The Nation Newspaper

Category: Friday

  • The enigmatic nature of liberal politics 2

    Last week, we addressed the enigmatic nature of liberal politics focusing on the gridlock over what has been touted as the biggest and most popular legislation in the United States since FDR. We saw how it is possible for two or even one senator to hold up legislation which is designed to improve the lives of citizens, especially the struggling Middle Class. But we also saw how voters usually react with vengeance against a party which, in their judgment, proves ineffective in governing.

    To be sure, President Biden and Democrats in Congress mean well for the public. The party has always been the party of the working class and poor masses struggling to make it. The Republican Party, on the other hand, has demonstrated its affinity with the rich and powerful, cutting their taxes and mocking the poor as “welfare queens”. But with the emergence of Trump as a populist iconoclast sweet-tonguing the underclass and sympathizing with them over their plight in the hands of both parties, the Democratic Party was jolted afresh. For the party, Trump’s stunning victory in 2015 was a wake-up call. Biden, a perennial advocate for the Middle Class, won the presidency and his Build Back Better agenda was hailed as another FDR moment, a perfect response to the COVID assault.

    Then, the dithering and shillyshallying ensued, occasioned by a fear of what the reaction of voters would be to such a massive legislation meant to address the economic and social malaise. And dithering yielded to paralysis and gridlock. Until reason prevailed on Friday after the electoral drubbing in Virginia and the near loss in New Jersey!

    Notably, FDR was elected President in 1932 at the peak of the Great Depression. Having won in a landslide, and knowing his plan to arrest the near-death economic experience facing the nation, FDR centered his first Inaugural Address with a frontal attack on fear itself with what has justly become an iconic quote: “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself-nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.”   Unfortunately, what FDR warned against almost ninety years ago, appears to have now gripped his political descendants in the Democratic Party, and it is unclear what the coming years 2022 and 2024 will consequently bring them and the nation.

    So much for the US of A in the throes of liberal political debacle. Nigeria is also a liberal democracy and it is fair to ask the same question of dear country. But our politics has its own uniqueness which stands it apart. This uniqueness of our system is the subject of our attention today.

    First, while not all of them, it is fair to say that a majority of our elected officials go into politics for what they can get and are therefore more concerned about their own welfare as seems clear from the humongous remuneration they vote themselves. I have closely observed congressional deliberations and politics in the US for almost 50 years. I am yet to see representatives and senators arguing over their pay or being obsessed with their own welfare or prioritizing it over citizen issues. Some members of Congress sleep in their offices because they cannot afford rent in DC while they pay mortgage on their houses in their districts. Many have no cars, depending on cabs and Uber for their transportation. Ours is different.

    Second, we have a partisan structure that, while similar to the United States and other liberal democracies in some ways, is also unique. It is similar in the sense that individuals, either as members or as elected officials, also have a reservoir of freedom and independence to defy party directives as they seem fit. But while expulsion or suspension from party is a threat in our politics, elected officials vote their conscience in the US without any repercussion, until the Republican Party’s new cult of personality.  Senator Manchin suggested to Democratic Party leaders that he didn’t mind becoming an Independent if that would help. But he would still caucus with Democrats.

    Here, we have no regard for free thinking or independence which we punish with suspension or expulsion. But if we look at the kind of infractions that attract such punishment, they have little to do with individual’s objection to party position on policy matters. They are almost always for “insubordination” to party hierarchy or high ranking elected officials at local or state levels. Meanwhile, the ruling party publicly documented position on restructuring has been jettisoned because some high-ranking members of NASS choose to have nothing to do with it.

    Third, while we have a strong party system, partisanship doesn’t dominate our politics. Competing fiercely with it is our ethnic and nationality loyalties which, in many cases, appear to trump other considerations. We see this in many policy making areas, the most recent being the issue of security. Southern governors, including those belonging to the ruling party, have coalesced around a ban on open grazing which they see as a relic of a past that must give way to a new approach to livestock farming. But while a few Northern governors of the ruling party, including Kano and Katsina State governors, agree with their Southern counterparts, majority of them see things differently.

    Here we have a hybrid of enigma. We combine individual greed with sectional loyalty. But the success of sectional loyalty doesn’t trickle down on the poor masses in the various zones. And while policies may appear tailored to help them out, these are almost always too little too late. Or they end up benefitting the elite at the expense of the poor targets. How we deal with this combination of malaise is more than an intellectual curiosity.

    Assume that the anti-corruption war targets individual greed. How do we deal with sectional loyalty in the guise of ethnic nationalism, which has been with us since the beginning of the republic, a by-product of the way the country was cobbled together and ruled for forty-six years by the colonizers? That we are still confronted with it more than a hundred years after amalgamation is a testament to its enduring character.

    For John Stuart Mill, the foremost advocate of liberal democracy, freedom is a non-negotiable right of everyone. But he also knew, from experience, the hindrance to the advancement of freedom in a multinational society where differences of language and culture may create feelings of hostilities among citizens of the same country. As he puts it:

    “When portions of mankind, living under the same government, cherish these barbarous feelings – when they feel towards each other as enemies, or as strangers, indifferent to each other – they are scarcely capable of merging into one and the same free people.” For emphasis, they lack “the fellow-feeling which would enable them to unite in maintaining their liberties, or in forming a paramount public opinion”.

    Facing the reality of such “barbaric” consciousness, and recognizing the need to advance freedom, Mill suggested that boundaries of nationality should coincide with boundaries of states wherever ‘the sentiment of nationality exists in any force.” As he sees it, freedom to “determine with which various collective bodies of human beings they choose to associate themselves” is one which cannot be denied any division of the “human race.”

    But second, “a still more vital consideration” for Mill was that “free institutions are next to impossible in a country made up of different nationalities.” He doesn’t see much prospect for effective cooperation “among a people without a fellow-feeling especially if they read and speak different languages.”…That any of them feels aggrieved by the policy of the common ruler is sufficient to determine another to support that policy.”

    Mill wrote from experience. Many of the multinational kingdoms and empires that he referenced have since disintegrated into separate nation-states. Of course, if we are wise and not given to a false sense of hegemonic hubris, we would remedy our situation with appropriate measures that address the concerns that Mill raised. To advance individual freedom, and enshrine equality, we must move to a decentralized mode of governance that appreciates our diversity.

     

  • Welcoming His Eminence to Yorubaland

    Welcoming His Eminence to Yorubaland

    Monologue

    On Tuesday, November 16, all roads will lead to Iseyin, Oyo State, where His Eminence, the Sultan of Sokoto,and President-General of Nigerian Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs (NSCIA), Dr. Muhammad Sa’ad Abubakar, will be hosted as a special guest by the Muslim Ummah of Southwest Nigeria (MUSWEN).

    His Eminence’s mission in this region, this time around, is dual. As the Chancellor of the University of Ibadan, the Sultan will grace the convocation and 70th Founder’s Day of that premier citadel of learning. That is on November 17. But before the convocation, the beloved royal father will be in Iseyin to commission an historic Islamic Centre.

    His Eminence’s historic visit to that city will be the first ever by any Sultan.

     

    Why Iseyin?

    One of the evidences of this Sultan’s magnanimity modestly pouched in humility is to reach out to any part of the country where Muslim communities are available, no matter how remote such communities may be. Since ascending the throne as the Sultan, in 2006, there has been no part of Nigeria that His Eminence has not visited for one reason or another. His coming to Iseyin this time is just one of many trips he has taken to the Southwest to give the Muslim Ummah a sense of togetherness.

     

    Royal presence in Iseyin

    The people of Iseyin will witness the rise of a magnificent royal sun that His Eminence personifies, with its undisputable ability to photosynthesize all the proverbial plants around if spiritually. And, the impact of that photosynthesis will forever remain indelible in the archive of that city.

     

    Symbolic Epitaph

    Epitaph is not just an inscription conspicuously placed on the mausoleum of a demised person. It is also a practical symbol of the legacy of the demised, which may continue to serve as a reminder of his/her passage through this ephemeral world. We live in today’s known world to build the foundation of tomorrow’s unknown destination. This means that epitaph, like a valid coin, has two sides. One side is theoretical while the other is practical. The combination of both is what forms the chapters of history in the memory of man. Thus, a practical epitaph emphasizes the role of history as a teacher of teachers, through generations.

     

    Citadel of Glory

    The exemplary centre to be commissioned by His Eminence that day is a citadel of glory that will change the course of the history of that city spiritually and psychologically.

    The provider of that citadel is Barrister Ahmed Raji, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) who wants to use the provision of the citadel as a means of correcting a fundamental error that has virtually become perennial in Yoruba land. That error is the judicial system which is incompatible with the practice of Islam in the South West.

    This son of the soil, Ahmed Raji had found a sort of abhorrence in the judicial system that compels the dissolution of Muslim marriages by customary courts without any consideration for the Islamic culture that was used in consummating such marriages in the first instance.

    Barrister Raji believes that the best way of curbing such anomaly is to provide a legitimate alternative to it. He, therefore, built a multi-million naira magnificent court with all necessary facilities, at which all civil conflicts, especially matrimonial disputes among Muslim couples can be settled with statutory Islamic ethos.

    The centre also harbours a grandiose Mosque where the Salatul Jum’ah can be observed by large congregations with ease and candour. And, within the vast compound of that centre is an extra modern library that is capable of guarantying any thorough research of modern standard to the benefit of the Ummah.

     

    Who is Barrister Ahmed Raji?

    Barrister Ahmed Raji is not just a Lawyer but a leading Senior Advocate of Nigeria. He is also the Founder/Principal at Ahmed Raji & Co Chambers. At a time, in the current fourth republic, he was appointed by the Federal Government, as a Resident Electoral Commissioner during which he served in five (5) different states for a period of eight years. His expertise and experience extend to diverse and broad areas of practice, including litigation, mediation, arbitration, banking, corporate finance, maritime admiralty, election matters and telecommunications.

     

    Law Practice Experience

    As a Lawyer, Barrister Ahmed Raji has practiced for well over 30 years in areas of administrative and constitutional matters; criminal law; debt recovery; and other areas. He was a member of the legal team that successfully defended Nigeria’s National Petroleum Commission (NNPC) in an international arbitration against Petree INC (a US Company). This man is well known for his astute legal approach to client’s cases with keen attention to details and ability to give advice on complex transactions and matters on-the-spot. Barrister Raji is a holder of Masters Degree in Law from King’s College, University of London, UK, where he obtained distinction in Telecoms Law.

     

    Spectacular Cases

    As a member of the Consortium of five top law firms constituted by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to handle all pre-election and commercial matters on its behalf, Barrister Ahmed Raji has personally been involved in more than 100 cases at trial and Appellate Courts. He has also played a key role in arbitrations arising from agreements touching some Oil Mining Leases (OMLs) and Oil Prospecting Licenses (OPLs). He represents private individuals, government agencies and corporate bodies in a wide-range of transactions and matter.

    Besides, Barrister Ahmed Raji has led lawyers in his firm and other reputable law firms in high profile cases including criminal matters and various civil suits. His practice has exposed him to the intricate workings of the Telecom industry and regulatory agencies generally. He is a Certified Capital Market Solicitor and a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (UK).

     

    Dedication

    With a very solid Islamic background, Ahmed Raji believes that one major way of showing gratitude to the Almighty Allah for His bounties is to facilitate a legacy that can benefit people intellectually and spiritually, hence the building of the centre which he is dedicating to his mother.

    That the unique centre is to be commissioned by His Eminence is a way of authenticating good deed as an encouragement. We pray the Almighty Allah to repose Barrister Ahmed Raji’s mother in eternal bliss. Amin!

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • The enigmatic nature of liberal politics

    The enigmatic nature of liberal politics

    Unlike other systems, liberal democracy presents itself as the champion of freedom (liberal) and equality (democracy). As such, it takes seriously the welfare of the people, treating them as equals, with representatives just being servant-leaders. Dictatorships are on the polar end. Talk about politics in dictatorships is just a waste of time because everything must serve the interest of the dictator. So, we are not here worried about dictatorships and their politics.

    What then is the enigma? First, in liberal democracy, politics is the art of service to people. In the ideal world, this is why politics exists and why people take it as a vocation. In the real world, however, politics is often, if not always, the closet of self-service. Squaring these two worlds and making sense of their intersection is a major challenge for thoughtful observers. Why is the ideal world so terribly contradicted by the real world? And if politicians had been honest about their real world calculations, would they have any followers? So, deception is the name of the game.

    Second, in liberal democracies, some issues appear so commonsensical. But in the uncommon sense of politicians, they are not a priority. Consider the issue of voting in elections and the right of every citizen to participate in this seasonal ritual that makes democracies what they are. A democracy that denies this right to citizens cannot still bear that appellation. But in the real world, self-serving politicians would do anything to curtail the right of citizens and suppress their votes.

    Politicians in liberal democracy calculate the impact of their actions on electability while voters calculate the impact of their votes on policy outcomes. Yet politicians often ignore voters’ interests even when polls are clear. In the United States, lowering the price of prescription drugs is a winning political formula with overwhelming support regardless of political affiliation. But politicians have dilly-dallied over the issue for twenty years, betraying their constituencies, even when doing so can potentially cost them votes.

    Nothing is new about any of the above observations. What baffles understanding is that among the few decent politicians who appear focused on their responsibility to their constituencies, some are so obsessed with independent mindset that they end up hurting the people they vow to help. What motivates such approach to politics that appears to be self-destructive? This is the question that I would like to address.

    Let me start with some concrete examples from recent and ongoing events. As candidate for President of the United States (POTUS), Joseph R. Biden Jr. campaigned vigorously for some policy initiatives. He would present policy proposals to support the Middle Class, combat the pandemic, offer relief to families, and build back the economy better. He would combat climate change with new ideas, including clean energy initiative, negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical companies, and raise taxes on the wealthy and big corporations to fund his programs so they won’t add to the deficit, etc.

    Biden won the election and became president. Voters also gave his party, the Democratic Party, the mandate to control the two Houses of Congress-Senate and the House of Representatives- though with narrow margins. But a win is a win. And voters expect the party in power, controlling Congress and the Presidency, to deliver on its promises. And they are alarmed that it is not happening! Why is it not happening?

    First, while there is a narrow Democratic majority in the House, the majority can deliver its policy agenda with a simple majority vote. And it has been able to do this for the most part. However, the Senate has to concur and Senate Rule requires at least 60 votes for any major legislation. With a 50-50 split between Republicans and Democrats, at least 10 Republicans must be willing to join their Democratic colleagues for such legislations to pass. This is a huge hurdle to overcome in the current political climate where extremists appear to have taken over both parties.

    But there is a way out for Democrats. They can pass their legislations through a process called Reconciliation which requires only 51 votes out of the 100-member Senate. Though Democrats are only 50, they can count on the Vice President, a Democrat, to cast the deciding vote. This is the procedure they have decided to use to pass Biden’s domestic agenda which includes child tax credit, free universal preschool, paid family leave, clean energy initiative, and lower prescription drugs, among others.

    However, a second unanticipated hurdle surfaced among Democratic Senators who cannot afford to lose any of their members’ votes on the legislation. Two so-called moderate Senators object vehemently to key aspects of the legislation. They won’t support expanding Medicare to cover dental and vision or higher tax on the wealthy and big corporations. They would support neither provisions for battling climate change nor paid family leave. What explains the opposition of these Democratic lawmakers to the initiatives sponsored by their President, supported by the vast majority of their party leaders and members as well as the larger population?

    Several reasons have been suggested and at least one of the two Senators has also offered his reasons. Putting together the various suggested and verbally expressed reasons, we may begin to understand the enigmatic nature of liberal politics.

    First, it is suggested that these Senators are in an unholy alliance with lobbyists who fund their campaigns. While we can never be sure that receipt of campaign contributions from lobbyists is directly related to the position of a lawmaker on particular legislations, if there are circumstantial evidences, they cannot be ruled out. As the deliberations were going on, there were reports that one of the Senators had a fundraising dinner with lobbyists on the opposing side of the legislation. Talk about quacking like a duck!

    Second, one of the Senators comes from a Red state, where former Republican President won in 2020 by more than 40 points. Therefore, in his calculation, to maintain his seat, the Senator must not rankle the majority of his state voters. This is politically prudent. But there is something else to consider. The legislation he is opposing will benefit the majority of the voters in his state which has some of the worst outcomes in the social welfare index–school systems, health, income etc. If they were more concerned about their welfare and less about party orthodoxy, they would support the Senator voting for the legislation.

    Third, the two Senators are fiercely independent and they cherish their maverick approach to politics. But being a maverick must be purposeful. Senator McCain was such. He famously thumbed down his party legislation which would have withdrawn health insurance from millions. But a would-be maverick recently infamously thumbed down her party’s $15 minimum wage legislation, thus hurting millions of people.

    Fellow Democrats and Independents in Congress and activists have been frustrated with the gridlock on good legislation meant to improve the lives of citizens. As Senator Sanders lamented, it is not right for 2 Senators to take 48 Senators hostage. And while President Biden has expressed confidence that the two Senators will come round to support his legislative agenda, the fact that this gridlock has played out so ugly in the public domain is a demonstration of the enigmatic nature of liberal democracy.

    The result of this gridlock is already showing in the reaction of voters who are rightly disappointed about what many have condemned as a clown show. On Tuesday, voters in Virginia and New Jersey went to the polls to elect their governors and representatives. Virginia has been turning blue recently with democrats winning governorship races in succession. But on Tuesday, voters rebuked Democrats by voting a Republican as governor and electing a new House of Delegates under Republican control.

    Now, the foregoing is typical of liberal democracies. The legislative process is comparable to the making of sausage. It is messy. But it is worth it if the outcome is good for the people. Ours is also a liberal democracy. But our politics has its own uniqueness which stands it apart. This uniqueness is the subject of our attention next week.

     

  • 15 years so soon?

    15 years so soon?

    Monologue

    Time flies. It has been 15 years, just like that, since a unique Prince ascended the throne of the great Sokoto Empire as the 20th Sultan on that throne. The precise date of that great event was November 6, 2006. And, the name of the Prince in question is Muhammad Sa’ad Abubakar, a Brigadier-General in the Nigerian Army. By virtue of that royal ascension, the new Sultan also statutorily became the President-General of Nigerian Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs (NSCIA). Ever since he assumed that exalted royal office, the impact of his leadership as a royal father and Commander of Nigerian Muslim Ummah (Amirul Muminin), has been unprecedentedly historic.

     

    Reminiscence

    When this Sultan was five years old on the royal throne in 2011, yours sincerely wrote an article in this column, in commemoration of that great event. And, the article remains as current today as it was then. Thus, an excerpt from the article is hereby republished for the records:

    “In every crowd of horizontal men there must be one vertical man who deserves special reverence, not much because of his vertical position but because of the significant difference which that position makes to all people irrespective of ethnic and religious dichotomy”.

     

    History and Man

    History and man are like Siamese twins or a pair of scissors. The one cannot do without the other. History makes man just as man makes history. And, the reciprocal baton continues to exchange hands between them unabatedly. Fifteen years ago, an innocent human crescent lay hidden in the firmaments of the orbit waiting to be sighted before prompting the Muslim Ummah into a united folk. That crescent is the towering personality generally known today as the SULTAN. The gentleman’s name did not ring any bell in Nigeria before he was named and crowned as ‘THE SULTAN OF SOKOTO’ in November 2006. Thus, the emergence of Brigadier General Muhammad Sa’ad Abubakar (rtd) as the successor to the exalted throne of the great Sokoto Empire without any controversy came as a surprise to many Nigerians. At 50 years of age then, many people thought that this Prince was one of the youngest men to emerge as the Sultan of Sokoto in many years. But he disagreed with such impression and recalled that his own father, Sultan Abubakar Sadiq III who demised in 1988 ascended the throne at the age of 37.

     

    Equipment for Royalty

    With the combination of a sound military background and an impeccable diplomatic prowess that equipped him for the royal office, this Sultan has no comparison in the annals of Sokoto history and his choice for that royal office was exemplary. Since coming into office as a millennial royal Captain divinely designated to successfully pilot the affairs of Islam and the Muslim Ummah, the hitherto trend of intra Islamic quarrels has finally vamoosed.

     

    Philosophers’ Assertion

    Philosophers who once asserted that every new century has a way of producing a great leader may be quite right after all. The example of His Eminence, Dr. Muhammad Sa’ad Abubakar is a manifest attestation to that assertion. Ever since he assumed the exalted royal office in 2006, this great man has convincingly exemplified all the qualities of genuine leadership in the contemporary time. Every statement he has made socially, religiously or politically and every action he has taken officially or privately has proved to be a school in which all well-meaning people have learnt one positive lesson or another.

    Read Also: Sultan to African leaders: Find solution to challenges facing the continent

    As ABU Chancellor

    Five years after his Eminence’s assumption of office, the symbiotic relationship of history and man zoomed out for reconfirmation in Zaria. That was on Wednesday, (November 23, 2011), when a galaxy of well-meaning men and women, from different parts of the world, assembled to say “we are here to bear witness to your greatness”.

    It was the day His Eminence was installed as the Chancellor of Ahmadu Bello University (ABU), Zaria. The occasion was just one of many magnetic laurels accruing to Dr. Abubakar since he assumed office as Sultan.

     

    Leadership Qualities

    An American President, Harry S. Truman (1884-1972), once described a leader as “a man who has the ability to get other people to do what they don’t want to do and like it”. By his activities and functions so far, Sultan Abubakar has proved Truman right by demonstrating to the Muslim Ummah that the time has come for reformation, not only of the NSCIA but also the Sultanate.

    When this Sultan assumed office 15 years ago, he hinted the world that the Sultanate would be put on the internet to enable Muslims, home and abroad, to gain direct access to their leader.  And, that was at a time when the use of the internet as well as that of the computer was strictly exclusive to a few elites which was why this Sultan decided to start the reformation of the Sultanate through the instrumentality of the internet. Thus, as an exemplary leader with exemplary foresight, he began to demonstrate his leadership prowess with master fingers on the computer.

     

    The Mystery in Human Names

    There is something mysterious about names which humanity is yet to grasp comprehensively. A puzzling secret seems to exist in the vocabulary of life which sticks to every human being like a second skin. That secret, pearled like an oyster in the pouch of name, is an effective evidence of destiny in man. Our names are the light that glows at night to brighten up our ways towards the glare of the days in the threshold of life. And, when the dawn comes to render the glowing light ineffective, the bearer bows out into the recluse of demise leaving behind an indemnified signature on the sands of time.

    This was the case with Prophet Muhammad (SAW), the greatest man that ever lived on the surface of the earth. Even as an unlettered son of Arabian desert who was born in an era of blatant ignorance, Prophet Muhammad (SAW) introduced into the world, an unprecedented civilisation that opened the eyes of humanity to everlasting guidance.

     

    Leadership Qualities

    Good leadership, according to sages, is recognised, not by official position held or by any use of force at one’s disposal. Genuine leaders are mostly known by their utterances and actions through the magnanimity of their conducts. Such are leaders who never say YES when they mean to say NO. They never make promises and renege on them just as they never betray people who trust them. Those were the qualities embedded in Prophet Muhammad (SAW) which prompted the Almighty Allah to say as follows about him in Qur’an 33:31: “There is, surely, an excellent example for you (Muslims) to emulate in Prophet Muhammad for those of you who believe in Allah and the hereafter and also remember Him (Allah) at all times.”

    This Sultan knows all these with consciousness and practical inclination towards implementation. Without education, adequate transmission of information, to the benefit of mankind, would have been impossible. And, without adequate information there would have been no progress. That was why Sultan Abubakar started his reformation of the Sultanate from the premise of education. It is only with education that most problems in this world can be solved without much ado. Sultan Abubakar also believes that education without social harmony is like a virtue without value and that there can be no harmony in a society where people are overwhelmed by ignorance and penury.

     

    Consistency

    Believing fervently in the ability of education to the brute in man, Dr. Abubakar has consistently focused on both education and social harmony in his advocacy for a serene society that is dominated by peace and tranquility in Nigeria.

    At his installation as the Chancellor of Ahmadu Bello University in 2011, Sultan Abubakar told the crowd that the current socio-economic indices in Nigeria were a clear indication that the country had begun to drift. He lamented that despite the nation’s abundant resources, development had failed to match human and material wealth.

    In his words: “Corruption has emasculated our progress even as poverty and unemployment have pushed citizens to the brinks, fuelling and confounding social conflicts and inter-communal crisis have extracted heavy toll in both human lives and property… Persistent insecurity, (even at that time), had generated panic and anxiety in Nigeria” and he concluded that “our social and physical infrastructures are far from meeting the needs of the nation. According to him, “the country appears to be adrift and at the core of all these is moral decadence engendered by ignorance and greed.”

    He also noted that the reform of the tertiary education sector could not be effective without putting in place, the progressive developments required in the basic and senior secondary education sectors. He insisted that “our state governments, especially those of the North, must begin to realise the enormity of the challenges facing the education sector and take urgent and necessary steps to address those challenges. While lauding the founding fathers of the ABU, especially, the late Sarduana of Sokoto, Sir Ahmadu Bello, the Sultan urged the authorities of the institutions to continue to abide by the cardinal principles on which those institutions were founded.

    That is the renascent Sultan for you, a man who is at the topmost echelon of the tree of comfort but feels so much concerned about the plight of the peasants who seem to be deliberately consigned to the weeding of the shrubs without any hope by the power that be. Ever since, His Eminence has never relented in his advocacy for good governance and denunciation of corruption and religious acrimony.

    Which other leader in Nigeria has ever made such touching statements to give the underprivileged masses a ray of hope on this land of despair called Nigeria?

    If those in governments at the Federal and State levels had heeded His Eminence’s admonition and counsel, perhaps, Nigeria would not have been plunged into the evil dragnet in which she is today. The words of foresighted elders are words of wisdom which can only be ignored by those who are awaiting their peril.

     

    His Interfaith Inclination

    When the Sultan was invited in January 2010 as a Special Guest of Honour to a religious seminar organised by the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) with the theme: ‘Knowing Your Muslim Neighbour’, he delivered an historic speech that reverberated meaningfully across the entire world. And, in May, same year, he also invited the leadership of CAN to a special conference of the NSCIA held in Kaduna. The theme of that conference was: ‘Islam in the Eyes of the Christians’. He is the first Nigerian first class Monarch ever to engage in such an interfaith affair at the national level and his speech on that occasion was also electrifying. Excerpt from that speech: “….we initiated, as we had done for the JNI, a thorough review of the activities of the NSCIA and an extensive reform of its structures. It is our firm belief that these reforms are not only desirable but necessary, to reposition the Council to play its strategic role as the apex Islamic body in the country and to respond, effectively and meaningfully, to the challenges facing the Muslim Ummah in a multi-cultural and multi-religious society like Nigeria.”

    By speaking out incessantly against policies which seem to deliberately impoverish ordinary Nigerians across board, this Sultan has brought a rare hope to Nigeria and the Muslims are the luckiest for it. Such a leadership deserves allegiance, loyalty and regular prayer from the Ummah. If this Sultan had not been who he is, even his 15 years on the throne so far, would have looked longer than 50 years.

    We pray the Almighty Allah for elongation of this Sultan’s life with very sound health and continued divine guidance. Amin!

  • Mending a broken unity

    Mending a broken unity

    The discourse over the state of the country has recently, and alarmingly, turned on the (un)negotiability of its unity. On the one hand, for President Buhari, his predecessors and fellow unitarists, the unity of Nigeria is non-negotiable. On the other hand, for many citizens, including millions of federalists and self-determination groups, nothing is sacrosanct about Nigerian unity which prevents its being negotiated. Negotiable or non-negotiable? This has been the disjunction in focus in the discourse. But what exactly is the meaning of this discourse?

    Let us examine the first side of the disjunction: the unity of Nigeria is not negotiable. What does this mean? That the unity of Nigeria cannot be negotiated? Which could mean that it is an impossibility? But surely, it’s not a physical impossibility, is it? Nothing physically prevents the negotiation of the unity of Nigeria. The founding fathers did exactly that over the course of many years before independence. It was attempted but failed at Aburi before the civil war. And right now, I cannot envisage a physical barrier against a repetition of Lancaster House or Aburi.

    If there is no physical barrier and therefore “cannot be negotiated” doesn’t mean physical impossibility, could it be a moral barrier we are talking about? If so, what is that moral consideration that prevents the negotiation of the unity of any country, including fatherland Nigeria?

    To answer this question, we should first have a clear idea of what the term “negotiation” implies. When leaders say the unity of Nigeria is not negotiable and followers demand the negotiation of the unity of Nigeria, what does each group have in mind? I presume that this is where the challenge is. We are talking pass each other. For leaders, the demand that the unity of Nigeria be negotiated implies a dismemberment or a weakening of the unity of the country. This, of course, is not necessarily the presumption of those demanding the negotiation of the unity of Nigeria.

    As mentioned above, the Lancaster House constitutional conferences were about negotiating the unity of Nigeria. The terms of the agreement constituted the basis of the unity of Nigeria. Now, it remains true, epistemologically and morally, that no one has the monopoly of wisdom. And God knows that the founding fathers would be the first to acknowledge that they were neither angels nor gods. They were also not the incarnation of Satan. But they had their limitations, as Chief Enahoro attested to. With their mind focused firmly on independence, they left many things out, including the very important matter of the fair and just balancing of nationality interests. That was set for further negotiations after independence. It never got done.

    Now, because of the limitations of human knowledge and human wisdom, such negotiations must be a work in progress. It was the expectation of the founding fathers too. And it is what the current proponents of a negotiated unity champion. If they wanted dismemberment, they would not call for negotiation in the form of restructuring.

    One more point on this. The proponents of a negotiated unity in the form of restructuring also have the upper hand in the moral argument. The agreement following negotiation for the unity of Nigeria by the founding fathers concluded that the country must be a federation with specific functions for regional and central governments. But the country has veered off dramatically from the original agreement to the disadvantage of the federating units. This is the warrant for negotiation if some sections are not to be permanently disadvantaged in the scheme of things. Is this too much to ask from a moral point of view?

    If we understand “negotiation” in the foregoing manner, what moral argument can there be against it in the context of Nigeria as it is presently constituted? Indeed, the moral case against a domineering federal government which has assumed the weight of a leviathan trampling and crushing the federating units has never been clearer. Acting like St. Nicholas in dishing out favors to the latter doesn’t minimize the moral atrocity of the arrangement. Hence the moral urgency of negotiation.

    Now, there is another meaning of “not negotiable” which cannot be discounted from this analysis. Indeed, it would seem to me to be the crux of the matter. “Not negotiable” could mean “negotiation will not be tolerated.” In other words, “we don’t care if negotiating the unity of Nigeria makes moral or political sense. We don’t even care that it is physically possible or morally just. We will simply not tolerate it.”

    Let us try hard not to dismiss the foregoing as the mind of a dictator. As is explained above, it depends on what they understand by “negotiation.” If they think that negotiation is dismemberment, it is understandable why national leaders would reject it. It is a blow to their ego. But as we have seen, this is a warped understanding of negotiation of unity.

    All the foregoing leads me to what I believe has been missing from the discourse thus far. In the current political climate, it appears to me the height of wishful thinking to believe that we have a unity, talk less of its being non-negotiable. Can anyone really observe what is going on across the country and still talk about any flickering of embers of national unity? The southeast is a cauldron of fratricidal violence because it wants out. The southwest is not farther away. The north central is a victim of land grabbing marauders and ethnic cleansers. So where is the unity? What we have now is more of a statist effort to impose and enforce unity at all cost.

    Yet, some are still under the illusion that we have unity which cannot be negotiated when all we have is a broken unity which needs to be mended. For what does one do when a pot of unity is broken? Mend it. And in this case, while reasonable people can disagree about the best approach to the mending work, it is contrary to reason to pretend that nothing is amiss. Unless, of course, one sees the brokenness as normal as long as one’s interests- personal or sectional- are protected and advanced.

    With discontentment fueling dissent leading to glaring disunity in the land, the idea of a non-negotiable unity is a misnomer. Where disunity is the default position of the nation, our focus should be on what we need to mend disunity.

    It reminds me of the story of the lion and the tiger, two skilled hunters who forged an agreement for cooperative hunting. In the arrangement, the lion is the keeper of the spoils with a promise to ensure a fair distribution between the two. The tiger agreed and the game was on. The reward of their united approach to hunting was immediately apparent. No other animal can beat them as they hunted and captured big and small games. But the lion didn’t keep his own side of the bargain. He fed his cubs the choicest of the spoils as he himself enjoyed the best meat, leaving bones for tiger, his team mate.

    Eventually, it occurred to Mr. Tiger that he was being cheated and his reaction was swift. “Game over”, he thundered. “I can no longer be a part of an arrangement that openly cheats me.” This is the genesis of the Yoruba idiom: Kaka ki kiniun se akapo ekun, kaluku a sode e lototo. (Rather than the lion serving as the keeper of spoils for the tiger, each would hunt separately). I am aware of a different cultural interpretation of this idiom. I proffer this alternative interpretation as more fitting for our present situation.

    Advocates of restructuring are the tiger. But they are not averse to mending the disunity that pervades the nation as a result of their perception of irregularities. They patriotically want to make it right. But some tigers, who perceive the lion as irredeemable, have given up. They want out. If advocates of restructuring successfully mend the disunity, these angry tigers may be persuaded to lay down their arms. That “if” is all there is to the future of the nation.

     

  • Will democracy survive (2)

    Will democracy survive (2)

    In the market place of politics, political parties are the sellers or marketers of ideas and policies. It is a competitive market, and they could be so obsessed with the competition that they see it as an end in itself.  Winning at all cost becomes a mindset, with rigging as its weapon of choice. This is ruinous to the system because it undermines voter confidence, and it is happening even in major democracies now. To the extent that politicians cannot depend on the attractiveness of their ideas to potential voters, but must manipulate the system to favor them at any cost, including by suppressing the vote and changing the rules of the game in the middle of competition, democracy cannot survive.

    Extreme partisanship is bad for democracy because it doesn’t see any good in the other party and therefore doesn’t appreciate the need for cooperation when it matters. When leaders of one party see fellow citizens who are members of a different party as the evil enemies of the country, the prospect of inter-party cooperation on important national issues is zero. Gridlock is the result. When leaders of one party, out of a sense of party solidarity, compromise on shared democratic principles, by embracing or neglecting to sanction bad behavior on the part of their members, the cause of a stable democracy is not well-served.

    Perhaps the most serious threat to democracy across the globe today is the tendency toward authoritarianism by leaders elected through the democratic process. And it takes its source in human nature. A demagogue in leadership position is a potential arsonist in the household of democracy. He or she can burn down the entire edifice. Hitler was democratically elected. And we have numerous Hitler mini-mes in borrowed democratic garbs. They appeal to the worst instincts in fellow citizens to claim power and once they get it, they do whatever it takes to trash democratic institutions and dismantle the guardrails.

    The above observations are of universal significance. We see the gradual erosion of democratic norms in some of the major democracies, including the United States of America. The experience of the last five to six years has been particularly troubling. The loss of an election in a democratic competition between two contestants should be a foregone conclusion unless it is possible for the two to win. But if a contestant should enter the race with a mindset that he alone must win, that is no longer a democratic competition. Why not just ask to be enthroned the king by divine right to the presidency? But if one individual had the mindset and everyone, including leaders of his party, would assume the mantle of patriotism and reject his antics, it would ensure that democracy is protected. Where they enable him instead of discouraging him, there is a serious threat to democracy.

    In our own corner of the world, if this democratic experiment is to succeed, genuine efforts must be made by leaders and followers alike in every aspect of the requirements of democracy touched on above, including a conscious and deliberate effort to protect its guardrails. Participants must know that elections are not a do-or-die matter. Winning at all cost is an anathema to the democratic spirit. And there must be a level playing field for the competition to be fair and just.

    In a multi-nationality polity, however, democracy cannot just satisfy only a one-person, one-vote condition. We are not an individual-based polity. We are community-based. As such, we have to be mindful of both community and individual interests. It is the rationale for the principle of federal character that is enshrined in the 1999 Constitution. The argument favoring merit against zoning or rotational presidency ignores this important fact of our national character. Does it make sense to respect federal character in admission and civil service employment but not in the access to the highest offices in the land? If a sense of belonging is the warrant for federal character in appointments and admissions, is it any less important in the matter of elective offices, especially the highest office?

    Other polities which share our demographics and are conscious of the need to have stable democracies go into thoughtful deliberations on the best means to achieve that objective. Some adopt rotational presidency among major nationalities. Others adopt a system of presidential council in which representatives of each nationality in the council take the leadership responsibility for one or two years, as in Switzerland.

    Chief Anthony Enahoro (of blessed memory) had a thoughtful perspective on Nigerian democracy and it is reminds us of the great founders and their passion for the success of our democratic experiment. Unfortunately, we have become numb to great ideas by virtue of our condemnation to shallow thinking on behalf of sectional interests. Yet a democracy of diverse peoples like ours must, if it is to succeed, carry every section along. You cannot expect to rule as if on behalf of your section and do it so openly and expect that others will just take it quietly without protest. It is not possible. Therefore, the earlier we recognized the fact that the common good or common interest of a multi-nationality polity is not the preserve of one section but must be a product of the consensus of all, the better it is for the cause of political stability.

    Unity is an essential value to be encouraged in a nation of multiple nationalities, tribes, and tongue. But it doesn’t jumped in out of the thin air. Indeed, unity is more like the fruit of a tree whose seed was deliberately sown and nursed with close attention to the nature of the soil and the weather and climatic conditions. It takes thoughtfulness, hard work, patience, persistence, and a leadership mindset that is fair and balanced. Coming to this with the mindset of a realpolitik conqueror who must bend every section to his will is a nonstarter.  The question “do we want to live in a united, peaceful, and democratic nation?” cannot be adequately answered by the threat of violence against dissenters.

    This was what Chief Enahoro had in mind when he addressed Egbe Omo Yoruba Houston Convention in April, 1997. Titled “Nigerian Federalism in the 21st Century”, the speech challenged our unwillingness to lay the ghost of the disunity caused by our cowardly acceptance of the colonizers’ desire for the failure of the country they reluctantly granted independence. For while the struggle for independence was relatively successful, we have struggled without much success to democratize and to modernize. For him, the reason for this failure can be traced to our failure to be true to who we are: a nation of nations with distinctive cultures, languages, and traditions which the colonizers ignored. While they got away with that because they had no stake in it, we have since realized that our failure to pay attention and course-correct is the real source of disunity and will continue to be. What is required then?

    Take seriously the peculiarities of language, religion, culture, economics, and politics. To borrow Chief Enahoro’s fitting metaphor, we must resist “the strict application of the principle that in order to make a Nigerian omelet which is acceptable to alien palates, we must break our indigenous nation eggs.” Rather, for “Nigeria to survive and fulfill our collective destination, we must work for a true, federal system—a federation of nationalities…” This is the basis for a true democratic system.

    Over the last 22 years, we have enjoyed democracy dividends, from freedom of thought and expression to freedom of association. To be sure, it is not yet Uhuru in many respects. We are still at the mercy of unruly and unprofessional security agents. Corrupt officials still make life a hell for us. And with unemployment and extreme poverty still our lot, we are yet to smell the promised aroma of material dividends. Yet, we are not where we were in 1999. And if we keep hope alive, we will reach the Promised Land. For this to happen and for democracy to survive, leaders and followers alike must respect and protect its guardrails.

     

     

  • Lesson from his life

    Lesson from his life

    Monologue

    The world is a school in which all human beings are students individually or collectively. The only invariable oxygen of that school is life. Learning in the school of life is a matter of chance. But grasping, meaningfully,  the lessons taught and learnt in that school, often depend on the perspective from which the teacher introduces the subject matter. From time to time, human beings remind themselves of the forgotten lessons of life by taking a retrospective view of the past. Through that retrospect, the students of yesteryears may become the teachers today. That is the notion that warranted the writing of this article.

     

    Preamble

    It is man’s to propose. And, it is Allah’s to dispose. Those are the permanent norms upon which human life is based. That norm is a clockwise phenomenon that can never be turned anti-clockwise. You may call it an evidence of destiny or an accident of choice. The contents proposed for this column, today, are not what readers are about to read here. While planning an article that would be somewhat relevant to the currently trending event in the Muslim world ie: the birth of Prophet Muhammad (SAW), Allah’s divinely guided will came in to intervene. This article had been due for publication since last August. But there is nothing any mortal being could do about the permanent norm of life called destiny.

     

    Human Pilgrimage

    Human life is a pilgrimage from

    the unknown to the unknown. No one knows whence he emanated from or whither he is bound. The process by which man evolves is a tapestry which size and shape cannot be measured in whatever terms. All we know about life is that we naturally migrate from womb to womb and finally arrive in a larger transit which we call the world. For a period, we were in our fathers’ natural hollow cave where we struggled vigorously for space and for survival. And, in the attempt to shoot out through the iron gate of life, we suddenly find ourselves swimming along with billions of others, in the name of spermatozoa. At that stage, human beings can be compared to fingerlings, in their millions, struggling to become juveniles. It takes those in the fishery sector of agriculture to understand this analogy better.

    Then, from that stage, we move into another hollow space inside our mothers’ wombs and sojourn therein for a while before zooming into this complex world from where we are to migrate into another hollow space, in the belly of the earth, called grave. And, finally, we shall all move forth from the grave into another world not yet known to anybody.

     

    The Process of Human Journey

    The process of human journey is both complex and sophisticated. When we were in the loins of our fathers, no one knew of the existence of a place called pregnancy. Yet, we were made to pass through it with little or no option. Thereafter, when we moved into the wombs of our mothers, no one knew of the existence of another place called the world. Yet we fortuitously came to find ourselves in it only to embark on another journey of uncertainty. In the process, we are led to pass through the grave into an unknown destination that will become known to us eventually. The mass settlement in that final destination will be determined, not by mere wish, but by an invisible scale upon which the practicability of the lessons learnt in the world is meticulously inscribed. Thus, the world of man is like a cloud moving forwards and backwards, from time to time, and, gathering momentums for a rain to fall. After its dispersal, one of two occurrences becomes a noted experience. Either the rain falls to give the earth a renewed life or there is no rain at all. In the latter case, the sky becomes clearer as fresh air renews the oxygen of the world. Who, among human beings, can ever skip the process of that natural phenomenon?

     

    The Galaxy

    Human beings, in their multitudes, are like a galaxy of stars which float incessantly in the orbit while illuminating the spheres for all living organisms. Some of those stars are, in many folds, larger than the earth. But because of their distance from the human view, they look small. However, each of those stars functions according to its pre-destined assignment. ALLAH AKBAR!

     

    The Functions of Stars

    As the situation of the galaxy is with the stars so is that of the world with human beings. Some people are great in life and in death. Some are great only while alive and, as soon as they are demised, their greatness becomes like a dispersed cloud paving the way for a clearer atmosphere. Some times, this scenario functions positively, and, some other times, it functions negatively. But, after they might have all departed this world, history takes the centre stage revealing both the hidden and the manifest aspects of each person’s life. It is from such revelations that those who are left behind do pick the relevant substances that can form the guiding factors of their lives.

     

    Searching the Archives

    Going through the archives of history, it is difficult to find a Nigerian of the contemporary time who has ever captured the above painted scenario as much as Nigeria’s first President, Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe. In the introduction to his autobiography ‘MY ODYSSEY’, published in 1970, he observed as follows: “…Man comes into the world and while he lives, he embarks upon a series of activities absorbing experience which enables him to formulate a philosophy of life and to chart his courses of action. But then, he dies. Nevertheless, his biography remains a guide to those of the living who may need guidance either as a warning on the vanity of human wishes or as encouragement or both…”

     

    The Root of Philosophy

    Incidentally, it was at Zik’s media stable that Nigeria’s doyen of modern journalism, Dr. Ismail Babatunde Jose, began his career in Journalism through a newspaper called Daily Comet.

     

    Like Lion like Cat

    That Dr. Ismail Babatunde Jose was a student of such philosophy in his life time cannot be strange to anybody who knew his background.

    By a dint of experience which he garnered through his ‘Walking A Tightrope’ (which was the title of his autobiography), this man was able to accurately define what a school of learning should be and who should be worthy students therein. In his sojourn in life, Dr. Jose practically dichotomised between idealism and materialism through a unique ability to understand that the material well-being of every individual could positively or negatively influence the code of his or her conduct. And, based on that understanding, he did not see any reason in being unnecessarily materialistic. Rather, he was convinced that only an adaptation to the concatenations of the spiritual life could successfully pilot a genuine ‘pilgrim’ to the genuine Holy Land.

     

    The Anchor Occurrence

    It didn’t sound unusual to genuine the Muslims on August 2, 2008, when the radio waves throbbed with the news of Dr Jose’s demise. Generally, news of death can never be shocking to Muslims. We have been thought, through the Qur’an, that “every soul shall taste of death”. But as explicit as the Qur’an is on the inevitability of death, it does not give the time, the place or the manner. So, every Muslim should prepare for it at all times.

    As for Dr Jose, his preparation for death started at age 60. Unknown to many people, it was at that age that he fully prepared his burial luggage which included the complete shroud with which he was to be interned and kept jealously in his bedroom. Despite being a laity, the lesson he taught clerics along that line is quite symbolic. Although, he took a step ahead of us in death, we shall all join him some day. Now, after taking flight from the earth, like a falcon, leaving the falconers behind, he has become a conspicuous and inevitable chapter, not only in the history but also in furthering our understanding of Islam. It is now left to those still alive to cultivate the clauses of guidance from or those of encouragement or even of warning against the vanity of human wishes.

    This is not another obituary of Dr Jose. It is rather a mirror to see ourselves and reassess the essence of our existence. After all, it is no news that Dr Jose was a professional colossus who held Journalism with a hand of revolution to change its stream for a pleasant sip that it has become today.

     

    His Ladder of Rise

    Although, Dr Jose rose from the status of a mere trainee reporter to become the Chairman and Managing Director of Daily Times newspaper which he turned into an empire, his greatest achievement in that sphere was the unprecedented building of human skill which gave Nigeria the most vibrant practice of Journalism in Africa. Next was his unprecedented contentment in a society where greed is considered as the yardstick for greatness. At an agile age, when he was carefully negotiating the sharp corners of the middle age, he turned down an offer by Prime Minister Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, to become the Minister of Information at a time when some hawks were lobbying for that post. Dr. Jose told Balewa that he was satisfied with his professional job and he preferred the post of Managing Director of Daily Times, which he had already attained, to that of a ministerial post. That was a very rare choice in Nigeria especially at a time when political limelight was like a visa to the paradise of life.

    And, when, in 1975, a clandestine schism and rebellion by his staff began against him in Daily Times, and, the Military Government, under Murtala/ Obasanjo regime, took advantage of that situation to acquire 60 per cent of ownership in the Daily Times establishment, Dr Jose simply resigned his appointment, saying he would not overstay his welcome. A petition by those staff against him was investigated by the then government and he was cleared of all allegations levied against him while the petitioners were all sacked. Thereafter, the government tried to persuade him to withdraw his resignation and retain his post. But he declined the gesture, saying it was time for him to quit.

    ‘The News’ magazine described that episode vividly in its special publication entitled: ‘People in the News’ A survey of Nigerians of the 20th century (1900-1999) as follows: “Jose’s robust and fulfilling career in Daily Times came to an end with the advent of Murtala/Obasajo regime in 1975. A reshuffle of Daily Times top staff triggered a crisis that gave birth to the Joint Action Committee of Staff and Management of the Daily Times Limited simply known as JAC. The pressure, which consisted of nine top officers including Jose’s deputy, Mr. Odukomaiya and notable editors like Areoye Oyebola, Gbolabo Ogunsanwo, Sola Odunfa and Ayo Adefolaju, spearheaded an agitation for Jose’s removal. It was at this time that the federal government moved in to acquire 60 per cent interest in the company. Beyond the JAC lobby, it was believed that the government’s action was more to check Jose’s domineering powerful profile. Although he was retained as Managing Director after the takeover, a new Chairman, Alhaji Aliko Muhammed was imposed on the reconstituted board.

    “For Jose, it was time to go. Although he was exonerated by the panel set up to investigate JAC’s allegation of impropriety against him, and the members of JAC were sacked. Nevertheless, Dr. Jose felt it was just enough that his name had been cleared. Even though the government agreed that it was misled into taking over the Daily Times group, the action was not reversed.  Jose who had lost the Chairmanship position clearly saw the handwriting of decline on the wall. His notice of resignation was dated 11 February 1976. He claimed that he had forgiven all his dismissed accusers, he, however, turned down all entreaties for the withdrawal of his letter…”

    Perhaps Alhaji Jose’s greatest achievement was his determination to be great in life despite his relatively low educational background. He did not have more than Secondary School Certificate when he chose journalism as a career at the age of 16 in 1941. Yet he reached the topmost echelon of the great Daily Times empire where education was supposed to be the greatest implement for managing that empire. That he was able to manage the Daily Times in that capacity for 14 good years without blemish is a confirmation that literacy is not the same as education.

     

    The Rising Sun

    In modern Nigerian journalism, no one has been able to attain the feat of Alhaji Jose. He was the sun, among stars, that generated the energy which dispelled the cloudy atmosphere and photosynthesized the struggling plants with enlivening oxygen. That is why he was generally acknowledged as the ‘Doyen of Modern Journalism’ in Nigeria. If any star was eclipsed in his time, Dr. Jose was there to supply energy with which to bring it back into existence. But which star could ever rescue the sun if it eclipsed?

     

    Meeting Point

    I first met Alhaji Jose in 1972 at Ahmadiyya College Agege, Lagos, where I was then a teacher. He was at that time the President of Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam, the organisation that later metamorphosed into Anwarul-Islam Society of Nigeria. I got closer to him later in the mid 1990s when he became the Chairman, Board of Trustees of Nigeria/Pakistan Association (a chamber of commerce) of which I was the Secretary General when the late Minister of Communication, Alhaji Aruna Elewi was the President of that Association. That was the time I discovered how deeply religious Alhaji Jose was. I had earlier travelled with him to Saudi Arabia in solidarity with the late Sheikh Abubakar Muhmud Gumi, a one-time  Grand Qadi of Northern Nigeria. The latter had won King Faisal Foundation Award.

     

    Recognition

    Knowing me as a student of Sheikh Adam Abdullah Al-Ilory, the great proprietor of the great Markaz, Agege, Baba Jose often engaged me in religious discussions wanting to know many things hitherto unknown to him about Islam. And, on most occasions when he was alone, recitation of the Qur’an was his pastime hobby. His religiousness became obvious through the ascetic lifestyle he adopted later in his life.

     

    Attestation

    Amb Oladapo Fafowora who was Director General of the Manufacturing Association of Nigeria (MAN) when Baba Jose was the Chairman of that Chamber of Commerce attested to this fact in a remark he once made in writing about Baba Jose’s ascetic lifestyle. He said: “Dr Jose is disdainful of personal wealth, a reflection of the deep religious faith that has been the dominant influence of his life and public career. As the Chairman of MAN, he never drew any allowance, at all, from MAN. Given his immense talent and organisational ability, courage and determination, Dr. Jose would still have been a roaring success in whatever he turned his hands to. He is both complex and simple. He is driven relentlessly to excel in whatever he chooses to do. He is a man who cares deeply about his family, his friends, and his business associates and about the future of the nation. He has a great compassion for the needy and the downtrodden…”

     

    Comment

    If such a life cannot be emulated, which one will be? ‘THE MESSAGE’ hereby joins millions of Nigerians, not only in remembering this incomparable colossus but also in reminding the current generation the true ladder of greatness in human life. We pray the Almighty Allah to repose Baba Jose’s kind soul in eternal bliss. Amin!

  • Will democracy survive? (1)

    Will democracy survive? (1)

    ”…..that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth”–Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address, November 19, 1863.

    That democracy shall not perish from the face of the earth was Abraham Lincoln’s prayer. It was a view of the world that he envisioned and which he strove to help create. It contrasted sharply with the world of slavery. It was not a world of racial inequality or racial prejudice.

    For Lincoln, the American civil war was worth the sacrifice only if a genuinely democratic society was its final outcome. But while he achieved the goal of ending slavery, crowning it with the signing of the Emancipation Declaration, Lincoln could not advance democracy as he wished before an assassin on revenge mission silenced him.

    Lincoln went to his grave not knowing whether the government of the people, by the people, and for the people would endure or perish from the earth. But he appeared to have had a premonition of things to come from some of the disturbing events of his time.

    In “The Political Religion of the Nation”, an address that he delivered to the Young Men’s Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois in January, 1838, Lincoln worried about “the increasing disregard for law, which pervades the country; the growing disposition to substitute the wild and furious passions, in lieu of the sober judgment of the Courts, and the worse than savage mobs, for the executive ministers of justice.” That observation anticipated the January 6 insurrection by almost 200 years. And now it is no longer an empty threat. There is a real danger that democracy may not survive even among its most passionate and consistent global advocates.

    But what is great about democracy that we should want it survive? Not many of the classical thinkers thought it was a good system. Plato derided it as the rule of the ignorant. His preference was for the wise and knowledgeable to rule. While Aristotle viewed democracy as the rule of the poor on behalf of themselves, he preferred “polity”, seeing it as an ideal governing system for promoting common interests.

    Yet there was a reason Cleisthenes, generally acknowledged as the Father of Democracy, introduced demokratia or rule by the people as a governing system in 5th century BCE. It respects the dignity of persons and recognizes that everyone is equal before the law, which Herodotus described as the most splendid of virtues. This recognition of individuals rules out tyrannical regimes whether with men of war, money bags, or religious priests, at the helm.

    However, it is worth noting that the world didn’t start out recognizing this essential normative aspect of our common humanity, namely that everyone has a dignity that must be respected and everyone in turn must live by the tenets of human dignity. From the conjuring of the Divine Right of Kings to the aristocracy of wealth, and the tyranny of military dictatorship, every human race or nation went through some era of oppression in the hands of fellow human beings. Even the Athenian experiment by Cleisthenes had a prelude in dictatorship and a postscript of dictatorship. And his democratic initiative lasted only for two centuries.

    The world has seen all and tried all forms of government and the verdict appears to favor democracy as the best. Winston Churchill, the war general and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom famously declared that “democracy is the worst form of government-except for all the others that have been tried.” He should know. He was voted out of power as Prime Minister just months after leading his country to victory in World War II. Only in a democracy can that sharp turn of events occur. Remember President George W. H. Bush and his 90% approval rating after the first Gulf War of 1991? Less than a year later, he lost reelection to Bill Clinton, a war-evading governor. Only in a democracy!

    This almost universal affirmation of democracy as the best form of government has facilitated its attraction to many societies and leaders, especially since the late 1950s when more colonized nations gained independence. Democracy became synonymous with all forms of governance structures. Thus we had African democracy, Socialist Democracy, Latin American democracy, Asian democracy etc., as the late C. B. Macpherson magisterially captured the trend in The Real World of Democracy. On his part, the late President Julius Nyerere of Tanzania, in a “teacher don’t teach me nonsense” moment, famously attacked Western Democracy as a fake. In view of what’s going on in many of these Western democracies now, one wonders whether Nyerere wasn’t right after all.

    An overriding assumption of democracy is that individuals know what is best for them and, given the chance, they will choose what is best for them, whether it be choice of the best among candidates for office, or choice of the best policy in a referendum. This assumption presupposes adequate information and knowledge of the issues as well as the absence of constraining factors, whether in the form of external pressure or the coercion of material poverty, intimidation of wealth, or the temptation of greed.

    Knowing the limitations of human nature, democracy also establishes guardrails on its highway. These guardrails are designed to prevent avoidable fender benders. These include institutions or rules and practices which groups and individuals are expected to follow for the success of democracy. They are, among others, a constitution that is congruent with the nature and character of the polity, an embrace of the supremacy of the rule of law and an impartial system of justice, political parties, periodic elections, equity in the distribution of rights and responsibilities, elimination of extreme poverty, effective preventive and punitive measures against corruption, free press, etc.

    The hope and expectation is that with all the foregoing in place, a polity can experience a stable democratic governance structure for the benefit of everyone. But hope and expectation is hardly sufficient as the experience of at least several decades has shown. What are the threats?

    Human nature is unfathomable; but experience has shown us some of its base elements. Despite the almost universal condemnation of Hobbes’ so-called projection of a European bourgeois nature as a universal feature of humanity, we deceive ourselves if we think that none of it is applicable to us. Has egoistic mindset not been widely demonstrated among us? Is greed not killing our society? Our own SLA infamously castigated a section of the country for greed, unfortunately playing on the corrupted forms of their names. But if truth be told, which part of the country hasn’t displayed egoistic and greedy tendencies? None!

    “Money is the root of all evil”, as the Holy Scripture tells us. We might just add that political evil is on top of the evils and money is its enabler. Just look around. Is there any of the fundamental institutions mentioned above, from elections to justice, from civil service to legislature, that money has not condemned to rot?

    Individuals are assumed to know best their interests. But money has taken over as the yardstick of all interests. Thus, voters are bought at the cheapest price, and they forget about their long-term interest in education, health, and security. They receive N500-N1000 for a ballot and that’s it. Rousseau once mocked the British for being free only during elections because immediately after elections are over, they become the slaves of their parliamentarians. Can we say anything different about us?

    On the flip side of money is poverty. While there are poor people with their dignity intact, extreme poverty and its attendant hunger compromises integrity. A hungry man with basic needs of nutrition and clothing for self and family may unfortunately be compelled to accept favors which are against his long-term interests. It is why conscienceless politicians would rather keep fellow citizens in perpetual poverty so they are under their beck and call especially during elections when they shamelessly and wickedly release pittance to them and arm them with illicit drugs and weapons to maim and kill opponents. Therefore, the elimination of extreme poverty is a condition for stable democracy.

  • The cost of Governance

    The cost of Governance

    Monologue

    Governance in Islam, is like pregnancy in the womb of a woman. Its duration is naturally defined barring any anomaly or aberration. Its delivery depends on the safety of its carrier and the circumstances of her well being. Ironically, the product of that pregnancy is claimed, not by the carrier of the pregnancy but by the impregnator. There is no pregnancy without semen actively planted in the womb of a woman. And, the planter of that semen is the man who, in this case, is called the impregnator. For this reason, children bear the names of their fathers, rather than those of their mothers, as surnames.

     

    Analogy

    By analogy, one can compare governance to a  woman who could not have become pregnant without an impregnator. The similitude of an impregnator here is the populace that gave those in government the mandate to rule over them. And, just as the child produced by that womb, the child belongs to the impregnator as a matter of legitimacy so should dividend of governance be the property of the electorate. In a patriarchal culture, any child who bears his mother’s name as surname rather than that of his father is nothing but a bastard. That is always the case where dividend of governance is cornered by those who are privileged to be in government.

     

    Security and Law

    After security, law and justice, all of which reflect strong faith in Allah, nothing else is held more sacrosanct in Islam than governance. Governance can be compared to a magnificent umbrella under which the people are supposed to take cover during torrential rains or burning sun. In a democratic environment, such umbrella is owned, not by the politicians but by the citizenry. The bearer of the proverbial umbrella, in democracy, is just a servant holding it in trust for the people. Perhaps that is why the late President Musa Yar’Adua called himself a servant leader on his assumption of office in May, 2007.

     

    Messengers of the People

    In Islam, rulers are statutorily, servants of God and messengers of the people. They are employees who must always report back to their employers. Where rulers behave contrary to this norm, a fundamental deviation must have occurred which may be tantamount to rebellion against the people. That is what is happening in the Nigerian politics.

     

    Reminiscence

    In an open letter that yours sincerely wrote to President Yar’Adua in this column, in June, 2007 and of which I reminded him in May, 2008, I cited example of two of his namesakes (Umar) in history during the time of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) in Makkah. One of them, Umar Bn Khattab, eventually became the Caliph. Another Umar upon whom there was a very high hope eventually became an infidel. But a third one, not mentioned in that letter, later emerged as a Caliph some decades after the Prophet’s demise. His name was Umar Bn Abdul Aziz, a famous Caliph of the Umayyad dynasty. He became Caliph about 85 years after the demise of the Prophet.

    This third Umar became a reference point in history because of the unique way in which he managed the economy of the Caliphate during his regime. In a particular year during his reign, the state generated so much income that the problem which the state faced was how to spend it.

    The tradition, according to Islamic injunction, was for the state to dispense Zakah to the poor among the citizenry from the much resources garnered through the collection of Zakah. But, when its distribution  was to be done, it turned out that nobody in the entire state was so poor as to be a recipient of Zakah. The huge amount earmarked for Zakah that year had to be returned to the treasury. It is taken for granted here that a state without poor people is surely a state without beggars.

    A similar situation arose, a few decades ago, in Saudi Arabia where the government could not find any couple among the indigenes to receive some scores of cars donated as Zakah by car merchants. It became known that there was no single Saudi couple in the country without a car at that time. The cars had to be distributed to non-indigene couples resident in that country, including a Nigerian. It should be remembered that both Saudi Arabia and Nigeria belong to the same Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). That those cars had to be given out to non-indigenes is an indication of good governance in that country and an evidence of honesty on the part of the citizenry. If such a situation had arisen in Nigeria, what could have happened is left to the imagination of readers.

     

    Who was Umar Bn Abdul Aziz?

    Caliph Umar Bn Abdul Aziz who became  famous in history as an ingenuous economic manager, ruled for only three years from 717 to 720 C.E. Yet, he died at the age of 37. The secret of his success was his ability to identify two major areas of economic management in governance. One was to regulate the cost of governance by harmonising the salaries and allowances of political appointees with those of government employees. This was to ensure that those employees were not enslaved to the privileged political appointees or elected officers. And, there was an independent body responsible for the determination of public workers’ remunerations. Neither the legislators nor the appointed officials were allowed to fix their own salaries or allowances by themselves.

    According to Caliph Umar Bn Abdul Aziz, “fixing your own salary, as an appointed or elected   government  officials, is nothing but theft”. He held that both the government and the resources of the state belonged to the people and nothing was to be done to the lives of the people through formulation of policies without their consent. That can be compared to the situation in Nigeria where the legislators fix their own salaries and allowances and are now proposing to earn such salaries and allowance as pension forever after leaving office.

     

    The Noose of Indebtedness

    Going by the above narration, one can see why the cost of governance has become a noose on the neck of the populace in Nigeria. How can the country progress in such a circumstance?

    Caliph Umar’s second secret of success was his official recognition of the middle class as the greatest employer of labour. He knew that if two million professionals or artisans in the state could employ three staff each, the burden of gross unemployment would be off the neck of the government because eight million people would have been effectively employed. And that would not only have ordinarily brought the rate of crime to its lowest ebb, it would have also enhanced the economy tremendously.

    What he did, in emulation of Prophet Muhammad (SAW), therefore, was to use the resources of the state to encourage self-employment through professionalism and artisanship. He knew very well that whatever was spent on such a vital venture would return to the treasury in many folds through taxation and Zakah.

    This economic ingeniousness has since become the heritage of the Western countries and they are thriving gloriously in it today in the name of privatisation. Any government that eliminates the middle class as in the case of Nigeria automatically opens the gate of poverty and crime to the populace.

    When the late President  Yar’Adua pronounced economy as his first, second and third priorities, it lifted the hope of the ordinary citizens to an undreamt pedestal. But, incidentally, death did not allow him to follow that pronouncement up with implementation.

     

    Japan for Instance

    Japan is one good case study to behold. That country is an exclusive island without mineral resources. Her natural farm land is very limited. If there is anything she has in abundance, it is water. Yet, she shares it with some other countries in accordance with the international law of water boundaries.

    To manage her national economy, what Japan depended heavily upon was human brain. She knew that without human resources there could be neither sufficient economic resources nor effective economic management. Hence, Japan concentrated seriously on human training and manpower development. And, today, the result is manifest.

     

    Saudi Arabia

    In Saudi Arabia, education is totally free from the primary school to the University. Everyfee, including those of tuition, hostel accommodation, books, feeding and transport is provided free by the government. In addition, all students are paid monthly stipends to solve personal problems that can divert students’ attentions from studies. And, in summer, all foreign students are issued free tickets to travel to their home countries on holidays.

    What it takes to enjoy all these is to be qualified for admission and every other thing would automatically follow. But to be so qualified, as a foreigner, you must have come from a manifestly poor country and not an OPEC member nation like Nigeria. I know this much because I was a beneficiary at King’s University in Jeddah where my first degree was obtained.

     

    Change of Policy

    Shortly after Nigerians of my generation graduated from King’s University in the early 1980s, the government of Saudi Arabia changed its policy on scholarship for foreign students. The doors of foreign scholarships were shut against Nigerians. No reason was given.

    But I got to know the details of that new policy when I met my former Vice-Chancellor, Professor Abdullah Umar Nasif at an international conference in Morocco in 1986 where I engaged him in a private discussion. I enquired from him the reason for Saudi Arabian stoppage of scholarship for Nigerians. And, he told me frankly that his government adopted the new policy because it saw no reason in spending its own earnings from oil to finance the education of citizens from fellow OPEC member countries. “If Saudi Arabia should be financially responsible for the education of the citizens of your own country, on what will Nigeria spend her own oil money”? He queried with a tone of finality. And can such logic be faulted?

     

    Saudi’s Industrial Cities

    Today, Saudi Arabia has driven her wealth beyond oil and other mineral resources. The two gigantic industrial cities of Yambu’ and Jubail alone which she established in the 1980s are enough to see her through the future in the absence of oil. And what is more, that country does not depend on oil for survival anymore despite her position as number one oil exporter in the world. Besides, there is no aspect of human development in vogue that  eludes Saudi Arabian investment and attention, including agriculture, tourism, shipping and aviation. And most of these are publicly owned. No dubious deregulation, no ‘blind trust’ and no deceptive privatisation or ambiguous monetisation policy. And, the government is stable.

     

    Economic Management

    Managing economy is not by mere theory or magic. The defunct Soviet Union toyed with all sorts of economic theories jumping from socialism to communism only to finally arrive at an ideological waterloo after almost 74 years of catastrophic experiments. Today, the greatest bane of Nigerian economy is not just the elimination of the middle class but also the extremely high cost of running the government. And, unless these two major anomalies are properly addressed, this country may continue to wander aimlessly, in economic wilderness.

    Today, the economic reality of our country has manifested itself thereby cautioning the government against further unrealizable dream.

    Virtually all the companies manufacturing power generators in the world are in business because of Nigerian market. Yet the ordinary fuel with which to power those generators is not   affordable for most citizens. Judging by the number of generators in this country today who says Nigeria is not qualified as the greatest contributor to the depletion of the Ozone Layer?

    Waiting for the federal government to do everything for the nation despite federalism to which Nigeria lays claim is nothing but a regimental siege exposing the hypocrisy of the so-called politicians at the State level.

    In modern economic management, there can be no place for the middle class in the absence of necessary infrastructures And, without the middle class, no economy can thrive to the benefit of the populace.

    The current lopsided situation which puts over 97 per cent of the national wealth in the hands of about three percent of Nigerians deliberately is ungodly. And, it is not in the long run interest of those who designed it as such.

    Forcing people to pay international price for the local consumption of their own product under the callous theory of subsidy is a wicked extortion by official fiat. Even if there is any subsidy at all, as often claimed by our rulers, shouldn’t Nigerians, who own the oil, be entitled to such subsidy? The posture of owner and seller of petroleum products assumed locally by our federal government is not only immoral it is also a betrayal of people’s trust. And that is the main breeder of the cancerous monster in this country today called corruption. As a matter of fact, the populace seems to have lost total confidence in the presidential style of governance. Most of the policies formulated by the past regime can be described as dead horse which no one should try to kick. Any attempt to pursue those policies in the name of ‘continuity’ can only amount to political suicide bid.

    Even the frequent threats of strike by every Tom, Dick and Harry that often rents the air is more than suicidal to the economy. Yet, those in government do not seem to recognize the fact that Nigeria does not have the type of economy that is capable of sustaining presidential system of governance. To any developing country, such a system is an unsustainable luxury that can ruin the future. It is a system that engenders corruption and also encourages retardation of a potential country. Let the system of governance be changed and the orientation of Nigerians will automatically change. That is a major task upon which our history may be based positively in future.

  • Why Muslim Can’t Unite

    Why Muslim Can’t Unite

    Monologue

    Disunity is a fact about the Muslim Ummah, world wide, which no one can sincerely dispute.

    It is obvious that there is an artificial crack on the wall

    of Islam which the Muslims who once put it there cannot now find easy to obliterate. That crack is called ideology. As the anchor Messenger of Allah, Prophet Muhammad (SAW) never preached any ideology as a component of Islam. But after his demise, the first generation of Muslims introduced different contradictory ideologies as strategies for victory in their struggle for power.

    In response to a question posted to this column, by some readers, sometime ago, about Muslim disunity, especially in contemporary time, yours sincerely decided to explain here, how disunity crept into the ranks of the Muslim Ummah.

     

    Spiritual Virus

    Today, nothing bothers an average genuine Muslim, anywhere in the world, as much as disunity. This seemingly implacable spiritual virus is responsible for many problems confronting the Muslim Ummah globally today, despite Allah’s assurance of the preservation of Islam.

    Whereas unity is a paramount factor in Islam which the Almighty Allah called His own rope and advised all Muslims to hold together, for the purpose of unity. But unfortunately, the Muslims’ deviation from that advice is the cause of their spiritual restiveness which provides the antagonists of Islam the opportunity to ride roughshod over them. To most Muslims in the world today, the rope of ideology takes priority over Islam. That is why the mutual antagonism between the so-called Sunni and Shiite ideologies, as well as those between Izalah and Tariqah sects in Nigeria seems to be permanently irresolvable.

    Although the disunity among the adherents of some other religions, especially Christianity, is much deeper than the one among the Muslims, the adherents of those other religions are able to manage their differences in such a way that the impact of the division among them is not as manifestly pronounced as the one among the Muslims. Thus, the disunity among other religionists cannot be used as a justification for the one among Muslims.

     

    Effect of Disunity

    Today, nothing shows the effect and consequences of disunity among the Muslims as much as the Middle East crises. Those crises have virtually become a finger of destiny which the West is constantly and maliciously pointing towards all directions of Islam, with the intent of obliterating the traits of that divine religion from the surface of the earth. And, the nomenclature given to that finger of destiny, as a mark of blackmail, is terrorism. This is because the Muslims of that region have incorporated their different political ideologies into their different religious orientations.

    In theory and practice, the Middle East crises are now a master stroke with which the West is dealing, directly or indirectly with any nation that claims to have Islamic trait. And, that trait has perennially become a symbol of power. Yet, it is to the Middle East that the rest of the Muslim world is looking for leadership.

     

    Genesis of the Middle East Crises

    How did the Middle East crises come about? At what stage are those crises now and how are they adversely affecting Islam?

    The answers to the above questions are what prompted a Muslim association, in Lagos State, to invite yours sincerely to address in a public lecture as far back as 2010.

    An excerpt from that lecture, which was delivered at the Syrian Club, Ikoyi, Lagos, went thus:

    “….It is difficult to understand the ‘Middle East’ crises without understanding the features of that sub-region historically, geographically, politically and economically. Incidentally, no full details of those crises can be discussed on a single occasion even if it lasts a whole year. Whatever is discussed on this subject on an occasion can only be a brief summary of a fringe in those crises.

     

    Reminiscence

    What is called ‘Middle East’ today was known, in the primordial time, as Anatolia. Situated between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea, this Western part of Asia was once the world’s greatest axis of power before the emergence of Islam. It was in that axis that Empires like Mesopotamian, Assyrian, Phoenician, and Persian, held sway, at one time or another, before they started falling one by one through the millennia. With time, the baton of control shifted further to the West and such empires as Greek and Roman rose and fell only to pave way for what can be called ‘Islamic Empire’.

    It was only centuries into the statehood of Islam that the name of the sub-region was changed from Anatolia to Asia Minor. This was to delineate between Asia proper and its peripheral link to the West.

    However, to suit the economic ambition of the Western powers, the name, again, came to be called ‘Middle East’, after oil was discovered in that area in the 19th century. The main objective of re-naming that area ‘Middle East’, at that time, according to some historians, was to severe it, if psychologically, from the continent called Asia, as a way of precluding the latter from competing with the West for the wealth of that peninsular in future.

    Read Also: Ugwuanyi hands over two rebuilt mosques to Muslim community in Nsukka

    Analysis

    The name ‘Middle East’ is, therefore, a political nomenclature coined by the West to enable the region serve two fundamental purposes. One purpose was for it to serve as the bastion of the energy to be used in propelling the emerging Western industrialisation. The other was to use the area as a fortress against any cultural incursion of the East into the West.

    The West was able to realize these two objectives due to irreconcilable differences between the Arabs and the Persians on the one hand, despite the cord of Islam that binds them together, and to initiate a permanent dissension among the Arabs themselves generally, on the other hand. Britain was, of course, in the forefront of this schism. And, politically speaking, it is in the interest of the West that the two blocks (Sunni and Shia) do not unite. If they had been allowed to unite, the power equation of the world, as currently constituted, would have tremendously been to the benefit of Islam and the Muslims. And, that would have propelled Islam beyond the imagination of the entire world powers.

     

    Explanation

    Today, the ‘Middle East’ consists of two main blocs: the Arabs and the Persians. The former includes the North African countries. The latter includes the South East of the now defunct Soviet Union. It must be remembered that the great Islamic scholar and narrator of Hadith, Abu Abdullah Ibn Isma’il, Ibn Ibrahim Ibn Al Mughirah Al-Bukhari, simply known as Imam Al-Bukhari, was a Persian from a country called Uzbekistan today. His home town in that country was Bukhara, which was why Bukhari was part of his name. Uzbekistan shares a border boundary with Iran.

    The differences between the Arabs and the Persians became irreconcilable because of the two racial-based political ideologies which engendered power struggle between them. One of those ideologies is Sunni. The other is Shi’a. But the real truth is that both blocs only came under the cover of Islam for undisclosed agenda which is power acquisition.

    When the seat of the Islamic Caliphate shifted to Turkey in 1453 CE, it was thought that the ranks of the Muslim Ummah would be closed if only to further the course of Islam. But that did not happen.

    For almost 500 years that the Ottoman Empire lasted, the concentration was rather on power grabbing than a focus on strengthening Islam.

    After the final fall of the Islamic Caliphate in Turkey in 1924, what the remnants of that empire did was to recline into its pre-Islamic status by replacing Islamism with racial or tribal nationalism. The only unifying factor that remained intact among the Turkish people, thereafter, was language. The fact that some ancient races like the Mesopotamians, the Assyrians, the Phoenicians and the Barbarians of North Africa had lost their languages to Arabic, several centuries back, made it impossible for those races to break relationship completely with the real Arabs of the Gulf region. But each race under the old imperial nomenclature preferred to remain as the head of a dog rather than the tail of a lion. That was the ambitious concept that lured the late President Saddam Hussein of Iraq to the inordinate ambition of expansionism which eventually drove him to the gallows in 2006.

    More will soon be written about disunity among Muslims especially the intra disunity. Please, watch out.