The Nation Newspaper

Category: Segun Gbadegesin

  • Democracy lessons from America

    Democracy lessons from America

    Segun Gbadegesin

     

    “DEMOCRACY prevailed”, President-elect Joe Biden declared with a passion that he rarely displayed during the election season. It was the appropriate feeling. After a baseless and dangerous assault on democratic institutions which have been the pride of a nation for more than two centuries, righteous indignation is warranted.

    The assault was not unanticipated. A candidate refused to commit to accepting the results of the elections even before the first votes were cast. It wasn’t the first time. In 2016, the same candidate refused, suggesting at a point in a debate that he would accept, before completing the sentence dramatically with “if I win.”

    That should have been a signal for every democracy-respecting politician regardless of party affiliation. They should have raised their voices to stop the demagogue from debasing the pride of the nation. But they didn’t. He won then, and the losing candidate called to congratulate him in the middle of the night, and conceded publicly within twenty-four hours, pledging her support for the new administration. That was the norm and the expectation. Until now.

    A maverick candidate with a resolve to shatter norms appealed to the worst instincts of his fellow human species with bitterness eroding their sense of right and wrong, and rammed his way through a political party which sells itself as a conservatory of norms and values. Many in the party saw him for what he was then, and they knew that he had displayed the essence of who he is. They characterized him in unflattering terms. But he won fair and square. Then each of them was transfigured from critic to sycophant, abandoning their brand which has now been all but ruined.

    What, however, is the beef? What is the complaint of the loser-in-chief? His campaign lawyers insinuated voter fraud in the court of public opinion. But when they had their day in the court of law where it mattered for their case, they avoided the language of voter fraud because they knew it can’t be proven. Thus, out of the 60 court cases they filed, they lost 59 and won 1. Not a bad statistic for democracy! The one they won had to do with the counting of a few late votes in Pennsylvania, which had not been counted anyway. It didn’t change the outcome of the state election.

    Still, what was the basis of the allegation of voter fraud in the court of public opinion? This election year has been an enormous challenge. Coronavirus pandemic which was downplayed by the administration has killed more than 300,000 Americans to date and infected more than 16 million. States and local government officials faced a daunting task of conducting elections in a pandemic-ridden environment with the potential of risking the lives of poll workers and voters. In their wisdom, they decided to expand their mail-in voting capacities. Strangely, one candidate saw this as a fraudulent option, and endlessly railed against it.

    Voters defied all obstacles including the fear of Covid-19 infection. In record numbers, they took advantage of legal mail-in voting, in-person early voting, and in-person Election Day voting, shattering previous records by huge numbers. The tirade against mail-in voting didn’t deter them. Neither did the threat of Election Day intimidation by “poll watchers” stop them from exercising their right.

    Some state legislatures and county board of elections, obviously being clever by half, instituted policies that prevented mail-in ballots from being counted earlier than in-person Election Day ballots. Thus, in some states and counties, Election Day ballots gave the appearance that the Republican candidate was winning because Republicans largely voted in-person on Election Day while Democrats mostly voted by mail or early. But when election officials started to count mail-in ballots, the result shifted significantly in favor of Biden. This is where the allegation of fraud and mysterious ballot dumps came from. All the efforts of the president’s lawyers have been directed toward throwing out these legally counted mail-in ballots.

    Election officials, having authorized mail-in voting and other precautions for safe election, not ready to compromise their integrity, stuck to their decision and refused to budge despite pressure from the highest office in the land. Even the closest allies of the President became his staunch enemies in the process. The Attorney-General who didn’t refrain from doing anything no matter how compromised for the President, was forced to resign because he declared that his department found no voter fraud. The Cyber Security Chief was fired by the President for declaring that the election was the most secured ever. And the President has all but declared his ally, the Georgia State Governor, a one-term governor for his stand on the election.

    None of the three Supreme Court Justices appointed by the President supported his lawsuit against the results. Same with all his appointed lower court judges some of who dismissed his lawsuit with prejudice. But as the President-elect noted on Monday, the outrage in all of these is that more than half of the Republican elected members of Congress and Attorneys-General from at least 17 states signed their names to a frivolous lawsuit which they must know won’t succeed. This suggests that these so-called leaders are weak in character. But for the strength of the institutions and a few men and women of sturdy character, American democracy would have been irreparably damaged.

    And so, democracy prevailed because some chose to serve with conscience as my friend put it in a recent exchange. And here is the special lesson from the American election. The issue is not just about the outcome of the election, as important as that is. Surely, there are many who support the policies of the Trump administration, including its inward-looking America First agenda. There is nothing wrong with that. Election has consequences and a president must be seen to be committed to the mandate given him or her. But the absence of values of decency and honesty is distressing for many, including members of the President’s party, especially the Lincoln Project sponsors who battled him to submission.

    Yet, that’s not all the lesson. If the president and his team had their way, their goal is the disenfranchisement of millions of black and brown voters who live in battleground states and counties where their votes were instrumental to his loss. Democracy is a game of numbers. But the lesson this trite axiom should teach politicians is the need to multiply their numbers. Unfortunately, it appears that the lesson Trump and his allies learnt is to subtract rather than add, to divide rather than multiply. They would rather disenfranchise black and brown voters rather than enact policies that would attract them to the Republican Party. That, obviously, is not a smart strategy.

    In the final analysis then, to survive the weakness of human nature and thrive, democracy depends on strong institutions and some honest brokers who believe in its ideals. We have no assurance that there will be no rogue actors and chaos agents every now and then. In a long time, America has not had this kind of disruptive agent on the national scene with such a herd following. As many smart commentators have suggested, it is how fascism begins and triumphs. What this means is that even the oldest modern democracy is not immune from the threat of fascism. This time, the dedication of a few patriots saved the nation.

    Nigeria is a baby democracy with severe teething problems not least of which is the tendency toward authoritarian dictatorship with a cat and mouse relationship between the elite and the masses in both private and public sectors. Whereas American democracy has created strong institutions and has produced some committed institutionalists ready to defend the system against attack, Nigeria has not even started that task. Egoistic human nature still runs through the veins of many citizens and leaders. “What’s in it for me?” is their philosophical posture and their assumption is that everyone has a price. If no one is ready to defend the system, and there are rogue agents waiting in the wings to game it, we cannot count on it sustaining itself. This is our stark reality.

     

    • For comments, send SMS to 08111813080

  • Seeking common ground

    Seeking common ground

    Segun Gbadegesin

     

    IF the debate over restructuring can be construed as the battle for the soul of this nation, what we have had recently is a remarkable raging of the weapons of war. And while some battles are avoidable if only there is adequate attention to grievances across fault lines so it is in the matter of the soul of the nation. For if we succeed in redeeming the soul of the nation, there is no denying that it will redound extremely well for every citizen, group, nationality or religion.

    The soul of the nation is the perfect equilibrium, the eternal gift that keeps giving. We saw an inkling of it in the First Republic when each region had its optimal development of material and human resources unlike the lopsided inequitable development that we have had since 1966. Everyone knows that this is true. But not everyone feels the need to change the status quo probably because it benefits them. And why bother about others when you feel on top of the world! The reason to bother is simply that inequity breeds grievance which breeds discontent which natural breeds agitation and, ultimately, revolt. Humans are wired to complain and struggle against an unacceptable condition of existence. That is what we have been witnessing play out before our eyes. So, to the unconcerned, there is reason to panic.

    What do you do if you are concerned and want to be part of the solution? You make rational moves to change the situation. Fortunately, this has been going on on many fronts by individuals and groups in the last many years. And as I discuss below, there are competing approaches which are coalescing around key proposals.

    Of course, we must note that as intense as the demand for restructuring has been in the past few decades, a substantial segment of the population still resists it on the ground that the structure is good as it is. A few say it loud, many are silent resisters for fear of being branded as such and loathed. The resisters have a number of reasons ranging from blaming the operators rather than the constitution, or recommending a restructuring of the mind instead of the polity. What they don’t care to consider is that centralization facilitates corruption and undermines the development of the states.

    Let us dismiss the position of the resisters as self-servicing, to the detriment of the collective interests of the nation. If it works for them, it doesn’t matter whether the nation as a whole makes progress. That’s unfortunate.

    For the many who see the wobbling structure as needing repair and reconstruction, there is not one proposal but many. It is understandable and it is a good sign that we are all interested in the work that needs to be done. The challenge is that the more we delay the resolution of the many differences that set us apart, the more difficult it is to come to a resolution. And as we have come to see in recent weeks, the delay has kept open the door of disenchantment and disillusionment giving rise to calls for separation and divorce.

    For those who agree that there is need for restructuring, there is also unfortunately no meeting of mind. The recent discourse is not even about the substance of the desired outcome. Rather, the focus has been on process and what is desirable to be done. Thus, some insist that what is needed is some simple work and it must be through NASS in the assurance that since APC manifesto endorses restructuring, and its committee has prepared the way, it shouldn’t be a hard sell. On this view, what needs to be done is amend the 1999 constitution to devolve power to states by removing functions from the Exclusive to the Concurrent list and providing necessary resources for states to perform those functions, possibly including state police.

    There is no doubt that if there is the political will, and we are not into the territory of deception, this is the quickest way to get something done. The two pertinent questions are: First, is the will there and it’s not all deception? Second, is it just about getting something done, no matter what and how inadequate it is?

    These questions makes sense given the time that has been wasted over the years, including especially the last five years since APC administration which campaigned on restructuring as devolution of power. This is what has frustrated even the most sympathetic of restructuring advocates. If you are forever preparing for madness, when will you sink your crazy teeth into a tree trunk?

    Consequent upon this frustration, but also because of a much different understanding of what is needed to move the nation forward on equitable grounds, the second approach insists that what is needed is not so simple and cannot be achieved through NASS. What is needed, the argument goes, is a fundamental redrawing of the structure of the federation and not just an amendment of the 1999 constitution.

    The necessary process cannot be achieved through NASS because NASS is a product of a flawed 1999 constitution which itself assumes and privileges unitarism. If unitarism is the problem, then the constitution that assumes and privileges it cannot just be amended; it must be rejected and a new federal constitution enacted. Furthermore, on this argument, the approach of power devolution is unacceptable because it is still operating within the unitary constitution when what is needed is a complete abandonment of unitarism.

    Now, the NASS Constitution Amendment Committee has rightly acknowledged that enacting a new constitution is above its pay grade or even that of NASS as a body. It follows that what the second approach is demanding is outside the purview of the NASS. Only a Constituent Assembly can propose a new constitution. To this end, there have been various suggestions on how best to get this done.

    One proposal is that each nationality unit conduct a referendum which seeks to know and register the constitutional preferences of its members. On the basis of its findings, each nationality should prepare a constitution of its liking. Each nationality will then meet at a Constituent Assembly to figure out through dialogue and consensus a new constitution. The idea behind this approach is the understanding that nationalities are the component units of the federation of Nigeria and they must be the ones to determine a new constitution, whatever it is that they desire. Of course, dialogue and consensus or majority decision will be the modus operandi of the national conference with the hope that a minimal consensus of a workable federal arrangement is achievable.

    Between the two approaches, there is a stark difference of night and day, and without a bending of iron minds on either side, it will take some miracle for us to get anything done, which of course will be pleasing to the resisters.

    While the second approach is most likely to give us a lasting solution to the challenges of governance, it is the more difficult to achieve within our present context. The stumbling block includes the existing constitution through which any act still has to be measured. NASS, a creation of the constitution, is alive and it is the 800 pounds gorilla in the room. It will have to use its constitutional authority to create a new body, a Constituent Assembly or National Conference which will then propose a Draft Constitution to be enacted by the NASS. Will it? President Goodluck Jonathan bypassed NASS in 2014 and we saw how that effort ended.

    Meanwhile, is there a middle ground on which we can chew gum while we are also jogging to the finish line of constitution making? Can there be a movement that acknowledges what needs to be done urgently in the matter of devolution of power for security and other matters while not assuming or pretending that it’s all that is needed for restructuring? In other words, can we move on both fronts taking one step at a time? Reason would seem to be on this side of compromise. Otherwise, the resisters prevail in the end.

     

    • For comments, send SMS to 08111813080

  • More on a nation divided

    More on a nation divided

    Following my analysis of the roots of our national division on this page two weeks ago, I received messages from two colleague-friends for whom I have a lot of respect. While they did not disagree with the fundamentals of my position, they raised some interesting points about what they thought I should not have left out of consideration. It is worthy of note that while they wrote me separate messages, they raised similar if not identical issues. I would like to address their concern today.

    I should start with a brief summary of my position from last week. We have a divided nation. But there is more to our division than ethnicity and religion, which have often been our focus of attention on this matter. Of course, we have ethnic and religious differences. But if these are well-managed with policies that prioritize equitable access to national resources so that, as the founding fathers had hoped, no one is oppressed or marginalized, we would have little or no division now. We are a nation divided because, in national policy and in elite leadership calculations, we abandoned the core values of brotherhood/sisterhood.

    The abandonment of the philosophy of brotherhood/sisterhood has created divisions between haves and have-nots, educated and non-educated, employed and unemployed, well-fed and hungry, privileged and marginalized. We find each of these pairs in every nook and cranny of the country and across every ethnic and religious differences. And while we have often generally focused on these differences as the problem, the marginalized are beginning to see things differently and are asking for their due as a just basis for national unity.

    Take just one statistic. Three years ago, there were 1.7 million undergraduates and about 230,000 graduate students studying in 170 federal, state, and private universities in Nigeria. Yet the ratio of admitted to unadmitted applicants is 1:4. In other words, 75% of applicants don’t receive admission. Some of these may get admitted to other higher institutions including polytechnics, nursing schools, technical colleges, etc. Majority, however, will roam the streets and many of them end up frustrated and give up on their dreams.

    But here is an even grimmer statistic. According to a World Bank study, 33.4% of the national labor force is unemployed this year. 38% of these are graduates of higher institutions. Of course, there are various reasons for this, but policy matters have something to do with many, if not all of them. I should note, however, that this is not all on the watch of the current administration as it is a cumulative effect of years of erratic government policies regarding this matter.

    Parents and grandparents of today’s millennials graduated in the early and mid-70s with two or three job offers waiting for them. There was no discrimination based on ethnicity or religion. The then University of Ife had a career office that mentored students about the interview process. It was easy for those graduates to see themselves as proud citizens of a nation that cared for them. In turn, they represented the nation well to the outside world.

    Dating back to the early and mid-80’s structural adjustment policies, however, private companies were forced to lock their shops and thus a major source of graduate employment was closed. With only federal and state governments and a few private companies, including banks, superstores, and the oil industry now open to hiring graduates, the competition is heart-wrenching. While more than 500,000 undergraduates and graduates graduate from higher institutions yearly, less than half of these can expect to have jobs. Jobs are just not growing at a rate as fast as the rate of the growth of labor force. And unfortunately, many youths who made sacrifices to do what the adults asked them to do aren’t just a happy lot now. Their unhappiness and frustration with the system is playing out on the streets.

    Now, my friends agree with the analysis thus far. They also agree that this is a fruitful way of understanding our division. But they are worried that I have left out of my analysis what they regard as two of the main sources of division, namely ideology and partisanship.

    Here’s how one of them puts it: It may not appear to you that we are an ideologically divided nation. But we really are. There is a section of our population that would rather conserve the values of the past, while another section would like to move us in progressive steps. It has always been so since the beginning of the republic. The radicalism of the South against colonialism and its aggressive demand for independence wasn’t appreciated by the North. On his part, my second friend brings up the issue of partisan divide as an offshoot of the ideological divide. Surprisingly to me, he sees the apparent tension in the struggle for political power especially by the strongest political parties as a reflection of a fundamental division.

    To be honest, while I had expected objections to my analysis, I did not expect that these two—ideology and partisanship—would be the basis for any serious objection. I had expected to be criticized by readers who might seriously believe that I had downplayed the role of ethnicity and religion. After all, most of us have grown up experiencing the harm caused by an overbearing influence of ethnic and religious jingoism on national politics.

    Furthermore, these differences still appear to be in the forefront of our thoughts. However, my point is simply that those differences by themselves are not at the root of our division as they play out in the public arena. Rather it is our mismanagement of those differences that create divisions which turn out to be very difficult to bridge. Needless to add that a large part of that mismanagement includes using political power to inordinately and unjustifiably prioritize the interests of one’s own ethnic or religious group while frustrating those of others.

    Now, the matter of ideology is easy to dismiss. I have yet to see any form of ideological division in our national politics that is strong enough to cause fundamental division. The reference to the colonial era and the nationalist struggle seems to be a misconception of what happened then as ideology. That the North was reluctant to move at the same fast pace as the South wanted in the struggle for independence was less of an ideological issue than it was of a pragmatic understanding of the reality of her status vis-à-vis the South.

    The North wasn’t ready, not because she wanted to conserve values, but simply because she didn’t want to be a junior partner in the Nigerian enterprise. You cannot begrudge that political calculation. The South would also be as hesitant if she was in the position the North found herself. The culprit was the colonizer who shielded the North from the educational advancement it allowed in the South.

    Assume, however, that with a stretch, we may identify some ideological difference between the Action Group’s Democratic Socialism and the Northern People’s Congress’ One North, One Destiny, it is hard to identify any ideological division between our present national political parties. APC and PDP are both center-right political parties with similar manifestos. They both claim to be for the people. In the time that each party has controlled the center, they have worked on constitutional amendment. However, neither of them has done anything about the fundamental structure of the constitution.

    Most importantly, the fact that members of the leadership cadre of each party have found it easy to ditch their parties and to move effortlessly between parties should tell us something about the (lack of) ideological difference between them. On this point, consider, how unappealing American political leaders have found changing their political parties even when they have differences of opinion with the way their party is being run. Lincoln Project members who worked against Donald Trump in the November presidential election still retain their membership of the Republican Party. Their hope is to reclaim the party and reposition it as a Conservative party post-Trump. Obviously, that’s not the way we operate here.

  • Thankfulness

    Thankfulness

    Segun Gbadegesin

     

    I HAD prepared for today a draft of a reply to two messages that I received on my reflections on “A nation divided” last week. But it now has to wait till next week because Opalaba called with a reminder that it is thanksgiving time. And my friend insisted that we must be thankful because, as he put it, esu gbe wa gbe wa, a o see gbe. He was going to impress me with his baritone but I resisted, having assured him that I am all in but must get to work.

    What not to be thankful for, especially in this year of the Lord Twenty-twenty? The elders teach us that to be thoughtful is to be thankful. But where does one really begin, since there is so much to be thankful for? We have to be thankful to God first and foremost. He is our beginning and our end and everything in between. Therefore, we begin with Him and we end with Him with our offerings of thanksgiving. For health, we thank God. For protection, we appreciate God. For provisions, we glorify God.

    Next, there is the family, and even here, God is implicated. The gift of a loving family that cares deeply for us is priceless. It is not a commodity that can be purchased. Indeed, we have a just and loving God. If a loving family is a commodity, none but the rich will have access to one. By His grace, we are what we are. I do not take mine for granted. Born into one that loved me and left me with the heritage of a good name, my wife and I are gifted with growing one that loves us unconditionally and continues to make us proud. In March, our children joined us to mark our 50th wedding anniversary. For my wife, my children and their spouses, and my grandchildren, I have uncountable reasons to be thankful.

    Not too far from the family is the community which is more or less an extension of the family and which is a willing partner in nurturing us. On many occasions on this page, I have paid homage to my community of Okeho, its traditional institutions and their capacity for molding young ones in the ethos of good life, with a view to making them genuine Omoluabi, the epitome of character.

    Cornered in the poverty enclave that some elders with a sense of humor used to hail as New Nigeria, the wealth of Okeho is in her capacity to bring the best out of her offspring. Occasionally, situations arise which demonstrate the veracity of this claim. This year, one such occurred when armed robbers targeted Okeho’s only financial institution and were effectively rebuffed by the youth. I am thankful for their bravery and moral courage. I am also thankful for the Onjo and his chiefs, the leadership of the community and stakeholders who continue to make her development and progress their mission.

    I must also be thankful for the government agencies that have shown more than a passing interest in attending to my community’s call for help. Okeho-Iseyin road is under construction, thanks to the intervention of the Federal Ministry of Works and Housing under the leadership of Honorable Minister Babatunde Fashola (SAN). A promise keeper of extraordinary capacity for good deeds, he and his ministry have been God-sent in our hour of need. We appreciate them.

    By extension, and in compliance with scriptural injunction, I am thankful for our governments both here in the homeland and at home away. My scripture tells me that governments are instituted by God. Sometimes, however, I wonder why they do not all act in accordance with God’s will, which I understand to always be for the promotion of the wellbeing of His creatures. But I do not have the capacity for theological disputation. Therefore, I will only follow the injunction to offer my thanks to the One who instituted them. It is His responsibility to make them do His will.

    If it helps, there is a more attractive and appealing way to understand the injunction to be thankful for our governments. On this understanding, the injunction makes reference to the institution of government, which is necessary for the good of the people, rather than specific governments which may be oppressive or tyrannical. Without the institution of government, the likely alternative is anarchy, a Hobbesian state of nature, in which life is brutish, nasty, and short. Thankfully, we have government.

    We should be thankful for our friends, old and new, constant and fickle. They all make life meaningful. I must say that in my case, I have a special grace to be loved and cared for by great friends who in action and word truly define brotherhood. As we know, traditional wisdom tells us that it matters more what friends do in our absence than in our presence. My friends have gone to great lengths attending to my needs when I am not even there to witness their kindness and generosity of spirit. I cannot ask for more and I am thankful.

    I am thankful for this platform and those who make it possible for me to use it to express my views as I see fit on various issues. At the very beginning more than 12 years ago, I got a call from the publishers and management asking me to contribute a weekly back-page column. No questions asked, I accepted. Even when I accepted a position at my day job that added exponentially to my responsibilities there, I did not look back. I did not ask for compensation and wasn’t offered any over the years.

    I am contented that readers value my message and it has been my joy to add my voice to the many prominent voices here. I hope the feeling is mutual. I have not heard of any negative reports on my contributions, though I am not too naïve to think that they are always happy with what I write. Indeed, it is within the realm of possibility that without being direct, they may have been sending me signals in parables, what the elders refer to as aroko. But I am not very good at deciphering aroko. And the beat goes on until it stops.

    Let me say, however, as I make clear in All the Way: Serving with Conscience, that I have lived my life, in various situations, whether in leadership of cultural organizations or in professional career, with a heavy burden of conscience, which I have always tried to discharge consistent with its dictates. I don’t see myself abandoning that path at the dusk of life.

    I am thankful for my Church family, the Bible believing brothers and sisters of Alafia Baptist Church in my home away from home in Maryland. These men and women live in faith and by faith, spreading the love of God in their conduct to others inside and outside of the family of Christians. Founded in 1996 as a Yoruba congregation, the pioneer pastor is Reverend Joel Olusina Ojelade, who worked hard to place the church on the world map. Having announced his retirement, the church has welcomed Reverend Dr. Kayode Opadeji as her new pastor, and the Hosts of Heaven are in agreement. The church is moving on and the gate of hell cannot prevail.

    As I observed above, God is the beginning and the end of my thankful heart. This has been a year like no other in our lifetime. As far as I remember no leap year can compete with 2020 in terms of the doom and gloom that it has shown. Echoing the Psalmist, we can say of our surviving its lethal grip thus far, that we are like those that dream. It is only by the grace of our loving God. The devil has tried and failed.

    In the tradition that we established years ago, I called my friend back and with Yeye joining, we gave praises: A n jola Oluwa o/ A n jola Oluwa o/ Esu gbe wa, gbe wa, a o se e gbe, A n jola Oluwa.

     

     

    Happy Thanksgiving.

     

  • A nation divided

    A nation divided

    Segun Gbadegesin

     

    LET us grant that the aspiration of Nigeria’s founding fathers was to build a united nation. Our undeniable reality now is a virulent division. And between this reality of our being and the becoming of our aspiration, there is a yawning gulf that has refused to be bridged. The roots of our division are to be found in the length, width, and depth of this gulf. My interest today is to navigate this vast chasm between reality and aspiration.

    Many readers would agree with my summation of the matter above. But a lot of thoughtful people would also have good reasons to object. Presumably, both sides would have no problem with the reality of division as I express it here. Their grouse is likely about my statement of the aspiration to unity. If indeed, we have that aspiration for unity, why do we appear more divided now than we were sixty years ago?

    This question is at the heart of the various movements of discontent across the country in recent times. The reasoning seems to be that if unity is turning out to be a mirage, and we are each suffering in various ways for lack of it, we can go our separate ways. It is as if the unity that eludes us at the national level is waiting for us patiently to effortlessly grab at the sub-national levels. The hope, buoyed by this reasoning, is pretty satisfying and invigorating. It has been the motivating force for many who have been disappointed by the current state of the nation.

    The reasoning is not a 21st century invention as it has always been an integral part of our national experience. In the wake of the January 1966 military coup, the North felt betrayed and many voices were raised for secession. It was the rationale for the COR State movement. It was the reason for the Biafra secession and the civil war to stop it. In the wake of the annulment of June 1993 election, it was the motivation for the various Yoruba movements and the clamor for Odudua Republic.

    The point, then, is that there is a tendency, almost universal and natural, it may be argued, to want to find birds of your own feather when you are with birds of different variety that create a tense environment. And for a long time, Nigeria has been a tense environment for many human birds. Furthermore, however, many would argue, rightly I think, that you don’t even need to be in a tense environment to appreciate the desirability of flocking with birds of your own feather. There is something that is attractive and satisfying about it.

    I suggest, however, that the chasm between our reality of division and our aspirational unity can be accounted for by appeal to something more than our sub-national differences. I plead not to be misunderstood. I am not suggesting that sub-national differences have no role to play in our division. I am, however, arguing that its role is indirect and something or other things more fundamental are at stake and need to be understood.

    Let me put this more succinctly: difference is not division and sameness is not unity. Identity is neither good nor bad. It is value neutral. But it can be mismanaged when it is deployed and exploited for political advantage. This is what is morally repugnant and politically dangerous. Just as a mismanaged difference can engender an irreparable division, so a mismanaged sameness can jeopardize desirable unity. Without thoughtful management, nothing is guaranteed. Our story has been one of mismanagement of what many have come to decry as the artificial character of our national existence. If I am correct, the culprit is the mismanagement rather than the existential artificiality.

    The point of the previous paragraph can be made better with another illustration. On one hand, we have made much of kinship, language and culture as part of the defining character of nationality, and as such, they are useful building blocks for national unity. But it has not always worked out because there is hardly a completely homogeneous nationality.  On the other hand, our recent experience of youths across the country, paying no attention to language, religion, or kinship relations of others in the movement, chanting #EndSars in protest against police brutality, should tell us something about their understanding of the roots of national division.

    It is tempting to dismiss this observation. We might construe the illustrations as misleading because it compares apples and oranges. The youth agitation against an oppressive instrument of the state cannot be compared with a whole nationality agitating for a right to self-determination. Now, this must be conceded. A nationality can certainly assert a right to self-determination as an independent entity based on its perceived difference. It doesn’t have to defend such a struggle by appeal to any grievance. But there is a reason that the international community reserves a right to recognize such demands.

    More pertinent, the founding fathers of this nation thought wide and deep among their own peoples and in their various national constitutional conferences before they reached a consensus on coming together and agreeing to stand in brotherhood, despite the differences in tongue and tribe. That agreement was predicated on an expectation, the expectation of a relentless sustenance of the original purpose of a perpetual standing in brotherhood.

    Now, a common understanding of brotherhood or sisterhood is that it is a relationship between brothers/sisters or close friends. More significantly, it is a relationship characterized by a feeling of kinship. In other words, even absent an objective kinship relationship, there is a feeling of kinship. It is a relationship that the Yoruba refer to as ore bi omo iya—a friend like a maternal blood brother/sister. Such a friend, like a maternal blood brother/sister, indeed like spouses following their vows, see their partners as extensions of themselves. If you would not cheat yourself, you will not cheat your friend. If you would not self-oppress, you will not oppress your brother/sister. This was the mind of the founding fathers about the nation they assented to establish.

    The 1960 national anthem, though composed by a foreigner, spoke eloquently to this theme of justice and truth in each of its three stanzas. While the first stanza emphasized brotherhood, the second stanza referred to our flag as “a symbol that truth and justice reign”; honoring the flag “in peace and battle”, we count it as gain, “to hand on to our children a banner without stain”. The final stanza is a prayer that the God of creation will grant our request to “build a nation where no man is oppressed” so that “with peace and plenty Nigeria may be blessed.”

    During the struggle against the annulment of the June 12 1993 election, the World Congress of Free Nigerians, a coalition of prodemocracy movements, insisted on using this 1960 national anthem not just in defiance of the military but simply because it was more meaningful as a reminder of the hopes and aspirations of the founding fathers.

    We are divided now more than at any time in the history of the nation because we have abandoned the original purpose of building a nation where no man/woman is oppressed. We have failed to honor our flag which is no longer a symbol that truth and justice reign and has been serially stained with the blood of the innocent. No wonder peace and plenty have eluded us.

    What divides us is not our different identities whether that be of kinship or religion. We are divided by reason of wealth versus poverty, education versus ignorance, employment versus unemployment, health versus disease.

    We are divided because over the years, privileged citizens in various positions of authority at every level have used their positions to negate brotherhood/sisterhood. They politicize ethnicity. They are well-educated, but they promote ignorance. They are healthy, but they are responsible for the diseased states of fellow citizens. They are well-fed but they cause the hunger of millions. They negatively impact citizens across ethnic nationalities and religions.

    Give these victims their due and you can be assured of national unity.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • Losing a bragging right

    Losing a bragging right

    Segun Gbadegesin

     

    What is going on in the land of the free and the home of the brave? How has the party of Lincoln, the party of emancipation, become the party of authoritarians and narcissists against free and fair election? Am I in a really bad dream or is what I am seeing and hearing for real?”

    I cannot pretend to be clueless about where Opalaba was coming from. In the last four years, we have had on and off discussions over the twists and turns in the American democracy. We have both wondered what has become of the “oldest and greatest democracy” in modern history. But my friend has been the more passionate. For reasons that I cannot fathom, he has felt betrayed.

    “Old chum, aren’t you carrying this thing too far? How has your gba ran mi become the eleru in this matter?” I interjected at the earliest opportunity. “What is your business in this matter?”

    “Of course, you are right” Opalaba replied. “I am more than six thousand miles from the United States. I live in the heartland of Africa, the cradle of civilization, the center of humanity, the homeland of civility and respect for the dignity of human beings. I should not have to worry about the debasement of humanity elsewhere. So, forgive my intervention. But I recall that you have always being a champion of the American democracy. You have always called your readers’ attention to what democracy means using the American model. I still recall your essay on “Where democracy works” a few years ago. You called our attention to the age-old norms of transfer of power, the gracious concession speech of a loser and the inspiring acceptance speech of the winner. So, I ask you, where is that bragging right now?”

    My friend continued: “I am reminded of that old folk song of our elders when they confront a messy situation which, in their wisdom, they had warned about: Mo da, mo da, bi yio ti ri naa ko yi, mo da, mo da. (I am good, I am fine. Is this how it has turned out?) Is this how the best democracy has turned out to be? Is this all there is to American exceptionalism? How can we now challenge our leaders here at home to do better?

    Opalaba was going to continue but knowing that I couldn’t win the argument, I quickly intervened.

    “You are right, my friend, and I didn’t mean to demean your passion about democratic norms. I have always been an incurable admirer of the American system of democratic republic. But I have always recognized the tendency for abuse in any human institution. It is worth noting, however, that while Americans have never created a perfect system, the world has, rightly or wrongly, looked up to what they have as a model to aspire to.”

    Last week, this column’s focus was on the story of America’s journey of democracy, a journey that ostensibly prioritizes the creation of a “more perfect union.” That journey, sometimes sincere, often deceptive, has frequently come up against serious setbacks, not least of which is the deliberate efforts to deny to millions of citizens the right to participate in the democratic process. We saw that the system which we have come to recognize, respect, and applaud as the oldest democracy in modern history has always had a very dark unenviable side.

    In fairness, the United States has always prioritized the creation, building, and strengthening of institutions, systems of rules and practices, which are expected to be strong enough to withstand any roguish attempts, including those aimed at sabotaging the pursuit of a more perfect union. Among these are the checks and balances provided by the three branches of government-presidency, congress, and the judiciary, the semi-autonomous and interdependent relations among the states and the central government, as well as a strong private sector, an economic tail that often wags the political dog.

    The narrative that we are familiar with about America is that even when there is fierce political competition between political parties, liberty or freedom is the ideology common to all. It is the value that they are ready to defend to death. The second is the sanctity of the rule of law which respects no person and those who would dare to test the resolve of the nation to uphold the sacredness of the rule of law, no matter how highly placed they might be, have been known to regret it. President Nixon may be the most remembered of the villains, but he is hardly alone.

    Since 2016, however, it appears that the American story has changed. For the better part of her existence, institutions have withstood the rise of strong men or women. Now, it appears that those same institutions are collapsing to the demagoguery of a strong man with a loyal base. A populist with diabolical intent has taken over and democracy and the rule of law are losing out. How can America brag about having the best democratic system when it is not respecting the will of the people at the polls?

    Isn’t it tragic that at a time we should be celebrating the triumph of democracy in a free and fair election and honoring Joe Biden, the winner, while not despising the loser, we are now forced to wondering what has become of our bragging right?

    Surely, there has always been recognized the right of a losing candidate to challenge the result of an election by asking for a recount or litigating perceived fraud. After Al Gore conceded in 2000, there were many complaints of ballot problems in Florida. He withdrew his concession and asked for a recount. The Supreme Court halted the recount and Gore conceded.

    What we are experiencing now, however, is totally different. Here we have a candidate who has never hidden his intention to accept the result of any election only if he wins. During the Republican primaries in February 2016, Candidate Trump declared about the Iowa results: “Based on the fraud committed by Senator Ted Cruz during the Iowa Caucus, either a new election should take place or Cruz results nullified.” In his contest with Hillary Clinton in 2016, he infamously declined to commit to accepting the result. “We’ll have to see”, he insisted.

    Fast forward to 2020, he is on record saying “I am not a good loser. I don’t like to lose.” This declaration should send a warning signal to his allies to ready themselves for the defence of democracy. If someone tells you that he is not a good loser, you have a responsibility to the system to counsel him and provide whatever emotional support he needs so that he doesn’t burn down the system.

    But Trump didn’t stop at that declaration. He continued with a series of claims that were meant to cast doubt on the integrity of the election. Even though Republican States like Utah have been using mail-in ballot system over the years, Trump declared on August 2, that “there is no way you can go through a mail-in vote without massive cheating.” He himself, his family members and staff, have voted by mail over the years.

    On August 17, Trump asserted that “the only way we’re going to lose this election is if the election is rigged.” On August 24, he railed: “The only way they can take this election away from us is if this is a rigged election.” And on September 13: “The Democrats are trying to rig this election because that’s the only way they’re going to win. In all these rantings, nobody asked him “well, in that case, why do we need an election in the first place? Shouldn’t you just be crowned as the Imperial Majesty?

    In all these, Republican leaders didn’t ring the alarm bell.  And now, they are all in with the conspiracy against democracy. They are counting on the conservative Supreme Court majority to take away the victory from Joe Biden. We have come full circle to Third World Democracy.

    What a way to lose a bragging right! We are all human after all!

     

  • Background to America’s Decision 2020

    Background to America’s Decision 2020

    Segun Gbadegesin

     

    It’s a quadrennial ritual that has become a symbol of the beauty of democracy as defined by one of its consequential admirers, Abraham Lincoln. Hailed as the government of the people, by the people, and for the people, in the land of the free and the home of the brave, it has been anything but.

    In its purest form sold to the world, which was fascinating to Alexis de Tocqueville, its foremost chronicler, the pillars of American democracy include the protection of individual freedom, the rule of law, and free and fair elections. They are the reasons the founding fathers of the American Revolution preferred democracy to aristocracy or monarchy. However, over the centuries since Lincoln delivered his Gettysburg Address, the American presidential election in particular, and “democratic” elections in general, have spiraled through twists and turns, with remarkable shifts in fortune, leading to the nightmarish experience of 2020.

    America has presented herself to the world as the beacon of hope, the citadel of freedom. Her history and contemporary experience tells a different story. For the morally conscious among her leaders, that story could be an embarrassment. To escape the burden of conscience, they hide behind the idea of moving to create a “more perfect union”, an acknowledgement of the gross imperfection of the reality of a system that fails to recognize the humanity of a huge chunk of its members.

    The creation of that perfect union is sure taking forever because whenever it appears to move one step towards progress, the demons within just decide to step on the brake or hit the reverse gear. It has happened again and again, the latest formal effort being the 2013 Supreme Court gutting of the Voting Rights Act, a 1965 Act that barred states with a history of voter suppression based on race from implementing such policies and practices.  The ink had not dried from the pages of the 5-4 majority decision when those states bared their fangs. On the day of the court ruling, the Governor of Texas signed into law a stricter voter identification law. North Carolina followed a few months later. More Republican controlled states followed in quick succession.

    This is nothing new. It is simply a return to the past for which many conservative politicians have feelings of nostalgia. A one-time Senate Majority Leader was forced to resign some years ago for expressing a favorite stance on the late Senator Thurmond’s bid for the presidency on a platform of segregation. Specifically Senator Lott had observed that if Thurmond had succeeded, the nation “wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years.” The serial efforts to suppress the votes of minorities in general and African Americans in particular appear to have been focused on conserving those values of the past so that the nation can avoid having “all these problems”.

    It would not be an issue if those values of the past were consistent with the enthusiasm and pride with which the nation embraced the democratic form of governance and the desire expressed by Lincoln on behalf of the people that it would not perish from the face of the earth. Clearly they are not consistent, and one must give.

    If you embraced democracy, you cannot let states decide who can vote. But that was how the United States began its democracy adventure—with states limiting the vote to white property owners until the 1870 15th Amendment to the Constitution ensured that race was not a barrier to voting. But of course, this did not prevent southern states from instituting barriers such as literacy tests and poll taxes to voting by Black people.  Nationally, women did not have the vote until the 19th Amendment was passed in 1920 and Native Americans, the indisputable original owners of the land, did not get equal citizenship and voting rights until 1924.

    Of course, the amendments were just paper weights in the mighty hands of the states which found various ways to continue their suppression of votes as they willed. At the same time, the struggle for civil rights by African Americans took on the proverbial Goliath because when one is driven to the wall of existence, that’s what reason dictates. So the early and mid-sixties saw the escalation of the struggle which included the fight for the right to vote and, in 1965, the Voting Rights Act was passed and signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson. His often cited prophetic declaration of the consequence of the law, namely that southern states would abandon the Democratic Party was indicative of the depth of the value crisis that America has yet to overcome. That his prophesy came true is even more damning.

    That the 1965 Voting Right Act was the right thing for a nation that claims to be the land of the free is a no brainer. That it was opposed by a significant portion of the population was a moral outrage. But not only was it opposed then, every stumbling block possible has been created to prevent its full implementation. The last straw was the 2013 decision of the Supreme Court to gut it.

    Fast forward to 2020 and we see the most daring assault on whatever remains of the effectiveness of the law. The hate and prideful bigotry that Senator John McCain referenced disapprovingly in his most gracious 2008 concession speech is still a driving force. Cheered on by the highest political office in the land, hate groups fanned across the states, counties, and precincts to intimidate voters. Viral videos are released showing caches of weapons in military style armories ready to go. In a particularly scary case, the subject declared that there will be a civil war in case his candidate lost. A young man was captured by a surveillance camera while burning a drop-off ballot box.

    Beside the obnoxious conduct of individuals and groups, however, states assemblies and county election officials have alarmed democracy activists by how much they were willing to compromise on the requirements of free and fair elections. As a candidate, President Trump himself has not hidden his disdain for these requirements, including the need to make it as easy as possible for voters to cast their ballots especially under the precarious circumstances of coronavirus and to ensure that all votes are counted.

    You cannot rail against mail-in voting in 2020 and think that you are respecting people’s right to vote without endangering their lives. States after states have approached the courts to oppose efforts to ease voter’s discomfort. Texas Governor ordered the limiting of drop-off boxes to one per county. So, voters in a county with a population of more than four million had just one drop-off box. The Republican party of Texas went from State Court to Federal Court with a suit to throw out 127,000 ballots cast in drive-through locations. It lost the case in every court.

    Thankfully, the people are undaunted. Indeed, it appears that the efforts to disenfranchise them have only emboldened and encouraged them. 2020 has been a dreadful year. People just want to end it well and get this election over with, and nothing would stand in their way. Therefore, turnout has been through the roof in early voting including mail-in ballots, absentee votes and in-person voting, surpassing in many counties the total turnout for 2016.

    While Trump’s election slogan is to make America great again, Biden wants to build back better and return decency and civility to governance. Most pundits have believed all along in this election cycle that it is a referendum on the incumbent President especially on his handling of the pandemic which has killed almost 240,000 Americans of all races and gender.

    What is America’s verdict? As at the time this piece is being sent to my editor, the election is still too close to call. Votes are still being counted in battleground states. While one candidate has called for patience, the other has demanded that counting must stop and threatened court action to get his desired outcome. If counting stops, millions of voters will be disenfranchised. But it would not be out of national character.

     

  • A matrix of misfortunes

    A matrix of misfortunes

    Segun Gbadegesin

     

    OPALABA is troubled. My friend is on the verge of psychological collapse. As I listened to the heart-rending tone of his voice over the phone, it occurred to me that we have a lost cause on our hands. I felt a gush of melancholy through my being.

    “They told us that Nigeria is divinely ordained. But why has it been pleasing to the Divine Being to make his ordained nation a matrix of misfortunes?” my friend asked in a tellingly miserable voice.  With some intimate knowledge of Opalaba’s steely heart and the stubborn masculinity of his persona, it was clear to me that what he had gone through was a heart-melting experience.

    “Is it that bad?” was my faint response, making sure that I didn’t provoke my friend’s well-known quick temper.

    “It is more than worse, pal. I witnessed wet-e first hand. That was a child’s play compared to this senseless wasting of young lives and massive destruction of property. In the whole of Yorubaland, I never saw anything close to this even during the civil war. Who cursed us?”

    I appealed to my friend to avoid going into the easy route of the occult. “No one cursed us. We are responsible for whatever happened or failed to happen to us. What is important now is to identify what we did or didn’t do that got us into the deep hole in which we find ourselves. We can then determine to make amends and move on. Or not. It will be our prerogative. We are familiar with our story and with the story of our peer nations, where we are and where they are. It’s up to us to change our story.”

    Opalaba agreed with me. “This was what I appreciate in the initial approach of the youth. Having borne the brunt of the burden of police brutality over the decades, they sought to change our national story. With their skills in communication technology, they mounted an effective campaign that moved from the national to the global scene. From Washington to Paris, from London to The Hague, from reputable media houses to modern social media, from Nollywood to Hollywood, #EndSARS became the viral buzzword. Political operatives from Governors’ offices to the National Assembly complex joined the chorus. And for the first time in a long time, the youth became a national symbol of a long-sought unity of purpose. And they made us all proud.

    “The federal government didn’t have any good reason to ignore them. They were insistent on their demands but not disruptive. They were leaderless but well-organized. They had good evidence for the reasonableness of their demands. The Vice President was the first national officer to express solidarity with the protests. He had been there before. Back in 2018, he had expressed horror at the apparent impunity of SARS agents and had promised a total reform. It is therefore understandable that he threw his support behind the demand to end SARS.

    “Government agreed to meet the demand and promptly issued a statement that scrapped SARS. In addition, it convened a meeting of stakeholders that included civil society organizations and prominent members of the EndSARS movement. A communique of that meeting disclosed that government agreed to the other five demands of the movement which included release of arrested protestors, justice for deceased victims of police brutality and compensation for families, judicial investigation of all cases of police misconduct within ten days, psychological evaluation and retraining of disbanded SARS officers before redeployment, and an increase in compensation for the police. State governments, starting with Lagos State, followed promptly with the inauguration of Judicial Panels of Inquiry. The EndSARS movement, though leaderless, was on course to achieve a first in terms of an unprecedented rush of government action on its demands.

    “But it was not to happen. The depth of the mistrust and distrust is enormous. Promises made in the past were never kept by governments over the years. The latest was in 2018. Protesters were unwilling to be fooled again. So, they continued street protests. It was a patriotic motive on the part of a corps of idealistic young professionals with global experience of best practices in governance, determined to correct all societal ills and lift their nation up towards a state of perfection.

    “Perhaps this noble motive would have achieved great results. But there were two predictable interruptions.  First, the motive and the persistence ran into conflict with the mindset of a political establishment that is too sensitive with regard to its standing and paranoid about any perception of weakness. For how long can it tolerate indefinite peaceful protests without risking its degeneration into calls for a violent revolution? From our past experience, even if there wasn’t any such threat, the reality of such a mindset was enough to trigger the reaction that we saw on October 21, 2020. Nigerian governments have never disappointed.

    “Second, however, the nobility of the motive of EndSARS movement and the acclaimed standing of its members plus their decision to have a leaderless movement, also ran into conflict with the motivation of a different and opposing group. They are also youthful and vibrant. And they also have their grievances which are not less legitimate. They are skill-less and hopeless. Of the 60 percent youth population that Nigeria boasts of, more than 40 percent belong to this group. These are the neglected and abandoned members of our urban and rural enclaves.

    “It is this second group of youths that many irresponsible politicians engage during elections only to abandon them thereafter. They are the so-called hoodlums, touts, urchins, gang members, and cultists. Always looking for what to do, wherever and whenever they see “action” they jump in without being invited. You could argue that with the EndSARS action, they didn’t need any invitation. It is their cause too. It just isn’t this second group’s perception of action that the initiators of the movement had in mind.

    “It is probably true that the government would have moved against the movement anyway. But the various interventions, including imposition of curfews, were justified by appeal to the destructive approach of the second group. As it became clear, however, it was the peaceful group, the one with the best motive and the noblest of intentions that received the heaviest end of the state cudgel. It was the one that bore the sharpest edge of the state sword. Think of Lekki Toll Plaza.

    “A conspiracy theory has it that that outcome wasn’t a mistake, that the hoodlums were state-sponsored, and therefore, despite their attacks on innocent citizens, they couldn’t have been the target of state security attack. The truth value of this conspiracy theory need not be positive. What is clear is that hoodlums took a much greater advantage of the military intervention to wreck extraordinary havoc on the populace, targeting both public and private assets. Without the presence of police or other security agents, it was a field day for thugs and gang members. Hell broke loose!

    “Is that the end of the movement to end police brutality? Has one youth group upended the nobility of the other group’s intention? Does the baby of prospective good governance get thrown out with the birth water of reckless hooliganism? This my worry. Will I live to see the Nigeria of my dream that the youth have made their priority project?”

    As I listened attentively to Opalaba, I was moved to tears. It isn’t just his dream. It is mine too, and I think I can speak for my generation as well. It takes the generation of my grandchildren to have a real chance to remake Nigeria and now it appears that they have been silenced.

    “But there is hope my friend”, I assured Opalaba. The youths haven’t given up. They have just retreated to refocus. If the recent notice of a national youth conference is authentic, I am sure we haven’t seen the end of this matter. With what we have come to know about their generation, their foundational knowledge skills, their sheer determination to shame nay-sayers, more is yet to come. We keep hope alive.

     

     

  • Memorialising a meaningful life

    Memorialising a meaningful life

    Segun Gbadegesin

     

    Leke Salaudeen has just recently transited to the great beyond! Without a warning! Absent any premonition of an impending death! He was full of life, and then he was gone. A community man par excellence, everyone who knew him attested to his integrity and modesty. How does one reconcile oneself to this macabre drama of life? This apparently utter helplessness in the hands of fate. If death could end it all when we least expect, what’s the point of our daily efforts at good living?

    These are not abstract thoughts of indolent philosophers. These are real life puzzles in our troubled minds. We certainly don’t always have them in the front burner of our thinking. But every time we are hit by a tragedy like this, as I was upon hearing of Leke’s passing, they come crowding the inner recesses of our thought. Is it worth it? Or is it all vanity? I will come back to this question, which I think will answer itself after we look at Leke, the man, and his life.

    Leke was until his death an Assistant Editor with The Nation. Before then, he was a News Editor with Triumph Newspaper. And as Malam Garba Shehu attested in a thoughtful tribute, he was an asset to the organization. In his capacity as a news man, he interfaced with different individuals and groups in various positions of influence and authority. House Speaker Gbajabiamila was one of them. And he wrote glowingly about his memory of Leke, describing him as “a consummate journalist, who was dedicated to his job as a thoroughbred professional.” More importantly, Speaker Gbajabiamila wrote that “Alhaji Salaudeen was a man of good character and values during his lifetime.”

    This theme of integrity and good character runs through the tributes memorialising the deceased journalist since his passing. Gbenga Omotoso, former editor of The Nation, on behalf of Governor Sanwo-Olu of Lagos State observed that Salaudeen was “quiet, unassuming and an easy going person… dedicated to duty…a good investigative reporter any editor will like to work with.” On its part, the Lagos Branch of the Nigerian Union of Journalists (NUJ) described him as “a prolific newsman, very detailed and passionate journalist” who “made his mark in the annals of journalism in Nigeria.”

    Leke, pivoted to journalism from teaching, another area of human endeavor which tends to bring out the best in human life and thus enrich the meaning of life itself. We talk a lot about the nobility of teaching with little appreciation of those qualities of character that make it so. Suffice to say that a trained teacher, with those qualities, will make an excellent professional in any of the professions. Leke was a great exhibit. I will come back to the greatness of his journalistic exploits, which, I will argue, is demonstrated by the timelessness of the issues that he highlighted in his career.

    But there is a second feature of his Leke’s work, which is no less important, indeed, probably more important, in terms of what it means for a life to have meaning and worth emulating. Professional competence and accomplishments are great resume assets which facilitate promotion and advancement. And for those who see this as the only thing that matters, they can go to any length and use any means, including patently immoral ones, to get there. It therefore matters that every tribute to Leke underscores his good character and humble disposition in addition to his professionalism.

    I remarked earlier that the discipline of teacher training inculcates the values essential for a meaningful life.  I do not say that to diminish the ethical underpinnings of other professions. Indeed, I know that there is a robust ethics of journalism, which, if adhered to by every journalist, could transform not just the profession, but the society that it serves. Though relatively young, Leke belonged to the old guard with profound respect for the guardrails of honesty and integrity.

    How he came by those values is a good question. Again, apart from the discipline of teaching and the ethics of journalism, we may also identify two major sources. First, as the Supreme Council on Islamic Affairs attests, Leke was a devout Muslim. He was apparently focused on making Aljannah Firdaus. If you have that as your ultimate goal, you would walk humbly before your maker. From all the testimonies, and if the voice of humans approximates the voice of God, we can be sure that Leke succeeded in the achievement of his objective in life. Living a modest life without the pollution of corruption is a sure way to approach the goal of paradise.

    A second source was the upbringing in a close-knit community which molded his childhood and youth. Born and bred in Okeho, Leke, like every one of his peers, cannot avoid the peering eyes of parents, grandparents, extended family, friends of parents and friends of grandparents. The morbid fear of bringing shame to family name was front and center in the life of the community. Even non-Okeho indigenes resident in the community quickly become an integral part of the disciplinary force. The moral consciousness developed in the growing years of Okeho youths could prove to be limiting at times, but they always pay off in the end.

    The recent incident of how the youth rose up against an incident of armed robbery of the only bank in Okeho is worth recalling. They risked their lives and captured the armed robbers who were out of town. But then some of them misbehaved. And the community did not hesitate to hand them over to the authorities.

    This incident showed one important fact. Community may labor hard to bring the best out of its offspring. However, it takes self-discipline on the part of those offspring to succeed. The ancestors had it right: After I have been made, I will remake myself to be even better. Leke was made. He remade himself to be even better. To remake oneself is to exercise self-discipline with a determination to excel. As a journalist, Leke remade himself. As a community man, he remade himself.

    My unforgettable encounter with Leke was during the 2017 activities marking the Centennial celebration of Okeho’s relocation back to its original site. He was the Secretary of the Centenary Committee led by Jacobs Moyo Ajekigbe. As Moyo would recall, “Leke’s dedication to duty was unparalleled. He performed his duties with a high degree of professionalism, integrity and candour. Above all, he was extremely humble and trustworthy.” Coming from Moyo, you can take this to the bank (no pun intended).

    Throughout the preparations for the celebration, Leke was in constant touch with me, giving me updates, and asking for suggestions. He was on top of every aspect of his assignments, and he delivered beyond expectation. After the celebration, he kept bringing to my attention issues that he felt we should pursue, including the advancement of community members. At no point did he bring up the matter of his own advancement. I found this amazing. But that is who Leke was.

    Let me now come back to the question I raised above. If one does all that is humanly expected of one, playing by the rules, doing exemplary things, but still death is certain and can come anytime without warning, is it really worth it? This is any age-old dilemma of existence.

    For me, the short answer is that it is worth it. In any case, we don’t choose to come to the world. We are born into the circumstance that we didn’t select originally. But once we are in it, we must make the best of it to leave behind an indelible memory. In his service to the community and his profession, that is what Leke did.

    Two of his signature journalistic contributions in the last year of his life were on policing (State Police: The Unresolved Question, The Nation July 25, 2020) and the youth (Are Nigerian youths prepared for leadership? The Nation, August 19, 2019). In view of the current news cycle, Leke Salaudeen lives on. This is comfort for his wife, family, friends and community.

  • When a problem cannot be ignored

    When a problem cannot be ignored

    Segun Gbadegesin

     

     

    “….if we did not rejig the polity to meet the yearnings of all of us, it will consume us because ‘resource constraint is a challenge for every state’.”-Governor Kayode Fayemi

     

     

    IN a famous line in the Sound of Music, Mother Abess refused to grant Maria a refuge from what she perceived was a budding romantic affair between Maria and Baron Von Trapp. Maria was serving as nanny for the Von Trapp children. Paraphrasing, the Mother declared with Motherly wisdom: “You cannot run away from your problem. You must confront it”. Maria had to go back to Von Trapp’s mansion and the rest, they say, is history.

    The founding fathers of Nigeria confronted head-on the fundamental problem of the newly emerging nation with conviction. They argued fiercely among themselves and with the British masters. They traded insults and name-calling. In the end, they unanimously settled on a federal arrangement as the best for a country of diverse population. They were right, and the country was on a path of greatness even before she gained independence. No one can sincerely deny the progress each region made in the matter of human and physical development between 1953 and 1960. What derailed the progress between 1960 and 1966 was not the federal structure; it was human nature.

    In what we may regard as an honest but misguided effort to correct the course of destruction which the country was heading to in the mid-1960s, military physicians, with a wrong diagnosis of the national ailment, prescribed and administered the wrong medication. The patient convulsed and has never fully recovered since. Indeed, the ailment has worsened as is evidenced by the intensity of the resentment and rivalry among ethnic nationalities, religions, and zones and regions. The fever pitch agitation for restructuring has never been louder or more daring.

    Until now, it has been apparently ignored by subsequent administrations. The Obasanjo administration engaged in a dishonest attempt at constitutional amendment in 2005 with a focus, not on restructuring, but on implementing an amendment that would give the president a third term in office. In the last years of his first term, the Jonathan administration engaged in an exercise that many felt was politically motivated to help with his re-election. But it must be granted that whatever his motive, the conference delegates took seriously their mandate and came up with some useful recommendations. Unfortunately, the heat of the 2015 electoral campaign ensured that those recommendations didn’t see the light of day.

    All Progressives Congress (APC) campaigned on restructuring. Among others manifesto items, it promised to propose a constitutional amendment for the devolution of power to states and to enact fiscal federalism. Mid-way in the first term of the Buhari administration, the party established a high-powered committee led by the Governor of Kaduna State, Nasir El-Rufai. The committee did a thorough job with useful recommendations which it submitted to the party. However, that was the last we heard about the committee or its recommendations. What has become of both or what is the thinking of the party on one of the pillars of its governing philosophy, which attracted genuine progressives to its fold, is the guess of anyone outside its inner circle.

    But we cannot continue to hide our national head in the sand and pretend that all is well. As this page observed last week, no one should be deluded into believing that the agitation for restructuring is going to stop. Thus, religious groups such as the National Christians Elders Forum (NCEF), nationality groups including Middle Belt Forum, Ndigbo Ohaneaze, PANDEF, and Afenifere have been in the trenches for a long time that successive administrations tend to simply dismiss them as a nuisance undeserving of attention. Lately, however, other voices, including nonpartisan ones, have been raised for the love of country. Among these is the revered General Overseer of RCCG, Pastor Enoch Adeboye.

    Significantly, not many of the vocal agitators have come from the rank of the ruling party. That is not a surprise. It was the same pattern with other administrations and ruling party. PDP governors in the southwest effectively shuttered the Yoruba Agenda, a submission of the Southwest to the Obasanjo constitutional conference in 2005. They insisted that, as elected leaders, they had the monopoly of wisdom on what the Yoruba wanted or needed. Restructuring, according to the wisdom of those governors, was not part of it.

    Now it appears our governors are in sync with the people, and that is a good thing. My opening quotation above is from Ekiti State Governor, Dr. Kayode Fayemi, who also doubles as the Chairman of the Nigerian Governors’ Forum. I am not sure if Fayemi spoke for his fellow Nigerians governors. But I am certain that he, at least, spoke for himself. Again, that is a good thing, especially because his is a voice within the ruling party.

    Governor Fayemi observed that “we are fast getting to a point where we must confront the reality of our federation.” He argued that the “structure of the economy we are running is not working.” He insisted that we “need a structure that will meet the yearnings of our population.” Specifically, the governor noted that the “current unitary structure obviously privileges those who are more associated with a unitary federal structure rather than a genuine federal structure that is accountable to people, and responsive to the challenges that the people have.”

    Of course, we know what those challenges are. There is hunger in the land. There is grave insecurity. People are angry. Fayemi laments that states “don’t have resources” and urges Nigerians to “push the argument further to a point where the resources and the powers that reside in Abuja can be devolved effectively to the states, with the revenue also devolved to take the responsibilities at that level.”

    Governor Fayemi reiterated the incessant call for fiscal federalism, observing that even ‘those who are reluctant before are being confronted daily with the challenges in their states and they have begun asking themselves, “how long can we continue to do this? Am I elected to just pay salaries?”‘ Notice that these are governors from both the ruling party and the opposition. They know the headache of governance. They are in a position to lead the struggle.

    Of course, restructuring means different things to different peoples and groups. For many, it is more than just devolution of power to states because the existing structure, which makes states the federating units, is a fundamental part of the problem. Therefore, on this count, a lasting solution requires the complete overhaul of the existing structure in favor of zones or regions as federating units, with the capacity to generate resources for balanced and equitable development across the land.

    I am aware that there are those who see this dichotomy of views on restructuring as a zero-sum game: what A gains, B loses. That is an unproductive and dangerous mindset. If we cannot have a complete overhaul now, there is nothing wrong with an incremental approach that starts with devolution.

    In any case, there is a strong basis for holding the ruling party accountable on the moral argument that it made a promise to devolve power to states and it must fulfil that promise. What is more, it had initiated the process for fulfilling the promise and it just needs to complete it. On this ground, it is more productive for us to join forces with the Nigerian Governors’ Forum, prick the conscience of the leadership of the executive and legislative branches, as we demand that they keep their promise. For as Hobbes reminds us, it is unjust to break a promise voluntarily made.

    I have no illusion that the objects of our appeal will accord us the courtesy of listening and doing. But that is why we should be grateful that our democracy is still on course and every citizen who doesn’t exchange his or her birthright for a bowl of porridge, everyone who retains his or her dignity, will always have the last laugh at the time of democratic reckoning. That time is right around the corner.