The Nation Newspaper

Category: Segun Gbadegesin

  • Black Man’s Dilemma: Forty years later

    Black Man’s Dilemma: Forty years later

    Black Man’s Dilemma by Chief Areoye Oyebola, veteran journalist and former editor of Daily Times, was first published in 1976 on the eve of the Second World Black and African Festival of Arts and Culture (FESTAC). With its sweeping indictment of the black race, it was an unpleasant rain on the parade of black folks demanding recognition and respect from a hostile world. The review was mixed. While some commended his objectivity, others wondered how a fellow black can be so dismissive of his kind?

    Chief Oyebola revised the book in 2002, and shortly after, he kindly sent me a signed copy with his compliments. I carefully read through several times, and each time different emotions consumed me: bitterness, resentment, sadness and shame. While I felt like screaming aloud at several points in protest of chilling statements, I soldiered on till the end.

    Black Man’s Dilemma came up again last Saturday when a thoughtful and intelligent political activist, Architect Abiodun Adepoju (Abbey), paid me a visit. Abbey was the first Chairman of the Social Democratic Party, USA (SDP-USA) in the 1990s and was deeply involved in the pre- and post-annulment strategic meetings and rallies.

    As with almost every private and social conversations of Nigerians in the diaspora, our social evening soon turned on the state of the nation. “What is going on with NASS? Why is APC working against its interest? Why is the President’s anti-corruption war suffering defeat?

    What is the matter with our oligarchs that they cannot mobilise their financial resources to revamp the educational system?  In the face of serious recession and acute foreign exchange shortage, must we send young children to expensive schools abroad and get them exposed to all kinds of abuses and cultural deprivation? Why are our mega churches in the business of for-profit educational ventures when missionaries who had no biological relationship with us gave us good education at substantially subsidised rates?

    We went back and forth, diving into the history of our villages and our ethnic nation, the fratricidal wars that our forebears fought, and their unwitting facilitation of the barbaric trade in humans, the European partition of Africa and the ensuing colonial imposition, the struggle for and achievement of flag independence and the inability to run the affairs of the state justly and fairly. The question is “Is it in the genes we inherited or in the choices we made?” If the former, what hope is there unless there is a bright prospect for genetic modification? If the latter, can we collectively change the doomed course we are on by changing the choices we make?

    Out of the blues, Abbey recalled Black Man’s Dilemma. He had read it many years ago and was beginning to appreciate the thesis of the book. For as it turned out, the problem of Nigeria is the problem of black people in general.

    Oyebola asked several biting questions, all of which can make the soul of black folk groan in pain. If humanity originated from Africa, and “all races, including the black race, have behind them a past of approximately equal length, why must our own remain behind in material progress?” Ouch!

    While some assumptions, for example, of black people loitering around while others were making progress, appear to underestimate the impact of enslavement and colonialism on the course that we might have taken, there can be no denying the fact that, all things considered, “we have wasted our time while others were battling day and night to conquer nature and make their environment better than they found them.”

    We may romanticise and congratulate ourselves on our so-called relationship of mutuality with nature. We do not approach nature as conquerors, only as co-sojourners in God’s vineyard. But the extent to which this posture is a genuine choice rather than a forced one must be determined.

    In both the 1976 edition and the revised edition of 2002, Oyebola identified “three intriguing facts about the black race.” First, “no Black Country has ever made a breakthrough to modernity.” Second, about 20 million black Africans were captured and transported to the Americas as slaves. Third, the black race is relatively backward “vis-a-vis other races of the world.”

    For the author, “black people have no country to be proud of in terms of its great inventions and discoveries, its technical equipment and political power.” This is obviously sweeping. Oyebola himself referenced the great kingdoms of Mali, Songhai and Ghana. To this we may add the Oyo empire and the Sokoto caliphate. And we must not forget the impact of enslavement and colonialism on what might have been.

    But Oyebola’s thesis is inescapable: “the point that has always made me sad is that after so many years of political independence, there is still very slim possibility of a black country making a breakthrough to modernity.” If this is a fair assessment, the question remains why is it so and what can be done about it?

    Taking Nigeria as an example, Oyebola lamented that the hope he had about her taking “giant steps towards technological, economic and socio-political development, has turned out to be a misplaced hope.” Why? I think there are many reasons.

    First, the structure bequeathed to the new nation by her erstwhile rulers was inimical to genuine development and perhaps it was deliberately meant to be so for their obvious self-interest. Unfortunately, the inheritors of the structure failed to avoid the land mine. They walked straight into it.

    Second, backwardness in material and moral terms is not in our genes, it is in our choices. And it has always been so even in our pre-slavery and pre-colonial times. Like other races and kingdoms, the founders of our various political enclaves craved greatness, with very little concern for their subjects. And while they built great armies to defend their kingdoms and empires, the focus was the king and his coterie of loyal cabinet who enforced the inbuilt constitutional provisions against the excesses of the king. Therefore, the king and the cabinet only had to be in sync. Even this rudiment of protection against excesses was soon rendered obsolete by the colonial powers who needed an authority with effective powers as their proxy.

    This model of strong executive with weak opposition led us to independence and it was embraced by the new regional and federal governments. If you can do what you want without the fear of an effective opposition, and if you understand power as an instrument of greatness, then you are most likely to approach your political power in terms of your egoistic interests. Whether in the civilian or military era, this has always been the sad story of our politics. It has not been any different in the last 16 years. It is, therefore, not a surprise that we are not having a breakthrough to modernity.

    Oyebola observes that while Asians, Europeans and Americans are “massively investing their human and material resources in the application of scientific, engineering and technological research, thereby transforming their production, industrial and social welfare systems, Nigeria and other black countries pay minimal attention to research.” The mindset is different here than there. Here Governor Wike prefers to set up “trust fund” for the welfare of pastors in a country where the constitution unambiguously separates church and state, even if the schools in his state are lacking essential equipment and infrastructure.

    Chief Oyebola did not just criticise, he also offered suggestions on the way forward if Nigeria and the black race in general will make it to modernity. Self-discipline, which is grossly lacking in both leaders and followers, is one of his many suggestions.

    Corruption, the most dangerous enemy of development, is a cancerous outgrowth of indiscipline. Corruption drains the blood of the national economy, making it too unhealthy to invest adequately in education and research. Yet, originality of thought in governance and development, which Oyebola emphasised as essential for a breakthrough, can only be realised through heavy investment in human intellect. Choosing between mental revolution and collective atrophy should not pose a dilemma. Forty years later, the choice is clear.

     

    • Follow me on twitter:

    @SegunGbadeg2002

    @HarvestDayPubs

  • Leadership hazards and opportunities 

    Leadership hazards and opportunities 

    A leader literally and figuratively occupies the space in the front of the line. That space is riddled with uncertainties and perils. In battle, the leader faces the enemies, whose goal is to shoot and kill. If the enemies are skilful, you may be hit. If they are not, they can misfire. There are also land mines on your path, just in case the machine guns miss you.

    As you lead, your followers are behind. If you are lucky, and they acknowledge and respect your leadership skills, they will give you cover and watch your back. If they don’t, or they envy your frontline position, they can orchestrate your downfall. In the heat of the battle against the enemy, they may plan a mutiny, or they may simply abandon you to your fate. Of course, you may also be an unwitting cause of your fate.

    As in war, so it is in politics, which has led some to find a fitting analogy between war and politics.

    Fortunately, the perils of leadership are balanced by the opportunities that it affords for providing fresh insights for the greater purpose of achieving lasting success for the organisation, be it private, public, or national. Ideas matter, and leadership with ideas inspire. Examples also matter, and leadership with personal stories of effective leadership under grave circumstances with ideas proven to work can galvanise pragmatic steps toward the achievement of shared goals.

    This intertwining of leadership hazards and opportunities has always played out at various points in our national history. Recall the First and Second Republic partisan brickbats within and between party hierarchies. We have also seen a similar trend in the present republic, again within and between the major political parties. For Master History, repetition does not connote failure.

    Yet the way the interconnection played out in the last one week has especially been quite dramatic and hilarious.

    First, let us bring to the fore evidence of the danger of leadership, including the desperation of the opposition coupled with its unskilful use of ammunition. Two related stories caught my attention in this regard. First, on April 2, THISDAY newspaper carried a story headlined “PDP Caucus Accuses Tinubu, EFCC of Conspiracy to Destroy Senate.” Naturally, I was interested in the story. But as I got into the middle, it became clear to me that something was not right.

    The article reported that the Senate PDP caucus was upset that Tinubu was involved in a conspiracy with the EFCC to destroy the Senate and impugn the integrity of its members. Surely, if this was true, PDP caucus had the responsibility to raise the alarm as members of the Senate. The justification is that even though the caucus is in the minority, it sees itself as a good corporate citizen of the chamber. Good for the Senate PDP caucus, I said to myself.

    As I read on, however, I saw less than circumstantial evidence in the allegation against Tinubu. Media agencies associated with him carried critical reports or comments on Senate leadership. Oba Akiolu vowed to deal with Senate. And there was a “savage” attack on Senator Peter Nwaboshi, who had moved a motion on the “refusal of the executive to respect Senate resolutions.” THISDAY also reported that its source contented that Tinubu and his friends “were not happy that senators supported President Muhammadu Buhari, when he was away. They thought we will help them bring down the government because of their ambition.”

    Now, this last accusation is strange when it is combined with the accusation by the same “source” that Tinubu’s friends had attacked the Senate because of its motion on the refusal of the executive to respect Senate resolutions. In one breath, Tinubu and his friends were accused of attacking the Senate (i) because the Senate supported the Presidency and (ii) because the Senate opposed the Presidency. The accusation is a classic case of self-contradiction.

    On top of this, there is no reference to any named individual who made the accusations, only to anonymous “sources”. The most bizarre of this is that no word or statement, written or verbal, was attributed to Tinubu as basis for the allegation of his war against the Senate. It is a case of guilt by association. By which it means that none of the individuals and organisations mentioned as having something to do with the grievance of the PDP caucus can act freely and independently. Their actions or statements must be authorised by Tinubu.

    But the story itself has no legs and it disappears into the thin air as quickly as it appeared. By the following morning, it was gone and this time, there was at least one credible source. The leader of the Senate PDP caucus, Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe, who should know, “said the caucus did not discuss Tinubu at any time.” “It is far from the truth”, he said. “We did not at any time discuss Tinubu at our meetings and nobody accused the EFCC of anything.” Just like that, “the handwork of mischief makers” as Abaribe put it, was discredited. Like the wiretap claim of one that will remain unnamed, this too fell flat.

    But who are these “mischief makers”? One THISDAY reporter “broke” the original baseless story. It was another THISDAY reporter that nailed its coffin with a new reporting. Did the first reporter make up the story? To what end?  Was the fake story planted by Tinubu’s political opponents who found a willing journalist to publish it? Shouldn’t the journalist confirm the story with the Senate PDP caucus before going to press? Or did the PDP caucus decide to wriggle out of an embarrassing story?

    It is telling that even the second reporter avoided mentioning the original reporter or the fact that THISDAY published the debunked story. Whatever answers there are to these questions, the story itself confirms the hazard of leadership. Tinubu has come a long way to be acknowledged as a major issue in Nigerian politics today. The territory he occupies is also the aspiration of others who feel threatened by his intimidating presence. I have no doubt that he gets it that to feel secured and stable in your own skin due to the power of your ideas is one of the most important assets of a leader. Hence his penchant for idea-powered leadership.

    This takes me to the other side of the linkage, the opportunities of fresh insights and ideas for the greater purpose of the organisation. With no time for the frivolity and theatrics that characterise the everyday outing of some politicians and the cat and mouse relationship that politics seems to nurture, Tinubu has taken on the task of regular intervention, with the power of ideas, in the national search for greatness since the beginning of the Fourth Republic.

    The inauguration of a colloquium series that focuses on issues of national significance is a confirmation of Tinubu’s stature in the politics of ideas. Needless to add, great ideas and a dogged pursuit of their execution are what makes a nation great— not dictatorship, not mindless populism, certainly not malicious accusations that have no foundation.

    In his address to his namesake colloquium, Tinubu again demonstrated his grasp of what turns the wheel of economic advancement: shape the economy for the benefit of the people. This is basic, but have we fully embraced its logic?

    If we did, millions will not be out of work today. And tens of millions will not be underemployed. One way we have failed and pursued the opposite of what is required is conform ourselves to the rentier mono economy which makes us consumers rather than producers. We even outsource the production of our only product to multinationals and whine that they defraud us. Hopefully, we have learnt the important lesson from this ongoing recession, that if the lives of our young ones are not to be wasted in their prime, if we are to help them realise their full potentials, we need an economy that works for them, a diversified economy that develops our indigenous resources for what we and the world need.

     

    Follow me on Twitter:

    @SegunGbadeg2002

    @HarvestDayPubs

  • Magu, DSS and Senate

    The fascinating story of the Senate confirmation hearing and decision on the nomination of Ibrahim Magu as the Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has a great potential for box office success as a movie. What with the complex plot and intriguing characters! I trust that our talented screenwriters are already working their hearts out to give the nation a thriller in no distant future.

    There are three levels of interconnected plots: the executive level, the legislative level, and the subject common to both, the man Magu.

    Ibrahim Magu is the main character. But who is he and why is he in so much trouble? Magu served under former EFCC chairman Nuhu Ribadu. When Ribadu was relieved of his position by the late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, Magu also lost his job. He moved on to other matters of importance, including making himself available as the presidential candidate of the ACN in 2011.

    Mrs. Farida Waziri took over and she was also relieved of her post as Chair. We have not heard much of her since. In her place, President Goodluck Jonathan appointed Mr. Lamorde EFCC Chairman and he brought Magu back to the commission. Lamorde finished his term and Magu was appointed as Acting Chair pending Senate confirmation. The Red Chamber has declined to confirm him on two occasions.

    Thus far, there is almost nothing interesting in the story. A new president has the right to hire and fire. Both Yar’Adua and Jonathan exercised their rights. No one has a right to complain of being fired. On its part, Senate has the constitutional responsibility of advice and consent or withhold consent. It is not a big deal.

    But in the case of the presidential nomination of Magu, there is a big deal because President Buhari who nominated Magu twice is the head of the executive branch of which the DSS is a part. What is the involvement of DSS and why does it raise a red flag of executive dysfunction?

    DSS is the Department of State Security Services, the agency with the responsibility for investigating and advising the president on matters of state security. This includes the screening of executive branch appointees like ministers, special advisers, heads of public agencies and, in this case, the EFCC chairman. The job of DSS is to advise a president on the suitability of a potential nominee.

    Normally, then, DSS should provide a president with its findings in a timely manner even before the nominee is presented to Senate for confirmation. The reason this is important is that a president does not want to be embarrassed should a potential appointee turn out to have a criminal background or a questionable integrity. DSS is the agency that helps the president to do his homework right. It stands to reason, then, to expect that once a president receives an unfavourable report about a potential nominee, he cannot proceed with that nomination, unless he is prepared to dare Senate or make a deal with that body. The projected persona of this president does not lend itself to the latter conjecture.

    But DSS issued a stinging report on Acting Chairman Magu. In its 14-paragraph report, the agency raised serious issues on the professional integrity of the nominee. This is where it starts to get interesting and weird.

    According to Magu, DSS issued two reports on him on the same day. One was addressed to the Clerk of the National Assembly. The second was addressed to the Special Assistant to the President on National Assembly Matters.

    One DSS report concluded with an advice against the confirmation of Magu. The other DSS report concluded with an advice in favour of the confirmation of Magu. It is not clear if it is only the conclusions of the two reports that are different and the contents the same. There is room for speculation here. I conjecture that the report which supported confirmation of Magu was sent to the Assistant to the President on National Assembly Matters (Senate), while the report which advised against his confirmation was sent to the Clerk of the National Assembly. How else might it be?

    If I am correct, it would explain why the President went ahead with the nomination of Magu. It makes sense that the Special Assistant to the President would have attached the positive report to the nomination. What we know for sure is that Senate received a negative report through its Clerk. As Magu ruefully intoned, “the two reports emanating from the same agency raise questions of sincerity and motive.”

    Without taking side in the matter of MAGU vs. DSS, two reports with different conclusions sent to two different bodies certainly raise questions of sincerity and motive. This would reasonably recommend discarding those reports and starting all over with a new agency or a new committee in DSS to objectively do a background screening of the nominee. It has been one procedural fiasco.

    Now, the substance of the allegations against Magu is weighty, touching on issues of corruption and questionable integrity. He was accused of keeping agency files in his house after he was sacked and it took a search of his residence on the order of the new chairman to retrieve the files. He was also accused of hobnobbing with corrupt individuals. For the man tipped to head the pre-eminent anti-corruption agency of the nation, the indictment is the moral equivalent of a death sentence.

    But can there be conviction and punishment without a hearing? DSS is an agency tasked with the protection of the security of the state. Can it do this without corroborating and confirming allegations against security risks? Magu has complained that he was not contacted by DSS for his defence of the allegations. This is another procedural failure!

    When the Attorney-General finally gave Magu the opportunity to defend himself within 48 hours, he appeared to discharge himself creditably in his point-by-point response to DSS allegations against him. If DSS had confronted Magu with its findings on each of the allegations, it could have received the same detailed response and that would have placed the agency in a better position regarding its report to the presidency and the Senate. It would also have saved it the embarrassment which an obviously biased approach has caused it.

    There is a final point. At the core of DSS and Magu face-off is the crucial matter of the integrity of the executive branch. Integrity here does not simply mean character. It means the integration and smooth functioning of all the parts. We talk about the integrity of a system because without it, dysfunction is inevitable. With dysfunction, total collapse is imminent.

    DSS is a part of the executive branch, the Presidency, to be precise. With a damning report of a presidential nominee going direct to Senate, blindsiding the President who is the head of the executive, it is simply amazing.

    The third plot in this salacious movie is the Senate. Of course, no one really expects the Red Chamber to be kind to the Acting Chair of EFCC under whose leadership many of the distinguished senators or their political associates have been grilled and prosecuted for corruption-related matters. Certainly, our senators can be fair-minded and in this case, I have no good reason to think that they are not. In fact, under the circumstances, I do not know if they could have done otherwise.

    They worked with the findings of DSS on the nominee. Of course, Magu’s response to the Attorney-General is not only in the public domain; the President himself supported his re-nomination of Magu with the justification that the nominee has been cleared of corruption charges by the Attorney-General.

    Why did the Senate not believe the President? Apparently because they consider him an interested party who wants his nominee to be confirmed. A more germane question is “why did the Attorney-General and the DSS not reconcile their positions based on Magu’s response to the Attorney- General?

    Hopefully, the executive branch is an effectively functioning system and is mindful of its grave susceptibility to a debilitating dysfunction.

     

    • Follow me on Twitter:

    @SegunGbadeg2002

    @HarvestDayPubs

     

     

     

  • Between politics and preaching

    At a House Fellowship meeting, the leader raised a poser for members to address: On the same day that you received your letter of admission to the seminary to train as a pastor, the governor of your state also nominated you as his Commissioner for Works. As a believer, which of the two opportunities will you pursue?

    Members struggled to wrap their heads around the rationale for the question. A commonly held view is that politics is a dirty game. Therefore, there’s hardly a good reason to choose it over preaching. But politics is also a noble vocation with real consequences for the lives of real people.

    One obvious answer is that one will need to pray about the matter and let God make the choice. However, this approach does not adequately address the question: which of these opportunities will you choose? Rather it postpones the day of answering till after prayer. It is the path that many of us take when faced with a dilemma. For the faithful, it is inevitable, based on the assurance that God will make His choice known one way or the other in a timely fashion. It was the approach suggested by one of the members at the House Fellowship.

    A second member analysed the question from another angle. As a professional with vast knowledge in public work management, he knew exactly that if he were to face this dilemma, he would take it as God’s calling upon him directly to take up the job of Commissioner for Works. Otherwise, why would this position be available and offered to him if not for God’s determination to use him to promote the good of his creatures here on earth? Without little or no skills in preaching compared with professional expertise in public work, it was clear what God would have him choose.

    In response to the fellow member’s position, he was reminded that the question posed noted that the person applied for admission to the seminary. Therefore, even if he or she had very low skills or none in pastoring, choosing the seminary was bound to improve the skill level needed to succeed.

    A third contribution queried the presupposition of a dichotomous relationship between politics and preaching and sought to break down the artificial boundary between the two. It was an ambitious attempt, especially in view of the well-conceived notion of the separation of church/mosque and state.

    Yet as valid as this notion is, it was different from the concern of the participants at the House Fellowship meeting.

    The third attempt was to make this point forcefully and to argue that both pastoring or preaching and serving as commissioner in a political system are activities in the vineyard of God. When both are conscientiously undertaken, they can promote the good of God’s creation. But, when either of the activities is motivated by the worst of ego, they can undermine the purpose of God.

    To pursue this idea further, we may approach the subject from two angles: spiritual and secular. From the spiritual angle, every believer starts from the premise that God’s creative endeavour has a purpose, namely to promote as much good as possible for his creatures. Therefore, as we were taught from the cradle, God sets up the machinery for the promotion of the good by revealing himself to individuals specially chosen as interpreters of his message. These individuals convey to the rest of God’s creatures what is required of them to maximise the amount of good for his people. But in addition, God also prescribes that everyone be assigned responsibilities for the management of the affairs of the society.

    The work of creation is itself a good lesson in teaching by example. If everyone must contribute something to the affairs of the society, coordination is inescapable and some must be in charge. At its idealistic best, this is what politics is about. Therefore, from this angle, politics has a divine origin, or at least a divine sanction. Whether, therefore, I choose pastoring or commissioning, I am doing the bidding of God by furthering his purpose. I only need to do whatever I choose conscientiously and with the fear of God.

    Now, assume that you are not one to embrace spirituality at the expense of rationality; there is also a secular premise to the same conclusion. Forget about creation and embrace the Big Bang. The universe just came about randomly and we all found ourselves in one corner of it, with everyone engaged in various kinds of activities, some innocuous, some dangerous. With the passage of time and the consequences of uncoordinated egoistic activities playing out and jeopardising our individual and collective interests, we put on our thinking caps, summoning our rational faculties to action.

    Shortly, we came up with a workable solution that adopted some control mechanisms to limit our freedoms with the prospect of promoting our interests. We resolved to create social institutions including, among others, religion and politics, which from different directions establish control systems that put us in check. The ultimate purpose of both was to promote the greatest amount of good. To achieve this, we further created functions and assigned responsibilities to individuals, some as clerics, including imams and bishops; others as clerks, artisans, educators, home makers; yet others as presidents, governors, law enforcers, security agents, and yes, commissioners.

    From both secular and spiritual perspectives, the commissioner is as useful as the pastor and there is no good reason to discriminate against either.

    The third contributor then moved the discussion from the realm of the abstract to the abode of the concrete. He suggested, using the case of Vice-President Yemi Osinbajo and the choice that he faced in 2014, that one can serve God’s purpose and fulfill one’s destiny from a variety of settings. A pastor of the Redeemed Christian Church of God, Professor Osinbajo was nominated as the running mate of General Buhari. Should he accept the nomination and give up his pastoral service? Or should the nomination be construed as God’s will to use him for the furtherance of his purpose for humans in this corner of the world? There was no doubt that Osinbajo prayed about his options. There was also no doubt that he sought the counsel of the General Overseer.

    In view of the overall positive assessment of his performance as Vice-President, no one can reasonably deny that Professor Osinbajo is God’s chosen vessel for the job. More importantly, it leads to the conclusion that God does not discriminate between the various vocations and he can use any of them for his purpose. After all, God works in mysterious ways, his wonders to perform.

    We could be less charitable as my friend was when I reported the discussions at the House Fellowship to him. Opalaba is not known to carry his spirituality as a banner and he often chides the Pharisee in many of us. He queried the “holier-than-thou” attitude of those who would practise their faith openly only to disguise their night-time reprehensible activities. Therefore, for him, should one make a choice of pastoring over politics in the case before the House Fellowship, it does not by itself tell us anything about the Godliness or goodness of that individual.

    Finally, when we are admonished to seek first the kingdom of God, and all other things shall be added unto us, we must note that the kingdom of God is a metaphor for doing the most good and avoiding hypocrisy.

    To do the will of God on earth is to tend his earthly garden of innocent human beings seeking to make the most of the life that God has endowed them with. In the end, the verdict will not be that you are welcome because you were the most articulate preacher on earth. Rather, it will be “you provided for the needy among my creatures; you fed them when they were hungry; you housed them, when they were homeless; and you clothed them when they were naked. Since you did it for them, you have done it for me.”

     

    Follow me on Twitter:

    @SegunGbadeg2002

    @HarvestDayPubs

     

     

  • Diagnosing the Nigerian malady 3

    Diagnosing the Nigerian malady 3

    While a proper political structure does not automatically amount to good leadership, it is clear that appropriate structure can facilitate the job of an average leader who believes in the rule of law.”—General Ipoola Alani Akinrinade (retd.)

    Last week, we examined the case for leadership as the culprit in the national malady. We concluded that Nigeria has not lacked individuals with great leadership skills, including those with a knowledge of the appropriate medication for the ailment that assails the nation. The challenge has been to find them and relate to them. As I put it at the end, we do not have a leadership crisis; we have an identity crisis. I want to explore this further today.

    Is there one Nigerian nation or are there many nations in Nigeria? This is the real question; and it has been resurfacing at every major juncture since the amalgamation of the Northern and Southern Protectorates. That it has not been fully resolved after more than a century of life together is one of the fundamental causes of the Nigerian malady. Just as a person with bipolar disorder finds progress in life challenging, so a country with an identity crisis finds visionary development an elusive goal.

    It is because we have not fully resolved that question that it would occur to one national leader to refer to another national leader in alien terms, as an effective leader of “his people”. There is individual alienation based on the absence of a sense of belonging to a system that fails to keep its promises to its teeming population. But even more than a sense of individual alienation, there is group alienation, with almost every group now wanting out of “a sinking ship.” Surely, it cannot be worse.

    Case in point: An anonymous message got dropped in my mailbox a few weeks ago, with the message: “I think every Nigerian that loves Nigeria ought to read this with patience.” It was a lamentation about the state of Nigeria compared with her peers, including especially India. After dismissing all possible differences, including size, languages, multiplicity of ethnic groups, or diversity of religions, the writer pinned down the major difference between Nigeria and India on pride in heritage: “India is proud of its heritage, Nigeria takes little pride in its heritage”, the writer concludes.

    To which the pertinent question is, “what is the Nigerian heritage?” Or put it differently “is there one or several heritages that pertain to the entity named Nigeria?” Take the case of language. Hindu is the official language of India. Could Nigeria have identified an indigenous language as its official language without a major rumpus?

    With a multiplicity of nations (aka ethnic groups) and each guarding what it considers its own interests while perceiving others as alien competitors, it is a stretch to talk of a common heritage deserving protection and promotion. This explains the strange phenomenon of the lionization, by poor sectional followers, of leaders convicted of corrupt enrichment even when such leadership recklessness is at the expense of their poor followers.

    The son of the soil mentality is a Nigerian national nightmare. It is unfortunately not a new trend as there were instances of the pattern even in the First Republic, with some communities defending their own indigenes against accusations of corruption. Diversity, which is supposed to confer strength, has been a veritable cause of national weakness.

    Yet, diversity does not condemn us to perpetual poverty or dysfunctional existence if we apply common sense to the task of nation-building. It was what the founders of the republic thought that they had settled in the drive up to independence. They crafted a constitution that gave due respect to diversity while also committing to a united country. That was the purpose of the federal constitution. Their mistake, which could be forgiven because they were eager for independence, was to defer the creation of states based on ethnic identity which would go to the root of cultural democracy. The omission led to a lopsided federation, an anomaly that soon tore the new country apart at the seam.

    I started this piece with a quotation from an outstanding lecture delivered by General Ipoola Alani Akinrinade (retd.) at a meeting of the Challenge Club, Ibadan on the subject “Which way Nigeria?”  Noting that over-centralization has been the greatest drawback in Nigeria’s march to nationhood and eventual greatness, General Akinrinade provided an answer to his title question, with his suggestion that ‘a regional structure with “fiscal federalism” is germane to the future existence of Nigeria as a nation.’

    To my mind, this answer, provided by General Akinrinade to his question “Which way Nigeria?” also provides a plausible diagnosis of the Nigerian malady? How? I have argued in several columns, especially since the inception of the APC government at the center, that the question of structure is vital, and how we deal with it can make or break any administration whose focus is on development for the wellbeing of citizens. There are two basic reasons for this and they are borne out of our current experience.

    First, as sad as it is, the truth is that Nigeria still does not excite many, including the young ones who are by nature the most idealistic. Millennials are among the most virulent supporters of irredentist causes across the country. Surely, there are economic reasons for this trend. Soaring unemployment and lost hope in personal advancement fuel rebellion. How are young men and women to react when they have done all that parents and the nation asked of them: study hard, get a good degree and you are on the path to greatness. Then, the nation failed to deliver her own part of the bargain. Do we expect the young ones to roll out the drums in praise of the nation that so betrayed their trust?

    But there is a further complication to this scenario. There is also the “us-them” perception, a sinister view of the “other” that prevent the “us” from reaching “our” potentials. We will never get rid of that perception if every major policy decision that bears on the future of citizens is centralized.

    Consider this simple example. In every major economically advanced nation that prioritizes education, states are the major agents of educational policy and development. On the understanding that resources could be scarce, states figure out other means of funding education. One such is the establishment of state lottery boards, the proceeds of which benefit primary and secondary education. The United States is a good illustration. The national government at the federal level has nothing to do with it. But in Nigeria, we now have a National Lottery Commission which registers lottery companies and receives at least 25% of lottery proceeds even from state-centered companies! What is the business of the federal government with regulating lottery business? That is how centralized Nigeria has become.

    Second, having realized the folly of our dependence on oil as the linchpin of economic development, we have now embraced the wisdom of diversification, with emphasis on agriculture and mineral exploration. But how do we effectively go about this objective? An approach that centralizes policy initiatives with the federal government identifying winners and losers is an option that must be resisted because it doesn’t work. The sight of abandoned federal projects across the country since 1979 is evidence.

    While states are closer to the people and acutely aware of their needs and aspirations, they have serious handicap, financially and size-wise, in the matter of leading the development agenda. A state that cannot pay workers’ salary will be hard-pressed to think of development agenda. The proliferation of states with huge bureaucracies has been both satisfying and frustrating.

    We can eliminate or at least alleviate the frustration with a program of regionalism that combines economies of scale with the satisfaction of having governance close to the people. While it is already happening voluntarily with Regional Development Centers across the nation, formalizing it with a national constitutional endorsement is the greatest contribution that a progressive administration can make to the building of the nation.

     

    Follow me on Twitter:

    @SegunGbadeg2002

    @HarvestDayPubs

  • Diagnosing the Nigerian malady (2)

    Diagnosing the Nigerian malady (2)

    Last week, we focused on the supernaturalistic account of the affliction that imperils Nigeria’s movement to greatness and found it inadequate as an explanatory model. Today, we will examine the humanistic account which pins our national malaise on human factor. There are at least three variants of the theory.

    First, it is argued that even if we grant that Nigeria had a divine beginning and a destined end, we must also admit that the God of Nigeria’s beginning granted her citizens the free will to determine the course of their nation with adequate provision of resources to last many lifetimes. If they make that determination without much thought and they miss the road, it is their responsibility to change course. That they have failed for more than 50 years is not the fault of God. I believe that this is the position of former President Olusegun Obasanjo.

    The former President admonished us recently to “stop troubling God because God has done all we need for us. We only need to play our part…” As he might add, as humans placed in this part of God’s creative genius, we have failed woefully to our detriment.

    Whether as clerics, mullahs, priests, priestesses and sheikhs or as congregants, devotees and Ummah we know the ways in which we fail to play our part. Whereas the prophets of old did not shy away from confronting the corrupt practices of their era, with our trust in the gospel of prosperity, we aid and abet corruption in various ways. When we choose to accept the proceeds of graft as thanksgiving offering without asking pertinent questions, we thereby frustrate the development goal of the nation.

    As business professionals, we play an ignoble part when we cheat on tax payment or collude with international frauds. This is the case with oil subsidy scandals. As contractors, we ruin the future of the nation when we abandon our contractual responsibility for road construction and abscond with contract mobilisation fees. Is God responsible for these acts?

    As politicians, when we are motivated just by pure self-interest whether in our legislative priorities or in budget approval, we intentionally risk the future of the country. And when we allow our wants, whether material, mental, or spiritual, to overshadow the long-term interest of the nation, we fail to play our part in setting the nation in the path of development.

    Of course, we can pray to God to help us know what is right and do it. But we cannot blame God for the weakness of our will. This is the essence of the humanistic theory.

    Second, and following from the first, there is the account of leadership deficit and it is straightforward. The reason that Nigeria has not made it; the reason that it has missed the road often and has not been able to change course is that it suffers from a deficit of leadership. Of course, the theory does not deny that Nigeria has either elected leaders or has had leaders imposed on her since independence. The point is that those leaders have lacked the qualities that a leader needs to move a nation forward. Therefore, per this variant of the humanistic account, Nigeria has a leadership crisis, and until this crisis is resolved, it cannot move forward. Again, former President Obasanjo has recently doubled down on this position.

    It is important to tease out the claims of this variant, especially in the former president’s most recent presentation. While some may rightly blame leadership from the beginning of the republic, Obasanjo gave credit to his generation, which fought for the unity of the country, and the generation before his, which fought for independence. His beef, therefore, is with generation after his, which, according to him, lacks “focus, commitment, continuity and sometimes proper knowledge about economic and development issues.”

    Not a few may find this positing of the issue self-serving or more uncharitably, self-glorifying. But I want to cut the former president a little slack. Each generation of leaders faces a unique challenge. The first generation that faced the colonisers had no choice but to focus on independence. But the germs of later problems were clearly discernible even at the time of their struggle for freedom. Leading the country after independence, they failed woefully in the matter of unity and progress. As the military struck and leadership changed hands, that challenge of unity became insurmountable. Trained as fighters, the military leaders met the challenge the only way they knew. But while the rebellion was stopped, no one can deny that the war of unity was not won. Instead, there was an escalation of ethno-nationalistic mistrust. The leadership crisis that we have now is traceable to that juncture in our history.

    What Obasanjo’s generation, and he, in particular, needs to come to terms with is that the matter of leadership cannot be resolved in isolation from our historical trajectory. Leaders are not plucked from trees. They are the products of particular cultures, histories and philosophies. In our case, the diversity of such cultures, histories and philosophies, which, should normally be an additional advantage, have been adversely impacted by the politics of uniformity.

    The third variant of the humanistic theory of Nigerian malady chooses to give leadership a break while focusing on followership. The rationale for this is simply that followers either choose leaders or can reject them once they determine that those leaders lack the necessary qualities to lead. However, in the case of Nigeria, leaders and followers have been engaged in a game of mutual deception with followers yielding to the manipulative abilities of leaders for the satisfaction of short term wants at the expense of long term needs. If developmental goals are left unfulfilled because followers seek immediate consumption, they have themselves to blame.

    There is no doubt that each of the foregoing variants of the humanistic theory is an improvement over the supernaturalistic theory. For one thing, they place emphasis on human agency and, therefore, on our human capacity to change the course of the nation.

    Yet, as important as it is to recognise the significance of human agency, it is also crucial to understand its limitation, especially when the condition for the effectiveness of human agency to play its part is missing. Consider the fact that despite our lamentations regarding good leadership, we have had at least a few in our history that everyone, including sworn adversaries, attest to.

    As I prepare this piece, a friend dropped in my WhatsApp message box an excerpt of a statement on Chief Obafemi Awolowo attributed to Ikemba Odumegwu Ojukwu: “As a leader of the modern cast, he (Awolowo) has left Nigeria standards which are indelible, standards beside which future aspirants to public leadership can be eternally measured. He was, for a long time, the only Nigerian leader that enunciated principles and played down personalities… Awo was a leader of great stature…That he did not fulfil a presidential ambition cannot detract from his leadership… and us, poor us, who were not his people, must continue to regret that our own leaders had not led us as he did his people or achieved for us as he did for his people.”

    The crux of our challenge is in the last part of Ikemba’s statement. Do we see ourselves as one people or as different peoples with different agendas? If the latter, we do not have a leadership crisis. We have an identity crisis.

    Therefore, a further refining of the humanistic theory is needed. If we insist, as we should, that humans are the architects of their own fortune, it stands to reason that they should also be the builders of their national greatness. This entails the responsibility for ascertaining the right kind of institutions and structures that are essential for the management of their affairs and the progressive development of their nation. It requires active thinking and selfless abandonment of short-term gains for self or group in favour of the general good of the nation. The challenge for leaders is to set their minds wholly to this structural task.

     

    (To be continued)

     

    Follow me on Twitter:

    @SegunGbadeg2002

    @HarvestDayPubs

  • Diagnosing the Nigerian malady (1)

    Diagnosing the Nigerian malady (1)

    The question is not whether some malaise afflicts Nigeria. This is disheartening and embarrassing, not just for leaders, but for citizens as well. How do you go around the world, no matter who you are, with your heads high up, given the common knowledge concerning the troubled state of your homeland?

    Not many now doubt that something terribly ails the country. The question on the lips of those who have given thought to the distressing condition of dear country is about what it can possibly be. And a vibrant industry is rapidly growing around the risky but attractive business of answering this question and diagnosing the Nigerian national ailment.

    Diagnosing too has not been a cakewalk. Where there are many physicians, there must be multiple diagnostic theories. There are at least three such theories: super-naturalistic theories, humanistic theories and structuralist theories, each with a prognosis of full recovery provided its prescription is fully followed. I will focus on the first of these theories today.

    The super-naturalist diagnosis is the most ancient and by the same token, the most simplistic. It starts from the premise that God deliberately created Nigeria, using British empire builders to do his bidding. But somewhere along the way, the handwork of God derailed, querying the superior wisdom of God and disobeying his instructions. The nationalists pressured the imperialists to leave because they wanted independence. And independence led to a variety of ills, including a bloody fratricide.

    On this diagnostic analysis, it is not that God was against Nigeria’s independence. It was just that we fought for it and won it prematurely. God would have preferred us to be patient. And that was why, in his judgment, God decided to have power handed over to those who counselled patience.

    Unfortunately, however, God underestimated the self-centred motivations of the creatures of his hand. The counsellors of patience cannot fathom patience with fellow country folk, and soon intolerance of opposition led to unrest, and to a bloody intervention by the military, and ultimately to civil war.

    The death of innocent souls, creatures of God, in that madness called civil war, was too much for even the Almighty to handle. He has since been expecting a formal apology and atonement from us. But we have failed to show remorse. We have even continued with callous acts of murder and maiming of innocents. Now we are wondering why, despite God giving us all that we need to thrive, we have failed to move forward. It is because he has turned his back against us until we come back to our senses and follow his direction.

    You ask, as Opalaba would, “how does the super-naturalist physician know all these?” That question is a betrayal of your ignorance about God’s mysterious ways. Of course, God reveals his message through his priests and priestesses. Preachers, clerics, imams, babalawos and mediums have been admonishing us for more than 50 years to get our path straight. We failed to listen and now we are collecting the wages of our sins. The prescription is obvious: “If my people who are called by name humble themselves and repent their sins, then I would hear them from heaven above and heal their land.”

    Arguing with a diagnosis that relies on an indemonstrable superior knowledge that is revealed to only a few is an exercise in futility. Still, there is one or two takeaways from the super-naturalistic diagnosis.  One can urge a commonsensical approach to our ailment without denying the role of God in the coming to being of Nigeria or any other entity.

    For instance, whether the human carnage of the civil war had a spiritualistic causation or a social explanation, we cannot deny the significance of a collective memorialisation of the civil war victims and victims of other incidents of mass violence. We would have also been better served by making genuine efforts for the full integration of every war victim toward a renewal of our common purpose.

    Secondly, we may even concede what is not proven, namely, that God has hands in the coming to being of Nigeria. From this, we must commonsensically infer that the God that facilitated the founding of the country also kindly made adequate provisions to sustain and prosper the new entity. Furthermore, God also gave his Nigerian creatures the knowledge and wisdom to utilise those material and mental provisions for their good. How have we fared in this matter? If we didn’t fail, there would be no ailment! The question why we fail needs an answer.

    A dangerous assumption is at the core of the super-naturalistic diagnosis and it is one that those in position of authority have accepted without question. It is the assumption that God’s work is unchangeable because it is as good as it gets. Therefore, we are urged not to tamper with the beauty of God’s creation.

    Now, if we follow this through to its logical conclusion, it would certainly undercut the basis of the argument that Nigeria is a creation of God. After all, no one denies that before Nigeria, there were God’s naturally created ethnic and linguistic entities including the Yoruba, Hausa, Fulani, Igbo, Edo, Tiv, Efik, Ijaw, and more than 200 others. If this is true, what is the basis of the claim that Nigeria was created by God? In the absence of a valid argument, we are left with the illogical argument that “Nigeria exists as an entity; therefore, God must have created it.” This is not different in form from the argument that “the ground is wet; therefore, it must have rained.”

    From the fact of its existence, the super-naturalist goes a step further if not in words, then in action and policy position: “What God has created must not be tampered with”. This may take two forms. First, you cannot redo or correct what God has done because, by nature, his work is perfect. Second, what God has put together for his own reason, which is always good, no human being or group must dismantle or dissolve. Neither of these will work if in fact in the case of Nigeria, its existence cannot be attributed to God’s original work of creation.

    But let us assume for the sake of argument that God caused or at least facilitated the creation of Nigeria. The first argument in the preceding paragraph will also not work because God is not against works that contribute to the advancement of his purpose. That is why parents have a divinely ordained responsibility to take care of their children. That is why God puts it in our mind to build health facilities to take care of the sick. Indeed, that is why God gave us the intellect to improve ourselves so we can live better lives. In the same manner, it is not straying away from God’s purpose to improve on the governance structures of the nation that he created.

    The second argument will also not work. Indeed, as is obvious, the argument here is a close cousin of the injunction to newly-weds and their families and friends: “what God has joined together, let no man put asunder.” If the establishment of a nation is like a marriage, then if a marriage cannot be dissolved, a nation cannot be disbanded.

    We know, however, that the belief in the indissolubility of a marriage is not always true. Not all marriages are divinely ordained or voluntarily entered. But even in the case of those voluntarily entered, any number of issues can arise that makes dissolution not only excusable but also mandatory. We understand that when there is imminent danger to the life of one or both parties to a marriage, it is time for the courts to intervene in favour of life. The same is true of nations put together by humans after God had created them as separate entities.

    We may conclude that the super-naturalist diagnosis is as wrong-headed as its prescription. The wise God rightly insists that faith without work is dead. Our work is to find the right prescription for our national ailment.

    (To be continued)

    Follow me on twitter:

    @SegunGbadeg2002

    @HarvestDayPubs

  • Breaking the chain of violence

    Breaking the chain of violence

    The nation is mired in crises. The economy is in shambles with runaway inflation and an unsustainable high rate of unemployment. There is a growing population of hungry men, women and children, hopeless and utterly dissatisfied with the status quo, a veritable breeding ground for pent-up anger, which on eruption, can generate irrational response from a populace on edge. This is the context of much of the chain of violence that has entangled the nation since the beginning of the present republic.

    There was the Ikeja cantonment bomb explosion that killed scores of citizens. There were the senseless ethnic clashes that caused the death and maiming of innocent citizens who were caught in the middle. There were protests and rallies which started peacefully but quickly escalated into rampage due to unprovoked violent intervention by security agents. In many of these cases, the maturity of citizens’ response prevented the crises from going from bad to worse.

    When maturity takes leave, however, the consequence is predictable. It is unfortunately the case with many of the incidents of protests involving young students reacting to some official conduct. Violence is almost always the first and last response.

    It is safe to assume that such a response, where and when it has occurred, has not always been deliberatively chosen by most participants in a rally or protest. It has always been a sizable minority that initiate the violence, presumably in angry reaction to frustrated expectations.

    In such cases, thoughtful adults have wondered aloud about the rationality of such responses which have only caused more harm to victims without any visible redeeming outcome. We try to understand the psychology of protests and the youthful appetite for disruption that they feed. Now these adults also need to take our young citizens seriously. We need to engage them in thinking through the choices that they make in their response to the choices that those in positions of power make.

    Thinking through our choices requires us to ask probing questions concerning the rightness or wrongness of the course we contemplate taking. Two ethical approaches can be brought to bear on the question of the justifiability of violence as a response to social disappointment. Is it ever fair and just? And does it work?

    The question of the justice or fairness of violent response to social disappointment emanating from unacceptable policy, conduct or inaction by government agents can be easily answered. Almost always, the victims of violent reactions are innocent citizens who have also been victims of the original wrong that is being protested. With the violent reaction of colleagues purporting to right the original wrong, the innocent victims of the original wrong are doubly impacted. Consider the case of petty traders who get their stores vandalised and looted during protests. That is certainly unfair.

    Perhaps we should not bother about fairness or injustice. Following the Chief Priest who insisted on the execution of innocent Christ Jesus, we might justify the suffering of the innocent by appeal to the disproportionate amount of benefit that accrues to society as a result. In other words, the suffering of innocent victims of violent protests would be adequately compensated for by the good outcome of the violence for many members of the society.

    That would be the utilitarian argument. From this perspective, the justifiability of violence comes down to its effectiveness as a response to social disappointment. But does it work? The answer to this question can only be empirically determined and unfortunately for the utilitarian supporter of that cause of action, it doesn’t.

    If violence works it would have effected drastic changes in our society a long time ago and there would be no need for the kind of protests and rallies that have turned violent in recent times. And the fact that such cases keep recurring despite our predilection to violence, appears to suggest that violent response has been ineffective in forcing change.

    I do not want to be misunderstood. First, I am fully conscious of the fact that occasions that force protests and rallies that turn violent can be particularly offensive and inhuman, ranging from a military personnel’s abuse of power leading to the death of an innocent student, or a careless commercial driver killing an innocent pedestrian, or the uncaring attitude of a hospital staff towards a critically sick person leading to a preventable death. These are demonstrably unfair and thus condemnable. My point, however, is that as odious as such conducts are, violent reaction does not work and it could be counter-productive.

    Second, I also know fully well that peaceful protests and rallies are the bedrock of public engagement with their government. This was clear in my submission on democracy and dissent in this column a couple of weeks ago. And what is more, I am fully aware that violence is not the intent of protests and rallies against unacceptable official policy or conduct. However, due diligence is warranted on the part of protest organisers to avoid the degeneration of peaceful protests into violent disturbance which ends up taking the centre stage in the aftermath of the original incident. Violence is blamed while the original social harm takes the back seat.

    The immediate impetus for this discussion today was the tragic death of a young student of the Federal University of Minna. Mr. Olalekan Emmanuel slumped on the soccer pitch and was rushed to the university’s health centre where he unfortunately died. While the health centre authorities claimed that the student was pronounced dead upon arrival, his peers accused the workers of the centre of negligence. The students claimed that the workers left Emmanuel unattended for 30 minutes before he died.

    There is no denying the fact that our public institutions, including health, security, and government are incubators of human monsters whose only claim to humanity is their physical appearance. Many of those who voluntarily sign up for positions that require compassion as key quality have no milk of mercy in their veins. This is especially true of some nurses and physicians. What the students allege in the case of Emmanuel is certainly not beyond what can happen in situations where human life means nothing to those who have trained and sworn to an oath to promote health.

    If the allegation of the students turns out to be true, it will not be the first time. It may also not be the last time. Meanwhile, a young soul with a future ahead of him would have been cut down prematurely. Therefore, if it was true, the action of the health centre workers is reprehensible and whoever is found responsible must be punished. But this is something that cannot be decided without an adequate investigation, which takes time. And because cases of negligence have become rampant in our society, the patience of young people can be tasked beyond their capacity for tolerance.

    The students’ reaction, however, leaves much to be desired. They were alleged to have gone on rampage, set ablaze the school’s clinic and “vandalised the school libraries, lecture rooms, a female hostel and a microfinance bank on the campus.” In the first place, the vandalism disrespects the memory of Emmanuel. A decent candle light vigil that honours the departed student and calls attention to the state of the health centre and the offending workers would have been a dignified response to the tragedy.

    In the second place, the burning down of the clinic, while it may satisfy some irrational urge for revenge or expression of anger, is unfair because innocent students will continue to suffer if the clinic remains inoperable, and it has no utilitarian value. If any worker is found culpable and is to be punished it will not be because the clinic is burned down. Therefore, the violent response has no deterrence effect.

    In the specific case of the death of Olalekan Emmanuel, the authorities of the institution need to conduct an open investigation. There is also the need for an investigation into the rampage that erupted thereafter. The chain of violence needs to be broken for the good of society and citizens.

     

    • Follow me on twitter:

    @SegunGbadeg2002

    @HarvestDayPubs

  • Purposeful unity

    Purposeful unity

    The continuing public show of unity by Southwest governors is a thing of joy. This is especially because unity is what has eluded the zone for so long even at those times, in the current republic, when the zone was (or almost) under the control of one party, first between 1999 and 2003 and then between 2003 and 2007.

    Of course, we cannot afford to overdramatise, or be sheepishly carried away by, what is happening at the gubernatorial level. It may just be a case of ardent political enemies presenting a common front in public to deceive the electorate. Or maybe it is probably just a group of self-interested politicians selling themselves to the public as self-consciously concerned with the progressive development of the entire zone when in fact they are simply each looking out for self. Is Fayose not seeking a way out of his present troubles with EFCC? Or is Mimiko not just seeking redemption?

    The cynics who indulge in such thoughts are not to blame. The environment in which politics has been conducted in the last 17 years leaves much to be desired. What is coming out of various investigations and prosecutions confirm the suspicion of many that some individuals go into politics simply for personal gains. And so, we cannot expect that the selfless efforts of some are going to change many minds.

    But there is a clear danger inherent in such attitude. As our forebears know so well, if you choose to close your eyes to avoid witnessing the passing of the evil ones, you may also miss it when the good ones pass by. More to the present discourse: if you are tuned off by past disappointments, you may miss out on optimistic outlook for the future.

    Despite the misgivings of the cynic, there are good reasons for a positive reaction to the new development. First, that politicians could be self-interested is not just an old cliché; it has always been the belief of far too many citizens and electorate. In the Southwest, especially, we tend to rule out the possibility of genuinely honest people-oriented politicians until they are no longer with us. That was the fate of Chief Obafemi Awolowo, who, despite his self-denying attention to the public good, was loathed by the self-centred ones. But the people got to know his intention for them, that it was good and not evil.

    Second, we must not be too cynical as to rule out the possibility of a change of heart even in those that we may have given up on. If a Saul could become a Paul, there is nothing beyond the capacity of the one who is beyond human comprehension. And when he is ready to use his creatures for the purpose that he created them, they have no right of refusal. I believe that this is the time. And what is needed from the rest of us is encouragement.

    Third, our governors have held two meetings. The first was hosted by Governor Ajimobi of the All Progressives Congress (APC), while the second was hosted by Governor Fayose of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). At both events, the focus of the meeting was on the development agenda for the Southwest.

    The communiques at both events point to their sense of urgency about this matter. Even if belated, they have come to the realisation that the Southwest must not rely on old glory which appears to have faded but must now embrace the future that is beckoning. That future is not one in which there is a prominent role for the black gold to play. Rather, it is one in which the stone of agricultural revolution that had been unwisely rejected must now be the corner stone of the new industrial building.

    The communique from the last meeting of the governors is especially heartening because it demonstrates the commitment of the governors to regional integration, an indispensable strategy for development in an age of dwindling and disappearing federal revenue. The present national economic malaise is just a constant reminder of the fragility of a federation in which the constituents are forced into a dependent relationship which unfortunately they have each embraced as long as the revenue keeps flowing. Now that it has stopped, it is time each addressed the question of its identity and survival.

    Unfortunately, however, each state cannot adequately address that question because of the significant issue of economies of scale. On the other hand, for every challenge, there is also a redeeming feature. The balkanization of natural entities into artificial administrative blocks, which captures the military exercise in state creation has been responsible for the precarious situation in which many of our states exist today. That is coupled with the emergence of leaders in the guise of emperors or lords of the manor who see their states as fiefdoms. A third force has been the hypocritical position of some who, insisting on a one-nation policy, nonetheless vigorously pursue their regional or zonal interests while discouraging same approach on the part of others. It is not too late that the Southwest is only now waking up to the reality.

    According to the communique from their meeting, the governors agreed to set up a Regional Technical Working Group (TWG) on Integrated Infrastructural Development to facilitate the development of transportation in the region. This is a no-brainer. They also approved the report of a Lagos State-hosted workshop on security and law and order. We will not raise the pertinent question: what took so long? For again, it is better late than never.

    Significantly, the governors also adopted the Southwest Regional Integrated Commercial Agriculture Development Programme and assigned to Lagos State the task of championing a structured regional food exchange programme. It is remarkable that a state with limited land acreage is saddled with this responsibility. But it is not a surprise in view of how Governor Ambode has determined to make food sufficiency a priority for the state. Think LAKE Rice. Now the future of LAYO Rice, LASUN Rice, LODO Rice, LOGUN Rice, indeed ODUA Rice! is within the realm of reality.

    Apart from bread and butter issues, it is gratifying that the governors also zeroed in on the declining moral standard across the land and agreed to put in place “structures to manage the loss of values and virtues in the society.” While some may find the language of “managing the loss of values and virtues” escapist, I understand the ultimate purpose as the promotion and rejuvenation of values and virtues that had seen the region through and underwritten its triumphs in the face of serious obstacles. We did not win in the competition for the first place in all development indices without due attention to the requirements of moral virtues and the standard of omoluabi.

    The governors are up to a new start in regional development and the rebirth of a renewed sense of pride across the region. The question remains: what can go wrong?

    As far as I can see, there is only one monster that can scuttle all these efforts. It’s called partisan politics and it is lurking around the corner. The first test of the resilience and determination of the current players will come from Ekiti and Osun states when the gubernatorial elections sneak in. How will they fare? Will they succumb to the politics of self-interest? Or will they think big and embrace the politics of the common good of the region? This is the question that each must have to answer.

    At the first meeting of the governors in Ibadan, Governor Amosun of Ogun State placed his hands right on the elephant in the room. He urged the governors to “shed their political differences” and noted that “the political differences of the governors of the region should not be a hindrance to exploring the economic possibilities in each state using comparable advantages as measuring index.” These are pleasant words to the ears.

    The new resolve of Southwest governors promises a new era of purposeful unity in the zone. They must not let partisan politics stymie their efforts.

     

    Follow me on Twitter:

    @SegunGbadeg2002

    @HarvestDayPubs

  • Democracy and dissent

    Democracy and dissent

    Let us start with some obvious facts which are nonetheless too easy to overlook. First, this country has been operating an unsustainable model of development for a long time. We have behaved as if we can survive and prosper on a mono-economy even when we have evidence that points to the insanity of such a belief.

    Second, in what appears as a deliberate decision to tempt God, we unwisely live beyond our means. We breed without moderation, we consume what we do not produce, and the nation and citizens are not ashamed of our dependence on others.

    Third, at the beginning of the present republic, the leadership realised that a reset button needed to be pressed and efforts were made to reorient the public to a new economic reality of saving and economic diversification. But it was not a huge success.

    Fourth, in the last six years, the administration only engaged the reverse gear in the matter of savings and diversification such that most of the foreign reserve was gone and we had nothing to show for it.

    This was what the present administration inherited and is now saddled with correcting. The Buhari administration knows that as of May 29, 2015, it was in charge and the left-overs from the past administration, including its liability and credit, are now its responsibility.

    To its credit, the administration has taken up the challenge even if it has not succeeded to get the economy back to normalcy. What the administration sees as the fundamental problem is the mono-economy that it inherited, and the question it has attempted to address is “how can this situation be fixed and turned around?” Its answer, as far as I understand, is that we have to not only diversify but also localise.

    More to the point, localisation is construed as a component of diversification. First, we need to go back to our agricultural roots, and encourage production for both internal consumption and exportation for much needed foreign exchange, which must be used not for conspicuous consumption, but for investment in industrial production.

    Second, from the play-book of the administration, we know that it is also focused on the exploration of other mineral resources such that we have additional foreign exchange earning power. Finally, it knows that neither of these can succeed without waging a successful war against the foremost enemy of progress, namely, corruption in all its ramification.

    Now, none of the listed agenda items is a quick fix, as the administration has come to realise. Almost two years into its four-year term, the government is still battling a head-wind in each of its areas of focus. And the deleterious effect of the inherited liabilities, including unemployment, hunger, crime, and apathy, is still biting hard. It is therefore understandable that dissatisfaction with the status quo is as intense as it is.

    In the circumstance, what should be the attitude of a progressive government to the kind of protests that recently erupted in parts of the country?

    To my mind, progressives should unapologetically and unflinchingly support organised protests and dissent on matters of importance to citizens simply because democracy thrives when citizens are actively engaged in the political process. The height of engagement occurs when, notwithstanding their support for the government, citizens publicly demonstrate their objections to certain of its policies.

    A government that is not progressive in name only, but is also truly committed to the fundamental ideals of progressive governance, cannot consistently antagonise or discourage such protests. There will be various interpretations of the performance of the Buhari administration with regard to its handling of the last protests. Did it pass the test of consistency? Did it fall into the temptation of muscle flexing and rolling out the tanks? The fact that Acting President Osinbajo and his team did not succumb to that temptation is meritorious and it deserves commendation.

    The suggestion that democracy thrives with the active engagement of citizens is consistent with the fundamental understanding of democracy as the government of the people by the people and for the people. This definition implies that democracy is people-centred. If it is a government of the people, then the people must take full control, albeit through their representatives. But those representatives may fail to represent their interests adequately. Should the people then resign themselves to their fate or fall on their swords? None of the founders of liberal democracy thought so. They understand that the people have a right to take control.

    The justification for the active engagement of citizens does not rest only on the vested interest they are assumed to have in good governance. It is also anchored in the belief that government functionaries do not have the monopoly of wisdom and are as subject to mistakes as are citizens. At every level of government—federal, state, and local—policies are developed for the benefit of the people. But the proponents of those policies are humans without a justifiable ground for pretentiousness. The people, on whose behalf they initiate those policies, reserve the right to correct them, and true democrats must have the humility to acknowledge their mistakes and change course.

    Consider, for instance, the case of the economic policies—fiscal and monetary—in the wake of the fall in oil revenue and the attending consequences for business and employment. There is no denying the fact that there is suffering in the land and government has acknowledged that the economy is in recession.

    For citizens, however, this acknowledgement is only the beginning. The question on their mind is: what is government doing? And is it working? They understand that the Buhari administration is not responsible for the acts of the last administration that created the condition. They worry, however, if government is prepared to change course toward a more effective approach.

    Hungry people are angry people, and there is a limit to the patience that can be expected of them. Hunger displaces every other potential occupant of the mind, giving way to rage and fury. This is what we have been witnessing across the land from local government buildings to state legislatures and now to the centre. There is nothing strange or unwholesome about it.

    There is, however, much more that can be accomplished beyond rallies and protests. If it is true that citizens do not buy the idea that government functionaries have a monopoly of wisdom in the matter of policy-making, and if those functionaries also have the sense of humility to admit their limitations, then, citizens have a duty not just to protest but also to offer alternatives for consideration.

    It is not too much to expect, for instance, that one of the positive outcomes of the last protests and rallies would be a presentation to the National Assembly and to the Office of the President, a well-reasoned memorandum that presents an alternative proposal for the recovery of the economy. Surely, the government has the responsibility for setting the economic agenda. But we all have a stake in it since the pursuit of particular agenda has outcomes that affect everyone. It is not therefore out of line for a concerned citizenry to present thoughtful proposals for the consideration of those in power.

    What is being suggested here is not out of the ordinary. In the tumultuous days of nationalist struggles for independence, the fertile minds of our nationalist forebears, even prior to the establishment of political parties, were always ahead of the colonial masters in the formulation of ideas for the governance of the country. The Nigerian Youth Movement was a veritable source of virile agitation backed by thoughtful proposals that the government had to struggle to reject.

    In our time, we tend to leave every aspect of governance to government, probably also because experience with military dictators have discouraged us from active involvement. But a democratic government is, or at least ought to be, different. A progressive administration must especially be humble enough to know that the people have a reservoir of wisdom from which it can benefit. Needless to add, government’s success is measured by the peoples’ well-being.

     

    Follow me on twitter:

    @SegunGbadeg2002

    @HarvestDayPubs