Category: Friday

On October 1, President Buhari will roll out the drums on his administration’s achievements especially since the last independence anniversary, but more generally since the beginning of his presidency. He will tout his achievements in infrastructure, including massive investments in road construction works going on around the country, the rejuvenation of interstate train system, the ongoing economic diversification efforts, anti-terrorism struggle and, of course, the fight against corruption.

On their part, the president’s opponents will do all they can to invoke nature and force it to rain on his parade. They will point to bread and butter issues that afflict the well-being of the population. They will decry salary backlog in states and local governments. They will highlight the persistent division among Nigerians under the President’s watch. They will shout about lopsided appointments in the federal workforce. And of course, they will pooh-pooh achievements in the anti-terrorism and anti-corruption efforts.

Neither side will be completely honest or forthcoming about the true nature of the national crisis. But as our people know too well, the honey bee and the wasp may deny culpability as much as they like, there is visible evidence of the farmer’s swollen eyes. As wearers of the shoe, the people can unmistakably point to where it pinches. The rain that started beating us since at least 1999 is still heavy and hard. We are a nation in crisis.

Most fundamentally, we have a crisis of national self-doubt because we have not come to terms with our existence as one united nation and this is more than half of what ails us and limits our growth. Consider an analogy. An individual entertains serious doubts about his or her existence. Does anyone expect him or her to make any progress in life? What impact can a self-doubting person make? Does he or she even have the presence of mind to set goals and plan toward their achievement?

A nation in doubt of itself is like an individual in self-doubt. It cannot fulfil its destiny because of its internal tumult. At 58, Nigeria is still at the point it was in 1953 when the late Chief Anthony Enahoro moved the motion for independence and hell broke loose. Thirteen years later, and six short years after independence, we fought a bloody war of unity. We might argue that those episodes were understandable. Nations put together by external masters go through such initial toothache. But fifty-eight years after? And we are still arguing about our common existence?

Consider our sister nation to the south. Rwandans went through hell. Who would think that Rwanda can ever be one nation again considering how genocide tore into the heart of the country in 1994? Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, reflecting on the Rwandan experience in 2014, 20 years after genocide, observed that in 1994, Rwanda was “a shell of a nation.” But with strong leadership, not just of one person, but the united leadership of the political elite, Rwanda has turned the tide and has recorded amazing progress.

In the words of Mr. Blair: “Over the last decade economic growth has exceeded 8% per annum. Investment is flowing into Rwanda and investors are made welcome. Even without natural resources, the country is economically vibrant.” Most importantly, “Rwandans are increasingly united. There is a strong patriotism and belief in government—–a majority of the population, born post-genocide, has inherited the possibility of a different future.”

Even with comparable experiences of internal conflict, however, there is a stark difference between Nigeria and Rwanda in terms of a determination to move on. Children born after the civil war are the most virulent objectors to the idea of one nation. They may have their reason.

Tony Blair again gives us a clue: “In little over five years more than a million Rwandans have lifted themselves out of poverty. The proportion of children dying before their fifth birthday has more than halved, and when they reach seven years old, they can nearly all go to school. Most of the population is covered by health insurance, and malaria deaths have fallen more than 85% since 2005. Crime is very low. Women can walk the street at night safe.”

Compare the Rwanda statistics with Nigeria’s and you will understand the difference between Rwandan sense of patriotism and Nigerian apathy.

There is a crisis of national self-regeneration. A nation with a neglected youth population cannot expect to have a future. But look around your neighborhood and you will not miss the sea of heads that roam about aimlessly and hopelessly. Unlike Rwanda, we have many more children out of school than are in school. Those in school hardly have good education and therefore are hardly expected to contribute to the development of the country. Why are we surprised that they resort to hard crime? This accounts for our national crisis of value degeneration, the subject of this column some weeks ago.

Rwanda has no natural resources. Yet, it is able to achieve 8% growth, give good education to its youth, and offer health insurance to its citizens, cutting malaria deaths by 85%. Nigeria has natural resources but is unable to give good education to its youth and its citizens die prematurely of malaria and other preventable infectious diseases. What makes the difference in these outcomes despite the advantage Nigeria has resource-wise?

It is corruption and a diseased and greedy leadership that is enmeshed in it. With a security vote that is bigger than the allocation to local governments available to governors, with a sense of impunity that enables cabinet members and heads of parastatals to dig their hands into the purse of government with no accountability, with a National Assembly that allocates funds to itself without a sense of responsibility to the people, the resources that should go into education and health end up in the pockets of tin-gods. With these, they call the shots and recycle themselves for political offices. We have a national crisis of con-artists.

But it is not all a tale of woe. There is a silver lining with people taking the driver’s seat on voting. Ultimately, there is a prospect of change if genuine democracy is enthroned. Whoever comes on top in the rerun of the governorship election in Osun State, one huge takeaway from the exercise should delight all Nigerians: democracy is winning the race against its enemies, known and unknown.

It is hard to believe that a state ruled by a party that also controls the center finds itself as the underdog in an electoral battle. But this is no longer news. It has happened before, indeed twice recently, in nearby Oyo State. This is evidence that we have moved past the do-or-die electoral politics of the early days of this republic especially between 2003 to 2011 when federal might was used with impunity to crush political opponents and INEC was anything but independent as it shamelessly served as a branch of the federal government.

It is easy to forget the moral atrocity committed by morally bankrupt national leaders who now sanctimoniously assume the role of critics-at-large and present themselves as crusaders for good governance. But we have a duty to remind them of the havoc they did to the stunted growth of democracy in the land.

If we discountenance the 1999 elections because the military was the umpire, we were witnesses to the 2003 coup against the will of the people. It got so worse in 2007 that even the most important beneficiary of the electoral heist, late President Umaru Musa Yar’ Adua was so embarrassed by the depth of the depravity that he was forced to set up an Electoral Reform Committee.

Since 2015, INEC has commendably proved itself as our fortress against dictatorship parading as democracy. If the people are free to choose their representatives at the polls, they know what their interests are and will vote accordingly, even when leaders try to impose their wills on them. Of course, if they allow themselves to be bought by funds siphoned from the national coffers, they will have burnt their behinds by negating their interests.

As government of the people by the people and for the people, democracy has a fundamental requirement: the people are to be in charge. Where and when it is impossible for the people to rule themselves directly, as is the case with all modern states, they are to delegate the responsibility of governance to their preferred representatives, voluntarily chosen by them. This is supposedly the next best alternative to direct democracy.

African nationalists and freedom fighters used to criticise the Western practice of democracy, including its party system, on the ground that it is prone to disunity and instability. Mwalimu Nyerere once boasted that Tanzania’s one-party system was more democratic than the two-party systems of the West. It was an unjustifiable self-adulation at best, a condemnable deception at worst.

A one-party system of democracy is an oxymoron. It lacks the freedom of association that a two-party or multi-party system guarantees. If the inherent conflict associated with party system is a problem, a no-party system is a viable alternative. And it is closer to our traditional village governance system where elders meet in the village square and debate until they reach a consensus.

We try to persuade ourselves to believe that we have escaped the village system with its mix of authoritarian and democratic tendencies. But it is a false belief. While we love the allure of democracy and we consider it an honor to be counted among the elite states that embrace democracy, our old habits refuse to die. So, we espouse democracy in name while we are closet authoritarians.

The tendency permeates our entire system. But nowhere is it more visible or more prone to be damaging to our standing as a democracy than in the choice of our representatives—councilors and chairs, governors and states assembly members, national assembly members and president. In this all-important business of democracy, we have a unique approach which does not fail to amaze our fellow human beings elsewhere.

First, we entrench a party system that generates political parties by the minute. At the last count, there are more than 90 political parties in Nigeria and we are not done yet. But try and come up with the differences in ideological orientation of these parties and you will fail woefully. Uncle Bola Ige famously christened the Abacha political parties as the five fingers of a leprous hand. Our Fourth Republic political parties are the hundred legs of a centipede. The choice of one over the other can only be a preference informed by personal interest, which is why defection has become a pastime of the rolling stones of this era.

Second, our system-wide homage to the authoritarianism inherent in our various traditions ensures that our “democratically” elected officials, from the ward level to the government houses, see themselves as super human deputies of the gods, a status which tradition assigned to kings and queens, who now hold their positions at the pleasure of the new “democratic monarchs”. With the power of the purse, and the monopoly of force at their beck and call, democracy must bend to their will.

Third, once in authority with all the trimmings of office and its immense advantages, leaving office and losing them all is a bitter pill to swallow. Many former governors in the United States take up positions in academia, consulting, or nonprofit organisations where they use their experience to advance and promote issues of importance to them and the nation Our governors instead nominate themselves for senate because nothing else is a fit for their ego.

Fourth, our inherited authoritarianism ensures that once in power, we cannot entertain criticism or opposition. Those who fail to understand this principle and assume that democracy protects our freedom to express our opinion without fear of persecution are in for shock. They must be prevented from advancing their interests in any shape or form, talk less of holding political positions in elective or appointive capacities.

This is the truth. Authoritarianism rules.

All Progressive Congress (APC) has had its own share of political crisis in recent times. Mass defection is only one and not the most critical. An influential member of the party who is also an official of the National Assembly told me almost a year ago that what could stand between the party and victory in 2019 is internal to the party. He said that the choice of candidates for the party was the Herculean task that it cannot screw up.

When the Chairman of APC, Comrade Adams Oshiomhole, announced prior to the Osun State APC primary that the party had resolved to adopt the direct primary approach, I thought that the party has finally got it. But alas, I was too fast.

Let’s avoid sentimentalism. The party constitution allows for both direct and indirect primary as well as choice by consensus. Therefore, whichever of these three any individual or group insists on is within their right. Of course, what is important is what the party as a group agrees to. And the rational approach to coming to such a decision is to weigh the pros and cons of each for the success of the party at the polls.

There is little doubt about the advantages of direct primary over indirect primary or consensus. Consensus sounds attractive because it presumably avoids conflict. But it shares with indirect primary, the perception of an imposition of a candidate on all party members. In both, a select few—whether appointed or elected as delegates to party convention—decide for the party who their candidate is.

In the various analyses and expositions since the controversy broke, another disturbing issue has been raised. It is the elephant in the room: corruption. One delegate who contributed to the discourse conceded that delegates invested in their election or selection and it would be unfair to deny them the opportunity to reap from their investment. For him, direct primary which throws the election of candidates open to the members of the party does just that. Powerful governors also have an interest in controlling who succeeds them and/or who gets the nod of the party for higher offices. It is a matter of protecting their behind.

There is more. Some of our progressive governors are themselves born authoritarians. They ride to power because they sell themselves to party leaders and members as progressive democrats who care for the people. When they assume power, however, they show their true color. They put on a know-all garb and no one can reach them again. With a broken system that allows gubernatorial appropriation of state resources, they become almighty king-makers, and no one dare challenge them. For them, the national party decision on processes and procedures means nothing if it is against their interest. This accounts for the phenomenon of governors announcing the names of candidates for various elective positions on a notice board! Where is the openness and transparency? This is what our democracy has come to.

Direct primary is no respecter of persons. But the equality of interests which it assumes is the bulwark of democracy. Surely, there are some genuine challenges to the successful execution of direct primaries, the most important of which is the availability of an accurate register of party members. But this is not an insurmountable challenge. In this brave new world of technology, membership registration and regular update is a no-brainier.

Direct primary is the most democratic option for the choice of party candidates for election in a true democracy. It assures registered members of a party that they are in charge. In turn, those members, feeling empowered, are encouraged to use their voting power to elect candidates of their choice. Even if their candidate loses the primary battle, they are highly motivated to vote for the candidate of their party in the general election. This is how democracy is supposed to work. It is not meant for one man or one woman, no matter their position, to impose their will on the people.

Democracy insists, clearly and justifiably, that every adult citizen is a stakeholder in its project. A progressive party must respect this important norm of democracy.

AAA: “ My take on the efforts to situate the roots of our moral malaise goes deeper into the “stupidity” of the choices of the kinds of cultural, institutional and personal choices and arrangements we make and celebrate that together fix our currently dysfunctional and degenerative society.”

Me: “I agree that the choices of our cultural, political, and economic institutions can ameliorate or aggravate our personal choices especially in the matter of greed. I intend to pursue this line of thought next week.”

AAA: “Segun, don’t forget to tackle the issue of “stupidity” as the baseline for all the evils under the category of your current patriotic expositions. You, of course, know and understand that if “rationality” is given a predominant place in human endeavors then “stupidity” (with its consequential evils) can be reduced to tolerable level in society.”

Upon reading “A nation’s moral abyss” last week, Dr. Amos A. Akingba (AAA), well known for his passion about the promise of Nigeria and the unfortunate dilemma of a nation that is great in potentials but is condemned to a moral abyss, sent me the message summarized above. I responded as indicated. He had the last word, an elder’s instruction: don’t forget to tackle the issue of “stupidity”.

Therefore, I have two tasks today. First, I will discuss further how cultural, political, and economic institutions that we choose might impact our natural tendency to be greedy. Second, I will explore the matter of stupidity and rationality in choice making.

My argument last week was that among ignorance, poverty, and greed, the last is the major culprit because it is a cause of poverty and ignorance. Therefore, to the extent that we individually indulge and nurture greed, we are also effectively cultivating poverty and ignorance.

The period of our history when we embraced the traditional culture of modesty was the time when we also witnessed the most ethical development outcomes led by leaders who were keen on progressive development of their regions. However, those individuals might not have been self-restrained if the culture was not averse to greed. Therefore, we must take cognizance of the restraining influence of indigenous culture. A son or daughter who brought shame to the family or community because of greed was liable to condemnation and ostracism.

All these changed with the destruction of the indigenous systems of morality, first by colonial invaders, and second, by a new intellectual, business, and political elite created in the image of prodigal military oligarchs who felt no moral compunction about satisfying their desires at the expense of the country. Today, that mentality of “enjoy today for tomorrow we all die” is widespread, from the lowliest to the highest. Therefore, if there is to be a change, we must embrace traditional cultural restraints.

Whether we made a choice of our cultural, economic and political institutions or they are imposed on us, we must come to terms with their significance. They can negatively or positively impact our approach to making personal choices. Clearly, if they are weak and unresponsive to the needs of the nation, they are likely to impact our personal choices negatively. This has been our experience thus far.

Now to the issue of the “stupidity” of our choices as the major culprit in our descent into the abyss. I sympathize with this view of the matter. But let us explore the issue of choices further.

We make a choice of ends as well as means. The stupidity or rationality of our choice of means is dependent on our choice of ends. If my end is to get to London from Lagos as quickly as possible, it would be stupid of me to choose travel by sea as means. However, if I have no time constraint, I may rationally choose sea voyage for adventure. Note here that the rationality of means depends on the choice of end. To judge the rationality of my travel end, other things about my situation needs to be known. Can I afford it? Will I miss an important event? etc.

What is our end as a nation? What means have we chosen to reach that end? This, I think, is the heart of our challenge. We cannot judge the rationality or stupidity of our choice of means, whatever that is, without an agreement on what our choice of end is.

Aristotle suggested that the ultimate end of any human endeavor is happiness or living well. He also gave the state the responsibility for promoting the happiness of citizens. Generations of political thinkers have simply provided series of footnotes to this Aristotelian doctrine. And political leaders have been judged based on their fidelity to this view. Yet it is not uncommon for some states to be outliers.

If the end of the state is the happiness of its citizens, what is the most effective means of achieving this end? There is obviously no universal answer to this question. Hence, the variety of approaches in political and economic ideologies, from liberalism to authoritarianism, from communism to capitalism, and from federalism to unitarism. For reason of space, we cannot go into the merits and demerits or stupidity and rationality of political and economic ideologies.

But in the matter of the rationality or stupidity of the structure of governance that individual states choose as means to the end of citizen happiness, Chief Obafemi Awolowo propounded a theory that has not been disproved. In a multiethnic and multilingual country, the federal system of government is the most effective means to achieve political stability and progress, and thus the happiness of the people. If this is valid, and if the happiness of the people is our end as Aristotle suggested, and we choose a unitary structure of governance for a multiethnic state, we have made a stupid choice.

But the “if” is significant. Despite constitutional provisions, I am not sure that we have a consensus on the end for this country or for every citizen. We entered our independence era with a morbid fear of one another, cheered on by the masters of “divide and rule” who set us against ourselves. This fear caused a civil war and years of military rule, which applied a wrong medicine for treating the fear. It didn’t work. But what the military ended up doing is reopen our hearts and minds to the natural urge for greed, which they themselves exemplify in varying degrees. With oil money freely flowing, it worked.

Now, while the fear of the “other” still motivates us and prevents us from a consensus on the end of the nation, a more sinister challenge is the monster of individualism and greed which cuts across ethnicities and nationalities. This makes it easy for the elite to reach a consensus on how to rape the economy for their benefit without minding an ethnic uprising. It is all done within the rubric of the rule of law. NASS controls its budget and can prescribe emoluments as it wills. The average citizen welfare may not be a priority and they don’t have the last say because their vote is subject to negotiation in the marketplace of vote buying and selling.

If, despite constitutional provisions, the elite consensus about the ends of the Nigerian state is the operative one, and if they choose the means that align with their choice of ends, what is stupid or rational is relative to the end of the elite. There is a worse-case scenario. With ambitious ego run amok, there may not even be an elite consensus and then you have a clash of individual ends. With this, there is bound to be a clash of means as well, each most effective for the ends for which it is chosen.

Clearly, we are in a worse situation than we initially thought. Our politics is in a free-for-all mode in which a Hobbesian war of all against all is in full view. It is not a coincidence that Hobbes’ theory is applied to a situation of anarchy in the state of nature. With our moral abyss condition, we are undoubtedly in a metaphorical state of nature.