bodies and ethics agencies should treat such conduct as misconduct, not merely poor judgement.

Finally, there is a need to redefine what constitutes meaningful humanitarianism and responsible content creation. True assistance preserves dignity. It empowers without exposing. It tells stories with consent, context, and respect. In behavioural terms, we must realign incentives so that ethical conduct is not just morally desirable but socially and economically rewarded.

The line between visibility and violation is thin but critical. Poverty should compel action, not performance. Politics should serve people, not stage them. And content creation, at its best, should illuminate humanity – not diminish it.

God bless the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

 

Ekpa, Stanley Ekpa, Member, Nigerian Bar Association Rule of Law & Human Rights Committee, wrote via [email protected].