The Nation Newspaper

Category: Segun Gbadegesin

  • On intra-party democracy

    On a representative democracy, political parties are the vehicles for ascertaining and representing people’s interests, and free election is the last hope of citizens to have a say in their government. This thesis is well-established and needs no defense. Dictatorships do not pretend to recognize or respect the people’ s right to have a say in their government. But a representative democracy that recognizes that right must concretize it through periodic elections open to all eligible citizens.

    The issue that has always posed a dilemma for political parties in their role as vehicles for ascertaining and representing the interest of their members is this: are parties also subject to the norms of democracy? If not, why not? If yes, how might they discharge this responsibility and remain free and competitive?

    In what may be described as the distinctive contribution of our political system to democratic practice, we have come up with two answers to this question. But we really appear to have pitched our tent with just one of them. First, to give every party member the right to choose or be chosen as candidates of the party for a local, state, or federal election, we subscribe to the democratic norm which opens the field to every member interested in a political office to canvass for the party’s nomination. Our unique name for this is “direct primary”. Many democrats defend this option for its openness. It is also the practice in advanced democracies.

    Second, however, for several reasons that we have identified to fault direct primary, we devise a different practice toward the same end. In this second practice, candidates for party nomination are elected by party delegates who are themselves either elected through an electoral college system or are selected in virtue of their positions as party executives at various levels, ward, local government, and state.

    One of the reasons we adduce for our aversion to direct primary is that there is a great danger of it creating rancor and bitterness within the party, a self-inflicted wound which may not heal before the general election. Second is the fear of the use of big money during direct primary, a situation that may favor the filthy rich whose purpose is to buy election to serve his or her personal interest without any loyalty to the party’s ideology. Third, even when money politics is reined in, and party members are well-disciplined and capable of making their preference felt though direct primary, the choice they make may be limited by their understanding of the issues. And such popular choices may fail to deliver on party programs.

    For those concerned about the foregoing issues with direct primary, indirect primary is the answer. Notice, however, that each of the two variants of indirect primary solves only one or more problems that have been attributed to direct primary. The system of electoral college does not really solve the problem of the abuse of money in politics. The filthy rich and/or their supporters may still buy the votes of delegates at the various levels. A presidential candidate can use surrogates from ward to state levels to elect his or her preferred delegates to the national convention. This appears more often than we care to admit in our current system. Furthermore, just like in direct primary, there is no guarantee that a candidate elected through an electoral college will be more in tune with party principles and ideology than one elected directly by all eligible party members.

    From the foregoing, it appears that neither direct primary nor electoral college primary can guarantee an outcome that is consistent with the principles and ideals that a party stands for and which it prefers to have exemplified by its candidate. In that case, party leaders may prefer an alternative indirect primary in which they constitute themselves as the delegates for the election or selection of its candidates. After all, the leaders know best where the party shoe pinches. They may therefore use that sacred knowledge to pick “consensus” candidates.

    Beside the assurance that this option avoids electing a candidate who is not in tune with party ideology, it is also presented as one that avoids irresolvable internal conflicts which may jeopardize the interest of the party in a general election. The fear of post-primary conflicts may not be unfounded where electoral malpractice is suspected, or where there are sore losers. While the former can be remedied, the later cannot. What is unclear is how pervasive the phenomenon of sore losers is.

    We may now ask of the alternative of leadership selection by consensus: what recommends it and what is its weakness? It should also be noted that this approach has been used regularly by all political parties in our system since 1999. A second point to note is that in almost all cases where it has been adopted, it does not appear that the leaders see it from any other prism than that it is a second best which is warranted by the circumstance of our immature democracy and the economic deprivation of the populace. Party leaders therefore play the role of benevolent seers who know best the interest of the party and its members.

    A look at one feature of this approach which is usually referenced as its appeal will make the foregoing point clearer. Democracy is adored as a system that respects equality because it affords the people (demos) the opportunity of choosing their leaders. On the other hand, equality without efficiency is an empty rhetoric because a system that protects equality but jeopardizes efficiency cannot deliver the needs of the people. Therefore, democracy must also worry about efficient functioning of the system.

    However, while the masses will benefit from an efficient system, they may not be adept in making the choices that promote efficiency. Therefore, a compromise is needed. Party leaders who have the insight into the quality of candidates offering themselves for its nomination, and who understand the importance of the party’s principles and ideals as well as the requirement of efficiency, should be burdened with the choice of party candidates. Then, in a general election, the masses have a choice between the candidate of one or the other party.

    Obviously, the reconciliation of equality and efficiency on behalf of the masses is a good thing. However, there is no guarantee that this is the motivation of every party leader who embraces the consensus approach. There are selfless leaders and there are selfish leaders. As the skin that covers the stomach prevents us from knowing the innermost part of an evil doer, so we are unable to determine the motive of a party leader who supports candidate selection by consensus.

    Some leaders have effectively used the approach to the benefit of their people and state by identifying and supporting good candidates who turn out to work hard for the people. In other cases, however, the self-serving motive of party leaders has done nothing but hurt the people and the party. Therefore, selection by consensus cannot legitimately be our default position.

    More to the point, however, the argument that direct primary leads to internal conflict is at best tenuous. For if it is not well-managed by a charismatic leader who is trusted by the people, a consensus arrangement is also prone to internal conflict aggravated by the resentment of imposition. Again, we have experienced variants of such crises in our body politic in recent years.

    What then is the best approach? It depends on what our goal is. If our goal is to deepen democracy, then the earlier we started getting our people in the mood, and engaging in serious political education, the better. We cannot continually underrate our readiness for tested democratic practices, without undermining our chance of political maturing. If, on the other hand, we are not worried about democracy but are more concerned about efficiency, then we are likely to grow political leaders who will benefit the masses without giving them the chance to a free choice of their representatives. But, as we know, a tool that is not utilized will soon degenerate.

     

    • Follow me on Twitter:

    @SegunGbadeg2002

    @HarvestDayPubs

     

     

     

  • A case for devolution before election

    In a democracy, periodic elections serve several purposes. First, elections ensure that citizens grant their consent to be governed. Second, elections afford individuals the opportunity to choose their candidates for office based on promises made. Third, election is a referendum on the performance of incumbents and on their fidelity to their promises. Therefore, voters must ask, and candidates and political parties must answer, a fundamental question: How faithful have you been to your promises to us?

    While electorates have ample time to ponder who to vote for in the forthcoming elections, political parties and candidates, especially those to whom voters gave their mandate four years ago, must race against time to deliver on their promises.

    Voters can easily evaluate and rate party and candidate performance in the light of the promises contained in their election manifestos. And for political parties and candidates that are still performance-oriented, all they need is remind themselves of where they are in the fulfillment of their promises. The party in power at the center has the most challenging responsibility in this regard. What did it promise and what has it achieved?

    All Progressives Congress (APC) promised heaven on earth. However, many voters knew that it cannot fulfill many of its promises, especially on the economy in four years because of the reality of our economy and its dependence on one product. Surely, much more could have been done if the administration had fully engaged in the first few months of its inauguration.

    Voters also knew that Nigerian corruption is hydra-headed, and it would fiercely resist even the most virulent attack, talk less of a half-hearted one that appears to be sabotaged at every turn from inside. Therefore, even with Mr. Integrity at the head of the battle, corruption has demonstrated remarkable resilience.

    In the matter of security, it has been a case of two steps forward one step backward. Like corruption, despite some great strides in the war against Boko Haram, the terrorists have persisted. Dapchi was a rude shock that the administration and the party had no device to absorb. With the herdsmen-farmer clashes that have left scores dead, a high score on security is a lost hope.

    So, there are failings, some of which are forgivable because of the reality on the ground at the inception of the administration, and others because it is well understood that both party and candidate meant well but were overwhelmed by the challenges that welcomed them to office.

    However, there is a promise whose fulfillment voters unequivocally expected and the breaking of which they will not forgive. This is because, unlike other promises, voters believe that this one is within the power of the new administration and the ruling party. It is also a promise that the party and candidate voluntarily made without duress.

    Prominent on the list of actionable promises highlighted on the website of APC is devolution of power from the center to the states. The party will immediately upon taking power move to amend the constitution to devolve power to states. This was the closest it acceded to the demand for restructuring, a vocal demand of many sections of the country before and during the election of 2015.

    Several months after taking over power, the party set up a restructuring committee. The committee made some recommendations which were applauded by many stakeholders as a first step. APC leadership promised to share the recommendations with the administration and to have a buy-in from Nigerians. Many citizens looked forward to progress on the matter. They have patiently waited for some months and are now wondering if the party and the government intend to deliver.

     

    APC has no good reason to renege on its promise of devolution. The party has control of both the executive and legislative branches at the center. It also controls at least 24 states of the federation the legislative branches of which will be involved in the constitutional amendment legislation. Furthermore, many legislative chambers outside the control of APC are expected to support the amendment. The question is whether the party itself and its leadership are genuinely in favor of devolution in particular and restructuring in general.

    This last point goes to the heart of the problem. Is APC as a party committed to the fulfillment of its promise to devolve power from the center to states? Does the leadership of APC favor a balanced federation that serves the interests of all? Or is the party leadership only paying lip service to devolution as a vote-getting gimmick?

    In 2014, when, after five years in power, the Jonathan administration succumbed to political pressure and organized the National Conference on Restructuring, many of us were genuinely skeptical of the belated move. We thought it was a ruse. APC was at the forefront of the skepticism, deciding not to participate. Then, in its manifesto for the 2015 general election, the party made restructuring central to its platform with a promise to begin the process of constitutional amendment as soon as it took over power. That promise galvanized the electorate, especially in the southwest.

    Three years on, a committee of the party submitted a report recommending devolution. I assume that there have been behind-the-scene debates and deliberations on what to do with the recommendations. The party and its leadership must now know that they cannot continue to take the electorate for granted in this matter. The word of the party must be its bond and must be the basis for the electorates’ decision to support or withdraw support at the next election.

    If the APC and President Buhari want the support of electorates across the country, they should conduct a polling to determine what are the priorities of electorates from different zones. For the South in general and the Southwest in particular, and, to a large extent, the Middle Belt, we know that restructuring is the foremost concern of the public, from the privileged to the wretched.

    But beside what their priorities are, the electorate have a right to hold political parties and their candidates to account and to demand they promote justice. While there are various ways of understanding justice, I find Thomas Hobbes’ definition especially attractive for my purpose. For him, justice is keeping a promise voluntarily made. Conversely, to be unjust is to break a promise voluntarily made. No electorate coerced APC into the promise of constitutional amendment for devolution of power. Though, it is far less than the restructuring that citizens have clamored for in the last thirty years; devolution is what the party promised and why people voted for it. it must deliver on that promise to have any credibility to ask for their vote again. It is simple commonsense.

    Now I anticipate a response. We made other promises beside devolution: to fight corruption, to defeat terrorism, to revive and reform the economy, and we have made progress in the fulfillment of those promises. But while progress is being made on these promises, and while voters understand and appreciate the constraints on the path of government, it is hard for them to understand why the one promise which should be the easiest to fulfill has been left hanging for three years. Indeed, for many citizens, if the government and the party had chosen to make restructuring its priority three years ago, perhaps, they would have made better progress in the furtherance of other priorities.

    For President Buhari and APC, the sun is still up with sufficient drying power if they have the political will to fulfill their promise to devolve power. Otherwise, any new promise by the party will be a hard sell in the south. What might be the promise this time? It cannot be “Change” because that would play into the hand of the opposition. And if it is “Sustaining Change”, the party must be able to itemize the changes that it has succeeded in making which need to be sustained. If it cannot point to devolution as the fundamental change that needs to be sustained, I do not know what might be its raison d’etre.

     

    • Follow me on Twitter:

    @SegunGbadeg2002

    @HarvestDayPubs

     

  • Buhari and the head wind ahead

    President Buhari has finally declared publicly what, based on his body language, most Nigerians have speculated for months.  He is running for a second term in 2019 in response to the clamor by Nigerians.

    The announcement before the National Executive Committee (NEC) of APC was without fanfare, made off the script of his prepared statement which was subsequently released to the public by his Senior Special Assistant on Media and Publicity. Nonetheless, it reverberated across the political landscape at home and abroad. Reactions were swift from friends and foes alike.

    The president’s declaration has changed the subject of interest from the question whether he should run. As we know, several citizens had raised that question from both friendly and unfriendly motives. On the friendly side, many are genuinely concerned about the president’s health and would rather he take care of himself after the experience of the past year. For some of these concerned individuals, there is no need to pay the supreme sacrifice for your country in a period of peace if it can be avoided. But beside his health, another concern of those in those group is about the president’s age on the suspicion that the presidency will pose a serious challenge even to a robustly healthy 75-year old.

    While we cannot doubt the genuineness of those concerns, it is also fair that only Buhari knows how he feels health-wise. And we can assume that a rational human being will not deliberately and deliberatively put his life in jeopardy just so he or she may serve as president. And since this is a voluntary decision on his part, we may assume that he has thought through it and has concluded that he could run a campaign and, if elected, serve as president for another term without negatively impacting his health. Presumably also, he has had a discussion with his physicians.

    The matter of age, while important, is also not decisive for a person to decide on running. By itself, chronological age may be trumped by a good mental age marked by sharp memory, mental alertness, and capacity for quick thinking. If these are lacking, then age ought to be a decisive factor because the capacity for effective governance may be quite weak.

    On the unfriendly side are those who question the effectiveness of Buhari’s first term. For these group, the promise of economic growth has not been fulfilled. Even when they admit that the president inherited an economic mess and had to deal with the combined effects of oil glut and militant activities in the oil producing areas, they faulted his slow response, which in their view, worsened the economic situation.

    The president’s foes have also latched on to the incessant challenges of insecurity in view of his campaign promise to put security at the front burner of his priorities in office. They concede that Boko Haram has been denied a claim to space; but they point to the new wave of abductions as evidence of the failure of the war against terror. Furthermore, they argue that the intensity and frequency of the herdsmen-farmer clashes in the last three years and the apparent inability of the government to find a solution thus far does no credit to the administration’s claim to unparalleled expertise on security, a selling point of the president in 2015.

    Then, there are the more disturbing accusations. Buhari was presented as the foremost anti-corruption czar in 2015 and many still applaud him for his austere personal life. He has also shown how disciplined the first family should be as a national role model. Yet, the president has been accused of waging a partisan anti-corruption battle which targets only members of the opposition. While a few members of the ruling party have been targets of investigation by the EFCC, none appears to have been convicted. But this is also the case with many of the corruption cases handled by EFCC. Three years in, while announcements are made from time to time about voluntary forfeitures of assets acquired through corruption, hardly have convictions been secured against any of the accused.

    The most serious of the allegations against the president, in view of the demographic reality of the country, is nepotism. Former President Obasanjo made a strong case of this with a focus on appointments into national security positions, which now appears to have a preponderance of incumbents from one part of the country. The presidency has denied any nepotistic intent and the president himself has promised to review those appointments.

    In view of the foregoing, it is necessary to address the question: how strong and damaging is the head wind facing the president in 2019 and how prepared is he and his party to face them?

    Now this question assumes that the president will be nominated by his party. I think this is a reasonable assumption. Without approaching the hubris of the president’s adviser comparing potential contestants to dwarfs, it is not likely that any serious candidate will compete with the president for the nomination of the APC. Therefore, the head wind that we are concerned about applies to the general election when he is sure to have formidable candidates from other parties including PDP and SDP, which is looking like the preferred umbrella for other opposition parties.

    But before he confronts the head wind, Buhari must also deal with pockets of turbulence, the fiercest of which is internal party dissent. To pursue the flight analogy further, a pilot must have his aircraft in good shape and his co-pilot and crew members on the same strategic page with him to be able to steadily navigate a head wind. A weak engine or an uncooperative crew is a potential disaster in the making.

    Can Buhari count on his party to confront the head wind ahead? A leader of the National Assembly recently expressed to me his concern. According to him, the greatest threat to APC is internal to it. He discountenanced the opposition as weak and disorganized. But he believes that APC would lose a general election if it was held today because of the serious crises of confidence across the various constituencies: national party leadership versus political office holders, National Assembly versus Presidency, governors versus ministers, governors versus state party leaderships, and local government leaders versus governors.

    The president himself has been fingered as a witting or an unwitting contributor to these party crises with his hands-off leadership style which allows an organizational wound to fester almost beyond healing before acting. Can he now heal this wound effectively enough to deal with the strong head wind sure to intensify with strategic fanning by the opposition?

    The president’s team may characterize the opposition as desperate. What is certain is that it is determined to deny Buhari a second term. For the president, a consolation is that each opposition party is also disorganized. But if they unite their forces against APC, and they attract some dissenting forces from the rank of APC leadership as the latter did in 2015, then they are capable of another historic upset. This could be the strongest potential head wind.

    The president is vulnerable to some specific gusts of oncoming wind and he better be prepared to confront them. How will he address the charge of nepotism? Or of presiding over a slow economic recovery? Or alleged insensitivity to victims of insecurity from Boko Haram to Herdsmen atrocities? Or the greatest threat to national unity since the civil war under his watch?

    While it must be conceded that the interest of the opposition is well served by bringing up charges of incompetence against an incumbent, we must remember that the same strategy served the president and his party well in 2015. What they need now is a response that is sincere and effective. It will not do to dwell on name-calling or passing the buck. As the head of the ruling party and the government that it represents, the buck stops at the desk of the Number 1 citizen. Is he sufficiently strong to confront the head wind coming at him?

     

    • Follow me on Twitter:

    @SegunGbadeg2002

    @HarvestDayPubs

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • Leah’s stand

    Leah Sharibu is only 15 years old. Hers is the age of adolescence, commonly characterized as years of youthful exuberance and experiments with life. While there are differences between cultures, there are some commonalities in adolescent development and it is here that Leah’s stand is remarkable.

    Experts explain some early adolescent behaviors such as an excessive focus on pleasure and reward in terms of the neuro-developmental changes going on in a region of their brains, specifically the limbic system. On the other hand, in later years of adolescence, due to changes in the pre-frontal cortex of the brain, adolescents are capable of making autonomous decisions and of controlling their impulsive behaviors. Needless to add, due to individual differences, and socio-cultural influences, some are able to reach these later years early. The stand taken by Leah at 15, when she is still in the middle of adolescence, is an excellent illustration of this observation.

    Leah took a stand for her faith. She stood by the commitment she made to her God. Many adults, in different social, cultural, religious, and political contexts have taken similar stands. From Moses, the Law-giver, in the court of Pharaoh, to Daniel in the lion’s den, to the three Hebrew men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the fiery furnace, and Joan of Arc on the stake, the test of faith has been met with courage. And it is now not a far-fetched tale from mythical lands. With its beheading of pastors and laymen who refused to renounce their faith, Boko Haram has indigenized martyrdom in our corner of the globe.

    While applauding her commitment, we must pray and demand that Leah is not forced to premature martyrdom.

    On Monday, February 19, 2018, satanic criminal agents with nothing but evil intent broke into the world of young school girls at Dapchi, violently abducted 110 and carted them away like chicken in a cage. In the process, five were trampled upon and killed and callously buried by the roadside without prayers. Think about this. The so-called zealots for God did not even consider it necessary to give the innocent human beings that they killed a decent burial as the religion they profess demands.

    The survivors were driven into the bush and imprisoned in a hut for as long as it took the terrorists to negotiate with the government. Three, including Leah, attempted to escape. As they wandered around in the bush after losing their way, they came across some adults from whom they asked for direction to Dapchi, having apprised them of their predicament.

    But, as some of the returnees have now confirmed, instead of giving the lost girls direction to Dapchi, those adults chose to lead the girls back to their abductors. Think about this. These innocent girls have had terrible life-changing experiences with two groups of adults in the course of a month.  At the least, with adults such as these, our cultural bias toward elevating adult reasoning above adolescent judgement, painting all adolescents with one brush of immaturity, is undoubtedly called into question.

    Without faith, it is impossible to please Him, so the apostle Paul teaches us. But how is it possible for a young 15-year-old girl from rural Dapchi to choose faith and commitment over pleasure and comfort? As far as we know, if she denied her God she would now be with her parents, siblings, and friends. What motivates her?  For this we must look beyond religion and spirituality. We must identify the foundation of Leah’s faith and commitment in her ability to choose right over wrong and stick to it.

    It is the ability to choose right over wrong that dictates for Leah the commitment to the faith in the Christian God whom she had confessed and believed prior to her abduction. It is that ability that rejects inconsistency and flip flopping even in the face of persecution. Having accepted Christ as her personal savior, Leah had closed her eyes to all manners of pleasure and comfort that might come with the denial and betrayal of her savior. Sticking to that position is a moral commitment. It comes with moral maturity, a rarity for girls or boys her age.

    It is also true, unfortunately, that living by a moral code from which one does not digress is an achievement that eludes many adults from peasants to oligarchs, from subjects to monarchs, and from citizens to presidents.

    It the first place, many adults are not able to reach the stage of choosing their own moral code because while they are biological adults, they are psychological adolescents, still locating themselves in the matrix of social life. These are individuals who experience an extended period of adolescence. You see them in the corridors of power. They adorn themselves with the most expensive outfits. But they carry around empty brains and they have little or no shame. They get themselves elected to offices through all manner of tricks including the most immoral. But they have nothing to contribute to the good of the nation. That we have a system that fails its citizens is not a surprise.

    Secondly, many adults who are capable of choosing and living by a moral code end up being tossed up and down, back and forth in the voyage of life, because they are not fully anchored to the port of morality. Like the proverbial seeds that fell among the thorns, which sprung up and choked them, it takes only a little effort on the part of the tempter and deceiver to entice them with allure of wealth and fame. Intellectually endowed but morally bankrupt, these human characters are the most dangerous because they use their brains for the perpetuation of evil.

    From pastors who exploit their congregation economically and sexually assault their members, to politicians who corruptly enrich themselves at the nation’s expense, we have examples of morally immature adolescents in the dusk of life. Leah’s stand puts them to shame. If they enjoy the munificence available to them and they still cannot cage their greed they are morally inferior to Leah who despite imminent danger to her life sticks to her moral gut.

    To Leah, therefore, we owe an obligation of gratitude for teaching us adults what it means to be human, which is to take a stand even in the face of unthinkable danger, to be known and recognized for act of commitment to a good cause, and to defend our humanity against the threat of beasts in human clothing. And for this obligation of gratitude to be fully discharged, we owe her a second obligation.

    Leah did not choose to be abducted. She did not have a suicidal motivation. She wanted to live and learn and grow to respectable adulthood. She and her schoolmates were dutifully discharging the duty of childhood that adults imposed on them–to get education and become useful members of society. She is not into cults. She is not into drugs. She is just a boarding school student struggling to succeed.

    As her fellow-citizens, it is our obligation to pray for her return and to collectively resolve to defeat the criminal elements that abducted and keeps her against her will and interest. No matter what our religion or political persuasion, we are human beings and fellow citizens. We must collectively raise our voices and commit to the fight against terrorism until it is completely defeated.

    On their part, our governments at state and federal level have the responsibility of securing citizens and preventing the recurrence of this kind of unfortunate incident, which only weakens the confidence of citizens in the ability of their government to secure them. Our children are naturally on the edge in their schools wondering if it is going to be their turn. We are wasting away a whole generation of citizens. Therefore, government must do its utmost part for the release of Leah and reassure her peers.

    Finally, it seems clear that the abductors are pushing for a religious war. Criminally keeping Leah because she refuses to convert to Islam is a serious provocation. They must be denied their wish.

     

    • Follow me on Twitter:

    @SegunGbadeg2002

    @HarvestDayPubs

     

     

     

     

  • From Gates with candor

    Billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates came to town with a determination to offer a candid analysis of the Nigerian condition and a perspective, informed by unimpeachable research, on the way out.

    Simply put, Gates advised Nigerians that investment in human capital must be prioritized over investment in physical structures. Armed with graphs and charts to drive home the point, the technology icon stung us with the bitter truth: You’ve got your priorities wrong. There are at least five takeaways from Bill Gates’s address to the stakeholders at the expanded meeting of NEC.

    First, authentic development requires a laser beam focus on the basic needs of people. As he put it, a people, lacking the basics of a good life, including food, shelter, health, and education, cannot live a productive life and thus cannot contribute to the growth and development of their nation.

    Second, education and health are the foundations of a productive life. Therefore, negatively, to avoid such an outcome of parasitic living with its attendant social dysfunction, and, positively, to impact national development, government and well-placed citizens must invest in the education and health of the people, especially the youth. With a commitment of over $1.6 billion in Nigeria so far, this white American with no ancestral roots in Nigeria has certainly walked the talk.

    Third, Gates’s prescription was as impeccable as his practical commitment. To Nigerian leaders, his message was loud and clear: maximize the Nigerian people and Nigeria will thrive when every Nigerian is able to thrive.

    Did I just say that Gates has no ancestry root in Nigeria? But how come he can capture so succinctly our cultural worldview? Does our ancestral wisdom not also affirm the importance of even development and equitable sharing? Ajoje ko dun bi enikan ko ni? (Literally: a potluck is enjoyable provided everyone could afford to contribute a portion.) I should take back then my unsupported assertion. Bill Gates, like every homo sapiens, has an African root. In any case, we share a common human nature.

    Fourth, yet while it is true that we all started off with a mindset of human interconnectedness that requires empathy towards others, we are now at a dangerous stage where ego and greed have taken over, placing a new song in our mouth: bamu ni mo yo, emi o mo pebi npa omo enikokan. (Literally: I am full to the brim and can care less if anyone is hungry).

    From a communal orientation that emphasized solidarity, we descended to the pathetic level of vulgar individualism. Gates’s frank advice was that even if we have neither love nor empathy, but we value sustained prosperity, we can only attain it if we invest in the health and education of everyone. Isn’t it a shame that it takes someone from a clime that we have always berated as the ground zero of soulless capitalism to teach us about the good of community, in which we used to take pride as our heritage?

    Fifth, we could make a strong case for investing in the health and education of people as an end-in-itself. It does not have to be justified by appeal to something else. In other words, health is intrinsically good. Education is intrinsically good. Therefore, investing in them doesn’t have to be justified by appeal to something beyond themselves.

    However, there is also an instrumental reasoning for the rightness of investing in health and education and Gates provided it brilliantly: People without roads, ports, and factories can’t flourish. And roads, ports, and factories without skilled workers to build and manage them can’t sustain an economy. To conclude the thought, we should add that people with good education and sound health will build and maintain good roads, good ports and good factories.

    Why am I thinking that this thought and this prescription are not new?  From where have we heard a similar if not identical analysis before?

    First, the understanding behind the analysis and prescription is ingrained in our cultural ethos as confirmed by the words of the elders: Omo ti a ko to ni yoo gbe ile ti a ko ta (Literally: the child whose future we refuse to build up for success will sell off the house that we selfishly build for fame). This is no rocket science. The untrained child cannot fathom the importance of an edifice selfishly built for fame. And even if he or she appreciates, without a source of livelihood that could have come from the education that he or she was denied, why would he or she starve to death if the edifice could be auctioned away?

    Second, taking cognizance of this wisdom of the ancestors, our founding fathers chose education as the pillar of the new nation at independence. While three of the founding fathers who led the three original regions were true to the injunction in practical terms, its theoretical reaffirmation was a life mission of Chief Obafemi Awolowo. However, while his generation of leaders needed little or no prodding, subsequent leaders, especially the unelected interlopers in the corridors of power, had other ideas.

    The military leaders that imposed their will on the nation in 1966 reversed the wisdom of the ancestors and focused on building structures instead of humans. For 13 years in the first instance, a different philosophy of development took center stage in dear country. Between 1979 and 1983, an effort was made in the southwest to go back to prioritizing human capital. It was short lived as the impostors struck again. And for the next 15 years, the nation was held, not merely at a standstill but way backwards in the matter of human capital development.

    Where gains had been made, they made sure that those were reversed with a deliberate policy of stunting the intellectual growth of the nation. This policy would most likely not have succeeded without the centralization of the major social and economic institutions. It is now apparent that centralization was a deliberate policy for overturning the progress of the early years in education and health. The consequence of that shocking demonstration of hatred for investment in human development, starkly against the tradition of enlightened governance in the post-independence era, is what we are experiencing today.

    Between 1999 and 2014, Nigeria made multiples of billions from the export of crude oil. But consistent with the policy outlook and practical bent of the immediate past, we chose to prioritize the physical over the mental as we built roads and skyscrapers across the landscape of our nation. In the process of these development initiatives, very few well-connected individuals made it big. But we neglected the necessary investment in quality education for the youth.

    Our common excuse, which Gates is aware of, is lack of adequate revenue. We cannot afford free education for our children because we do not have the financial means and for the same reason, we cannot stock libraries or equip laboratories. Part of the evidence of our fiscal handicap is that various state governments are unable to pay workers’ salary, with school teachers and retirees hardest hit.

    It is, however, quite revealing of the priorities that we set ourselves that, even in the middle of these trying times, both the legislative and executive branches of government at state and national levels suffer no financial hardship. Neither the humongous emoluments of members of state and national assemblies nor executive branch compensations are affected. Security votes are never endangered. The truth is that since 1966, the national leadership has effectively led the states in the retrogressive abandonment of equal access to quality education.

    In the early 1970s, when the nation was awash in stupendous wealth, Chief Awolowo, convinced that human beings are “the sole creative and purposive dynamic in nature…. the determinant of all economic and social change and the generator of all the impulse of progress”, and armed with figures and statistics, made a strong case for free education at all levels. Almost 50 years later, his arguments remain valid.

    We must reconsider the purpose of government in favor of the common good and reprimand the greedy mentality of a few.

     

    • Follow me on Twitter:

    @SegunGbadeg2002

    @HarvestDayPubs

     

  • Liberal Democracy and minority interests

    Respect for freedom and equality recommends liberal democracy as a system of government. Freedom here means the absence of constraint. However, this notion of freedom in the context of multiple individuals has its constraints, requiring a mode of reconciling multiple freedoms. Majoritarian rule presents a viable option. If policies and practices are not imposed by the fiat of a dictator, if everyone has a direct or indirect input, and if there is an objective process for deciding which policy passes for law, then even if an individual’s freedom is constrained, it can be tolerated because the process is impartial.

    But there is more to the challenge of freedom even in a democratic setting than can be resolved by majoritarianism. It sounds harmless to suggest that the preference of the majority ought to be the standard for legislation when unanimity is not achieved. But what if it leads to a perpetual relegation of the interests of the minority to the back burner? Does democracy have an answer to such a clearly unfair and inequitable outcome?

    Specifically, how does the coexistence of multiple cultures, nationalities, tribes and clans, compound the standard of majoritarian democracy? Consider here the Nigerian context with its nationalities, tribes and clans.

    The 1999 constitution makes a unique provision for equitable representation. Section 14 (3 & 4) provide that the composition of the Government of the Federation, or the Government of a State or local government council shall reflect the federal character of Nigeria or the diversity of the people within the area of authority of a state. This is presumably in furtherance of the constitutional declaration of Nigeria as “a State based on the principle of democracy and social justice”.

    What the constitution does not provide for, but which is no less desirable is the equitable selection of candidates for major elective positions–president, vice president, governor, deputy governor, council chairman, etc. with respect for national or state diversity. What is the principle of equity? And how would it apply to the selection of candidates for such major positions in the center and across the states? Simply put, equity is a principle of distributive justice, which means fairness. To be fair is to be even-handed and to be impartial.

    Now, the principle of equity or fairness will apply differently in different sociological and demographic contexts. Consider a nation of homogenous population with a pronounced practice of individualism. In such a context, individuals see themselves and are seen by others as the bearers of interests and the objects of moral and legal recognition. To be fair and equitable is to treat every citizen as an embodiment of rights and as subject of dignity. Therefore, whatever roles and positions are available must be open to every able-bodied adult. The lowliest person is as qualified as the highest, provided each satisfies the specified conditions. And candidates for positions can come from any part of the country in case of national contests or any part of a state in case of state contests.

    Not all nations have an individualistic orientation. Indeed, only a few Western democracies have shed the collectivist identities that many African and other non-Western nations still hang on to. And despite the misgivings of modernists about collective identities, there is nothing particularly unusual about them. If properly harnessed, they could be a stabilizing force for liberal democracies. The idea of a liberal-nationalism is, after all, not an oxymoron.

    Africans relish their collectivist identities, the most cherished of which are ethnicity and religion. Others include social, professional, and business affiliations. Notice that while the last three are not unique to Africans and do not play a formal role in many contexts, the first two are. Ethnic and religious identities cannot be wished away in Africa in general and Nigeria in particular. It is part of our DNA. What we should rather urge is on the one hand, the productive and positive channeling of these identities, and on the other hand a respectful approach to their peculiarities by treating them fairly and equitably.

    The 1999 constitution, as mentioned above, made some useful provisions towards the end of equitable and fair treatment of ethnicity and religion. One such is the principle of federal character, which while abusable, could be a positive force for unity and common understanding.

    What the constitution does not provide for is the practice of rotating national political offices among ethnic nationalities, and state political offices among the tribes or sectional groups in a state. Perhaps the constitution does not make provision for this because ours is a republican constitution which recognizes only individuals as bearers of interest and dignity. But such a republicanism that recognizes only individual rights is a clear contradiction of the constitutional subscription to the principle of federal character and diversity.

    The point worth noting is that while the constitution does not seem to require that elective positions be filled on rotational basis either at the center on in the states and local governments, equity and fairness imposes this requirement on political parties. Not only does the moral principle of equity and fairness impose this requirement, political expediency also requires it. So even if a political party or its leaders are not moved by equity and fairness, if all they care for is expediency, they are also obligated to adopt the rotational principle.

    That equity requires the choice of and adherence to rotation is a no-brainier. Fairness requires that we put ourselves in the condition of our compatriots. If you were in the situation of the one that you have chosen to sideline and marginalize, how would you feel? More importantly, the principle of justice as fairness suggests an approach to determining the fairness of a policy or practice.

    Assume that none of us knows what ethnic group or which part of a state he or she would be born into. No one knows whether he or she would belong to a majority or a minority group within a state or in the country. No one knows what religious tenet he or she would espouse. In such a situation of total ignorance about what would be one’s place or lot in life, if afforded a pre-natal opportunity to choose, it makes sense to choose a principle that guarantees that one’s interests would be taken care of no matter one’s situation in life, and one would not be unrelentingly marginalized. For political participation, it would make sense for everyone, given that opportunity, to choose the policy of rotating political offices among contending parties, be it ethnic groups within the country or sections within a state.

    Without the benefit of a Rawlsian theory of justice, our people also understand and appreciate the importance of the policy and practice of rotation. In their native intelligence, they teach us the value of sharing: Enikan kii je ki ile fe. Recall also the invaluable lesson that Aare Kurunmi taught the American Baptist clergyman during the intervention of the latter to stop the Ijaiye War. Kurunmi called it the moral philosophy of the toad. Simply put, it is the give and take philosophy.

    It is time our modern ego learns a lesson from the ancient exponents of oppression and victims of marginalization. Individuals and cities that providence has smiled upon with munificence must not play god or impose their will on the less fortunate. It is an unassailable moral principle. But it is also a principle of political expediency.

    The marginalized of the world may not have individual voices. But they have their God-given wisdom. A situation of perpetual marginalization would naturally lead to frustration with the system. In the fullness of time, the marginalized will learn to take control of their destiny. If they cannot be victors, having nothing to lose, they can choose to be spoilers. With a solidarity of the marginalized choosing the path of the spoiler, it would be the nail on the coffin of the overconfident master who purposes a lifetime of servanthood for entire populations on the assumption that they do not have the numbers. It is a parable for the wise.

     

    • Follow me on Twitter:

    @SegunGbadeg2002

    @HarvestDayPubs

     

  • The (ir)rationality of perpetual intra-party conflicts

    At the launching of the Economic Recovery and Growth Plan (ERGP) focus labs on Tuesday, March 13, 2017, President Buhari touted his achievements on the economy in the last 10 months. The list of achievements jubilantly showcased by the President included a Real GDP growth of 1.92 percent for the fourth quarter of 2017, stability in the foreign exchange market, and increased foreign reserve from 24 billion to 46 billion in just over a year.

    Other achievements included World Bank’s ranking in the top 10 most improved economies in 2017, investments in infrastructure, significant progress in the agricultural sector with more beneficiaries of the Anchor Borrower’s Program, successful Presidential Fertilizer Initiative, and growth in local production of rice. With reference to the ERGP focus lab, the President expressed confidence that it will impact significantly on GDP and job creation. So, provided that the goal of job creation and poverty alleviation is achieved, we may justifiably share the president’s optimism that there is progress in the economic sector.

    Ordinarily, good news about the economy should provide the wind beneath the wing of any central administration. Add to such an improbable fortune that the President’s party controls the National Assembly and the icing on the cake should be unbelievably delicious.

    Unfortunately for him, however, even if this good news about the economy is believable, President Buhari’s has much more challenges to worry about beside performance in the economic sector. What more has to do with the unusual conflict between the presidency and the legislature. Is this not a case of each branch cutting its nose to spite its face? Or is there any way of making a rational case out of what appears grossly irrational?

    Before going into the rationality or irrationality of the face-off, it makes sense to examine the faces and phases of the conflict which an APC Senator, Abdullahi Adamu, has provocatively summed up when he alleged that APC lawmakers are sabotaging the President. “We hold the Executive prisoner of politics… Appointments requiring Senate approval are held up.”  And as if confirming the bleak depiction of an internal war between friendly army camps, the President just rejected the amendment to the Electoral Act which had altered the sequence proposed by INEC for the 2019 elections.

    Complicating the already bewildering situation, the conflict is not just between the Presidency and the National Assembly (NASS). On its part, NASS is also divided, not along party lines, but into pro- and anti- Presidency factions which cut across the ranks of the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) in the House and Senate.

    While pro-Buhari lawmakers see a NASS that is unjustifiably antagonistic to the President as Senator Adamu puts it, the anti-Buhari camp accuse the Presidency of disrespect for the independence of NASS as a co-equal branch of government. For this group, the singular evidence of this disrespect is the administration’s dogged pursuit of the legal case against the Senate President at the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT).  What other analysts might see as an objective and fair pursuit of justice against violators of the statutes, anti-Buhari NASS members see as a deliberate ploy to embarrass the Senate President and his members.

    As it appears, the two sides are not budging, and the die is cast. With neither side blinking, and with general elections looming, is there a rational explanation of this impasse?

    But before going into the rationality of the conflict, however, there is more inconvenient truth to confront. After all, it is not just at the center that intra-party conflicts have ensued. At the state and local levels, the party is also experiencing unimaginable crises. Some governors are at daggers drawn with Ministers representing their states in the federal cabinet while some state party executives are up in arms against their governors. And, for good measure, in some local governments, the party is experiencing chronic crises between party leaders and members.

    The existence of a rational explanation for the chronic conflicts is pretty much dependent on the interests and objectives of the agents involved in the impasse. Let us make some assumptions. First, we may reasonably assume that APC, as a party, has an interest in competing strongly and winning the 2019 general elections. Second, while he has not yet declared his intention to compete, we may also assume, going by his body language, that President Buhari is interested in contesting the elections for a second term. Third, it may also be assumed that many Senators and House members would want to complete for their current positions or higher ones.

    However, taken together, the truth of all the premises assumed in the preceding paragraph cannot by itself lead us to infer irrationality on the part of the contenders in the present impasse between the Presidency and the legislative branch or between Governors and Ministers, etc. To reach that conclusion, we must add a fourth assumption that the President, law-maker or Governor, who is presently a member of APC Is also committed to using the APC platform to contest the next general elections. If this assumption holds true, then, there is clearly a good reason to doubt the rationality of the agents whether in the Presidency, National Assembly, State legislature or Governor’s office.

    If all its current members still commit to APC as the political party to realize their political ambition in the next general election, weakening the party through an irresolvable conflict, less than twelve months to the election is the height of irrationality. For what they are doing is providing fuel for the fire of what is already turning out to be virulent opposition attacks. A house that is divided against itself will fall without redemption. Therefore, as rational beings, one expects that the parties to the conflict will commit to its resolution.

    Incidentally, the President himself has seen the landmines laid by the conflicts and he has shown some interest in having an effective resolution. For all we know, he may be thinking of his own political future, which is reasonable. But he may also be more altruistic and thinking about the future of the party, which he and others fought hard to establish for the advancement of Nigerian democracy.

    The president’s appointment of Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu is seen by many stakeholders as a rational one in view of the high stakes. And with the assumption that every party to the conflict still commits to APC as the vehicle for their political ambition, it is logical to assume that they will come to the reconciliation table, not just with their grievances, but also with their forgiving spirits and determination to let bygone be bygone.

    Unfortunately, however, the above assumption is the auspicious one. That all agents in the intra-APC conflict are committed to using the platform of the party for the general election may not be true after all. And that may explain the rationality of any agent’s apparent mindset of escalating the crisis and giving no room for resolution.

    Both Coalition for Nigeria Movement (CNM) and Social Democratic Party (SDP) have claimed that some Senators and House members have expressed interest in decamping APC and joining the new movements. If this turns out to be true, it is in the rational interest of those members to weaken APC ahead of their ultimate purpose of running under the banner of another party. It is not a new playbook. It happened before, and it may just be payback time. In an environment where politicians have no ideological commitments and where membership of political parties is not based on ideologies, self-interest trumps political loyalties.

    Those politicians who joined forces in 2014 and defeated the ruling party in 2015 came from different backgrounds and different world views about politics and governance. Their unifying interest was winning. Apparently, what united them was too ephemeral to sustain a long-lasting relationship. Some political birds may have since grown new feathers and have self-interestedly decided to fly with new identities. In the circumstance, we can only hope, for the sake of democratic stability, that reconciliation succeeds.

     

    Follow me on Twitter:

    @SegunGbadeg2002

    @HarvestDayPubs

     

     

     

  • What is Nigeria to me?

    What is Nigeria to me?

    Today, I dedicate this column to three distinguished Nigerians who celebrated significant landmarks in their earthly journeys in the last few weeks. Dr. Tokunbo Awolowo-Dosunmu and Chief (Mrs.) Omowale Akinrinade turned 70 while Dr. Amos Akingba (aka Triple A) turned 80. In various ways, each of them has been involved in the Nigerian project for more than a half century and each of them and their families have the scars to show for it.

    Dr. Tokunbo Awolowo-Dosunmu represented her country with the passion of a patriot as ambassador to The Netherlands. As the Director and Chief Executive of the Obafemi Awolowo Foundation, she turned her passion to activism for the sustenance of the legacy of the Patriarch and Matriarch of progressive politics and governance in Nigeria. Building upon a legacy of democratic federalism against the forces of retrogression is what sets her apart.

    Chief (Mrs.) Omowale Akinrinade is the matriarch of the illustrious Ipoola Alani Akinrinade family, a brave warrior in the tradition of Ogedengbe Gbogungboro, Lisabi Gbongbo Akala, and Balogun Ibikunle. While the Progressive People’s General defends democratic federalism in physical and intellectual battlefields, Omowale provides the tranquil and serene environment for the stability of the family. And when brutes took over the affairs of the homeland, ferociously attacking the innocent and bombing their home, and the warrior chose to retreat to fight another time, the wife was in tow. Many are not aware of the indignities of life in exile, especially for the families of our brave compatriots. Some of us knew what they experienced and continually appreciate the sacrifice of especially the wives.

    Dr. Amos Akingba has been a vocal and passionate advocate of democratic federalism. From June 12-14, 1997, the World Congress of Free Nigerians held in London. Chief Antony Enahoro was the President and I served as Director. Delegates from the US, Canada, and Europe traveled to London for the Congress. It was there that I first met Dr. Akingba who had been exiled in London. My first impression of him was his principled position on the matter of Sovereign National Conference on which he wasn’t going to give an inch despite the hardship that he and others were going through in exile. He rejected any compromise on the most important demand of the pro-democracy groups and NADECO, namely, the release of Basorun Abiola and the demilitarization of our politics. One morning, I was struck by something that stayed in my consciousness since. Dr. Akingba had bought grapes for breakfast. He presented it to Ropo Sekoni and me, saying, “fellows, this is breakfast in exile. You better get used to it.” I suppressed my emotion and joined him.

    What is Nigeria to me? What is Nigeria to my compatriots that they are willing to make these sacrifices? Readers familiar with the writings of Dr. W. E. B. Du Bois, the father of Pan Africanism, may recall him asking an identical question of Africa. In Dusk of Dawn: An Essay Toward an Autobiography of a Race Concept (1944), Du Bois asked: What is Africa to me? He asked this question in the context of his life-long obsession with Africa, recalling with nostalgia his grandmother singing what appeared to him incomprehensible songs about Africa. He knew Africa as his “fatherland” or “motherland” having been “born in a century when the walls of race were clear and straight; when the world consisted of mutually exclusively races”.

    Du Bois’s obsession with Africa developed in the context of a mixed-race society where the larger society saw his blackness as a badge of shame, an assignment that he was not prepared to accept. While he accepted the identity of his Americanness marked by the doctrine of natural rights, freedom, and citizenship, he was not willing to forego his Africanness. The task for him was to locate the basis of his Africanness and once he achieved this, the dilemma starkly presented its vicious horn and Du Bois confronted it frontally in “Conservation of Races”: What am I after all? Am I an American or am I a Negro? Can I be both? Or is it my duty to cease to be a Negro as soon as possible and be an American?

    We should note that Du Bois’s question makes sense in the context of American racism in which the black is constantly reminded of his or her blackness which is brutally undermined and ridiculed. Du Bois queried the logic of his identifying with an America that refused to recognize and appreciate him as one of her own. This justified for him the need to look toward Africa, the motherland of his ancestors, whose cultures ring loud in his African-American community. Specifically, he looked for race solidarity and race unity as a bulwark against the race persecution of the American political and social life.

    What has Du Bois’s question got to do with my question? Like America, Nigeria is an idea that was desired to become a reality. But while America was an idea generated by voluntary agents, Nigeria was an idea imposed on different peoples by a colonizing power. Two errors tainted the American story. First was the savage elimination of the Native Americans from their land. Second was the barbaric invasion of Africa and the kidnapping, enslaving, and transporting of young men and women across the Atlantic Ocean. These were the original sins of America, which created its problem of identity and race tension.

    Here, however, over the territory that the British sought to impose their will, there were separate nationalities with distinct languages, political systems, and religious sensibilities. Let me even grant what some hegemonists like to proclaim without a basis in reality: There were clans, tribes, and no nationalities. Assume that this is true, no one has denied that those tribes and clans had their systems of governance and if they had been left alone, the small clans with common languages and religions could have found the need to come together as large nations. It was what happened in other climes.

    Now, the British eventually brought all the small and large nations together under one government and ruled over them in a manner that was only beneficial to Britain. When it was suitable, it used trickery to pit one group against the other, creating a sense of mistrust among the various groups. And when it was persuaded to give up its rule, it left the country with the animosity that it had generated ruling it. Thus, while Nigerians now have a sense of political identity as citizens, the overwhelming majority prioritize their cultural and linguistic identity over above their Nigerian identity.

    In that context, Du Bois’s second question becomes applicable: What after all am I? Am I Nigerian or am I Yoruba, Igbo, Fulani, Edo, Tiv, Ijaw, Efik, etc.? Can I be both? Or is it my duty to cease to be a Yoruba, Igbo, Fulani, Edo, Tiv, Ijaw, Efik, etc. as soon as possible and simply be a Nigerian?

    The founding fathers of Nigerian nationalism struggled with this question and concluded that, as bearers of traditions, cultures, languages, and religions, the different nationalities cannot be wished away; that being a Yoruba does not contradict my Nigerianness, and that I do not have to subdue all that is Yoruba in me to the Nigerian. They were right.

    What they also did was to institutionalize a system of governance that guaranteed that my Yoruba identity is not only acknowledged and respected, but it is also represented in the governance structure. This kind of recognition and respect is what Du Bois strived for but could not get in the American system. It was this denial that facilitated his striving to connect with Africa.

    While our experience of alienation from our roots is not on the same level as the experience that Du Bois struggled with, the imposition of a unitary system on diverse peoples with diverse cultural traditions is eerily similar. This is the rationale for the incessant clamor for restructuring, which is the only bulwark against ethnic nationalities striving for their own political kingdoms.

    Happy Birthday, Compatriots!

    • Follow me on Twitter:

    @SegunGbadeg2002

    @HarvestDayPubs

     

     

  • Dapchi and the search for meaning

    Dapchi and the search for meaning

    A horrific nightmare? A national embarrassment? A national shame? What is Dapchi? How does one even start making sense of a senseless occurrence? Indeed, a recurrence! How does a government that rode to power on the adjudged weakness of an incumbent government defend itself against a reasonable charge of weakness and ineptitude? What goes round comes round!

    In the face of a mounting evidence of self-generated crises, does a loyal supporter pretend visual or hearing impairment? Or mental incapacity? Not now! After the truth is canvassed privately without effect, a self-respecting conscientious rational being has a responsibility to his or her conscience to speak truth to power publicly. In 2003, after “A Mad March”, I called out on “Those Who Must Speak Now”. Now I count myself as one among those who must speak now.

    Call it what you may. Deja vu it is not. This present, like the recent past, is real. This is not a fantastic psychiatric recall of an illusory experience from the past. We were there at Chibok only four years ago and the memory is still fresh with us all, especially with survivors and grieving parents and relations of the lost. Did we then not make a vow that it will never happen again? How did the ball get dropped and who did it?

    The wise admonish us that when a people fail to learn from experience, they are inevitably condemned to repeat it. How did we fail to learn from the experience of Chibok?

    Chibok was four years ago in April 2014 when Boko Haram terrorists abducted more than 250 young girls from their boarding house. They were sexually assaulted and exploited. At tender ages, away from their parents, their abductors hawked them as sex slaves. They mothered their children against their will. For three years, attempts to get them released and rejoined with their families failed amid partisan political jabs. Candidate Buhari and APC won the general election of 2015 with a promise to rescue the Chibok girls and end the menace of Boko Haram.

    The Buhari administration hit the ground running and in the first few weeks of inauguration it ordered Service Chiefs to relocate to the Northeast. That was greeted with relief and appreciation. The military reported progress and soon many of the Chibok girls regained their freedom, though the trauma of the ordeal, including forced motherhood, couldn’t be erased. At least, there was a national sigh of relief with a presidential promise to resettle the survivors and pursue the culprits till the scourge is permanently extinguished. Now this!

    If anything was learnt from Chibok, it was that terrorists had an easy access to the school because there was no security presence there. The police were not a match for the sophisticated weapons of the terrorists. There was no military presence. Therefore, it made sense that the military was deployed to Dapchi for the protection of the young students at the Dapchi College of Science and Technology. That was a strategic move that deterred the terrorists.

    In addition, between 2015 and 2017, the military and other security forces succeeded in the coordinated operation against Boko Haram. Unfortunately, that success had been misconstrued to mean complete routing. Apparently, someone prematurely declared “Mission Accomplished” and withdrew the army from Dapchi.

    Was it a case of political intrigue to embarrass the administration ahead of 2019? I know some within the party and the administration might be tempted to think along this line. But they should perish the thought and avoid going there because they mocked similar thinking four years ago. And frankly, to go there is to admit to the charge of ineptitude. For why couldn’t a competent administration invest thought and resources in foiling any political intrigue on the part of the opposition or other malcontents?

    If you knew that an earth-shaking occurrence took place a year to the last election and it cost the ruling party the election, does it not stand to reason that you would arm yourself against a similar occurrence under your watch? Who are the insiders of the Rock that strategize about the good of the president and the nation? Who are the security advisers? What explanation is forthcoming from the Minister of Defence? And the Minister of Internal Affairs? Are these the President’s men in whom he is well-pleased? Surely, they couldn’t be accomplices in any scheme to embarrass him! Or can they?

    So are the Service Chiefs. Indeed, some mischievous observers would see poetic justice boldly scripted in a chapter of this episode. Has the President not been recently accused of staffing the Defence headquarters with his people? Can they be implicated in a plot to embarrass him? Or are they just incompetent?

    The death of a baby is responsible for the mother’s plight in the hands of her tormentors. Unfortunately, when an administration that was celebrated at inception as the patron saint of peace and security appears to have lost its ward, it unwittingly energizes mockers and tormentors. Having succumbed to the clever tackle of the terrorists, it has opened the space of reproach to small indignities. Hear PDP and company! And wait in vain for APC publicity crew’s response. Mischief!

    The national outcry against the obvious shoddy handling of the farmer-herdsmen conflict was still raging with little progress toward its resolution. It was already being characterized as the Boko Haram of APC without knowing that the real Boko Haram of APC was around the corner. Three years into the life of the administration, the initial teething problem can no longer be an excuse. The actual practice of lunacy is shortchanged when the preparation for it takes forever.

    It didn’t help that, like 2014, the initial administration reaction was utterly confusing. “Thank God, students were not abducted. Oh! we are sorry students were actually abducted.” “But thanks to the military, abducted students have been released. Oh! too bad, abducted students have not been released.” It is anybody’s guess how parents and loved ones were supposed to handle the confusion. Do we care about our children and their parents?

    Unlike 2014, however, reason prevailed in quick succession. Cabinet members were sent to Yobe on fact-finding mission. The President ordered the military chiefs to relocate to the sector and he promised parents that their children will be returned to them, a promise that he cannot afford to break.

    Seeking the presidency is seeking a legacy for party and candidate. For the party, it is about placing its vision for the nation at the center, working hard to have it realized within the time it has, and hoping that it becomes engrained in the fabric of the nation.

    A political party’s vision could be the establishment of a security infrastructure that keeps the people safe for a long time. It could be a welfare program that takes seriously the burden of social life on people and relieves it on their behalf. It could be a vision of a structure that takes account of the diversity of the population and seeks to make it more productive of harmony in the long run. Having bought into the vision of the party, the presidential candidate is expected to promote it and implement it to its logical conclusion. At this point in the life of the administration, it is not too early to ask, what will be its legacy?

    Surely, there have been some achievements. The economy is improving. Foreign reserve is rising. Corruption is being attacked. Citizens normally expect these of any administration. Securing a legacy requires more. And for that more, attention must be paid to the various strands in the fabric of the party. Are leaders working at cross purposes? If so, can there ever be an alignment of leadership and followership?  When egocentric and ethnocentric leaders pursue their self-interest at the expense of party solidarity and victory; when they poohpooh the concept and practice of internal democracy and the grassroot revolt; if the party fails in the end, what is their gain? Or is their plan to jump ship before it hits the iceberg?

     

    Follow me on Twitter:

     

    @SegunGbadeg2002

     

    @HarvestDayPubs

  • Does true federalism guarantee true democracy?

    Does true federalism guarantee true democracy?

    For clarity and transparency, I should start with an explanation of the mindset that provokes the above question. Simply put, it is the mindset of an optimism that sees beyond the present fog of uncertainty which defines our national politics to a future that is as certain as death. The future I foresee is that of change from this quasi-unitary system to one that approximates a true federal republic. And I envisionthis change coming in the lifetime of this generation.

    There are good signs that we will get there. First, we have been there before, and we were witnesses to its successes and its failures. The mark of a genuine human intellect is to learn from failure and make necessary improvements for greater success. It is a defeatist mindset that gives up on a course with great potentials after only six years. That was what we did.

    Second, the failure of the present system has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt for every rational being. Since 1966, we have operated a governing system that has caused unprecedented political and economic instability on a regular basis. We blame the founding fathers for agreeing to a regional federal system that fueled ethnicism. Can anyone honestly suggest that this quasi-unitary system has gotten rid of ethnicism? Third, with recent developments, as discussed in this column last week, it appears that we have put on our thinking caps again and are getting back our senses.

    For the foregoing reasons, I am optimistic that we will get to the state of a true federal republic and this is the rationale for the question raised in the title of the column today. The assumption behind the question, “does true federalism guarantee true democracy?” is that true federalism is not an end in-itself. What does this mean? It simply means that in response to the assertion “It is good and helpful to have a true federal system of governance in a multi-national state”, one may reasonably ask “why?””What is good about it?”

    The question, “what is good about true federalism?” is reasonable and it deserves an adequate answer. One possible answer can be eked from a combination of the works of John Stuart Mill and Chief Obafemi Awolowo. In “On Representative Government”, Mill argues that every nationality, with a distinct language, culture, and a sense of belonging, has a right to self-government. Where this is not possible because of a forceful imposition by a colonial power, Awolowo argues in People’s Republic that federalism is the closest to self-government.

    Yet, as reasonable as both positions are, we could still ask the question “why?” Why is it the right of nationalities to have self-government? And why is still necessary to have a federal system where two or more nationalities cohabit? Other answers are possible: political stability, balanced development, etc. For each of these, we could still ask why it is so important. The ultimate answer beyond which we might not anticipate a reasonable question is that self-government promotes freedom and freedom is an inalienable right of human beings.

    Freedom is divinely ordained. As Rousseau surmised, human beings are born free. No one is born with chains around his or her neck. And human beings are born into communities which naturally nurture them to survive the helplessness of infancy and the dependency of adolescence until they come of age and their freedom is acknowledged and respected. When a young man comes of age, he is given a farm plot of his own. That is freedom.

    We also realize, however, that a community composed of free individuals needs a governance structure; and over the years of human existence, different systems of political-economic governance have been operated. From communal to slave systems, from feudal to capitalistic, from monarchical to aristocratic, from autocratic to fascist and militocratic. The experiments have been varied and consequential. But none has endured except democracy and the reason democracy endures is that it exemplifies and validates the natural human affinity and quest for freedom.

    If freedom is the ultimate political value for human beings, and if democracy validates, protects, and promotes, human freedom, then we must expect that our quest for true federalism would also guaranteetrue democracy and promote human freedom. This is the basis for my question: does true federalism guarantee true democracy?

    My inclination is to argue that why true federalism is a necessary condition for true democracy in a multinational state, it is not by itself a sufficient condition? It is easy to see that true federalism is a necessary condition for true democracy. Mill argues rightly that “free institutions are next to impossible in a country made up of different nationalities. Among a people without fellow feeling, especially if they read and speak different languages, the united public opinion, necessary to the workings of a representative government, cannot exist.” The next best alternative to make such a system work is to give recognition to each nationality through a federal system of government.

    But while true federalism is a necessary condition in such a structure, it is not sufficient. For, a true federal system may end up empowering a few elites and power-brokers within a nationality at the expense of the freedom of every individual member of the nationality. To know what else must be added to true federalism for it to lead to the end of true democracy and individual freedom, we need to understand the impediments to the realization of the latter even in a truly federal state.

    First on the list of impediments is self-interest which is now a proxy for ethnic interest. In a malfunctioning quasi-unitary state, ethnicism is the culprit. Nepotism is the foe of freedom. We tend to ignore the fact that these cleverly elide the obnoxiousness of individual egos masquerading as ethnics. The nepotist revels in the act because it enhances his image within the group and his private interest is thus promoted. In a truly federal state, this human urge for image enhancement and ego bolstering is not suddenly supplanted with a desire to promote the freedom of all fellow-ethnics.

    Consider even now what goes on in the various states of the lopsided federation. Where there is no visible nepotism, there is factionalism even within the same political party. Party members are categorized based on loyalty to leaders, including governors, instead of loyalty to party manifesto and governing philosophy. Based on the universality of human nature, whichseldom respects moral and political ideals of freedom and equality, without additional effort to make the ideal of individual freedom the centerpiece of a true federal structure, we can expect some variants of the following.

    Nepotism will relocate to states or regions with regional tribes within regional nationalities using the political power of numbers to oppress and exploit their minority members. We could see federal

    bigmanism becoming state or regional bigmanism. We could see the enlargement of the coast of regional or state tin gods. Without additional efforts, transparency is not likely to increase, and candidate imposition is not likely to abate. As our people understand so well, it is imprudent to allow a sharp pointed wood to be menacingly close to one’s eyes before raising an alarm.

    Morning predicts the day. What we see now in state and regional politics is likely to dictate what democracy looks like in a truly federal system.

    But of course, there is always the power of the people to determine their fate. Southwest leadersmust always remember Awolowo’s eternal wisdom garnered from experience of leading our people. As he once observed in Path to Nigerian Greatness, the Yoruba are a sophisticated people who will not allow their rights to be trampled upon for long: “Many rights are enjoyed within the family; these rights are fundamental and inalienable, because the urge for their enjoyment is inherent and instinctive in man…. Because of their inherent and instinctive nature, these rights cannot be permanently suppressed. In the short run, they can be held in abeyance, but even only at great risks to the peace, harmony, and cohesion of the family.”

     

    • Follow me on Twitter:

    @SegunGbadeg2002

    @HarvestDayPubs