The Nation Newspaper

Category: Segun Gbadegesin

  • Transformational leadership in Lagos State

    Transformational leadership in Lagos State

    I start this piece with a confession. I have been mentally tortured in the last 72 hours over the turn taken by the greatest democracy on earth, the United States of America. I have watched partisanship go awry and political leaders wallowing in the mud of hateful nationalism.

    The final straw for me was President Trump’s announcement of a new Supreme Court nominee to fill a vacancy that occurred 11 months ago, when President Obama still had a`year to the end of his term. Confirmation of Obama’s nominee was, however, blocked for that length of time by the Republicans in Senate because they wanted a new president to make the nomination.

    Now that Trump has nominated a conservative, happy Republicans have called on Senate Democrats not to block the nomination. I wrestled with this development and was on the verge of mental breakdown. Is this what liberal democracy has come to? I thought of pouring my mind out on this matter in this column. But I eventually decided against starting a new month on such a depressing matter.

    Fortunately, I woke up on Wednesday morning and saw a more heart-warming story about the workings of democracy even in our own corner of the world. Yes, not too long ago, we were a pariah to the world of liberal democracy even though the leadership of that world hardly lifted a finger to help us out. Thankfully, while we still have issues to deal with, especially at the centre, we should beat our chests regarding the pockets of progress which give us reason to keep hope alive.

    I am especially elated about the story of Lagos State and the commitment of its leadership to development and human investment. It is what transformational leadership is about.

    In the last dispensation, we heard a lot about transformational leadership, especially at the federal level. Indeed, we were inundated with a well-orchestrated campaign of transformation agenda. We know now how it all ended in the dustbin of history.

    However, what the centre has not been able to achieve in 17 years of democratic governance, Lagos State has shown how, even in a democracy (as opposed to military dictatorship), transformational leadership at the helm of a people-centred administration can energise and inspire citizens. In the process, the people have a renewed hope in the future and an optimistic sense of what they can accomplish. In short, the people buy into leadership vision and both leadership and people can launch a new era of development. It is a win-win situation.

    The story that motivated this piece appears under the title “Ambode’s Massive Infrastructural Plan” in ThisDay edition of Wednesday, February 1, 2017. Apart from the content of the governor’s message at the meeting, which by itself was uplifting, what impressed me is that it was in the context of the sixth Town Hall meeting that the governor has held with the people on a quarterly basis, and the first in the new year.

    In practice, democracy thrives when the people, as the subject and object of governance, are not abandoned to their fate after elections, but are constantly coopted into government activities through regular interactive sessions. That Governor Ambode has institutionalised such meetings is a credit to his democratic credentials.

    The form is important. But the substance is even more so. What have been the concrete achievements of the administration of Governor Ambode in the last 20 months since he was sworn in to lead the Centre of Excellence?

    I recall the confusion and anxiety that characterised his first couple of months in office. There was traffic gridlock. There was concern for security of lives and property with the increasing menace of traffic robbers and kidnappers. And there was water shortage problem.

    Rather than panic at the time, however, I simply went down memory lane. I recalled Governor Ambode’s challenges were not dissimilar to Asiwaju Bola Tinubu’s in the first few months of his administration in 1999. Then Asiwaju received an earful from critics who were nostalgic about the administration of Military Governor Marwa. It was like the Israelites attacking Moses who liberated them from the Egyptian oppression! Asiwaju’s assurance that he had a plan for a lasting solution to the challenges did not persuade the critics. But when the turn-around kicked in, they were also the first to applaud. That has also been the experience of Ambode.

    Transformational leadership is thoughtful leadership. It is not a fire-fighter approach to governance. It develops a solid plan to tackle the root cause of problems such that, once applied, the problem does not have a chance of recurring. The continuity of progressive leadership in Lagos State for 17 years has also been a bonus. The governor did not have to reinvent the wheel of planning as he wisely decided to execute and further the achievement of the 2012-2025 development plan.

    It is under the auspices of this plan that Ambode has made enormous progress in the transformation of the state. Think of the impact of the initiative for the construction of 114 roads across the 57 local governments and local council development areas. At the Town Hall meeting, he announced an additional 181 roads projects across the state. Meanwhile, generously supplied street lights have dramatically transformed night life in Lagos.

    In December 2016, Governor Ambode launched the LAKE rice project, a collaboration between Lagos State and Kebbi State, which has brought down considerably the cost of rice in the state, and probably across the Southwest. This is another example of transformational leadership. While I find this highly commendable, and without any prejudice against Kebbi State, I do hope that there will be similar collaborations in future between Lagos and land-rich states in the Southwest. How about LAYO (be joyful) rice?

    One of the campaign promises of Governor Ambode was the creation of an Employment Trust Fund to boost job creation for the benefit of Lagosians. This is an important component of human investment without which there can be no economic or social transformation. The governor delivered on this promise at the inauguration of the Fund in March 2016, with an on-the-spot instruction to the Commissioner for Finance to disburse the yearly payment of N6.25 billion to the Fund. With government lifting the heavy side of the load, it sent a powerful message to the private sector to discharge its social responsibilities.

    Transformational leadership is a function of a vision and a determination to realise it despite the odds. To realise their vision, transformational leaders rely on the best hands to which they give the necessary support to succeed. That has been the story of Lagos State in the Fourth Republic. Governors have not been overly bogged down by political or partisan considerations. Since Asiwaju Tinubu himself had led in this area, his successors enjoyed the freedom to hire and fire their associates without been imposed upon. The state has been the beneficiary.

    Governor Ambode’s vision, as enunciated in his inaugural address on May 29, 2015, afforded us an understanding of his priorities. “No matter your age, sex, tribe or any other status, as long as you reside in Lagos, we will make Lagos work for you.”  In addition, he declared, “I will make your taxes work for you.” This was his full-throated promise.

    It was a simple message that resonated with citizens of the state. And now that they are witnessing the systematic fulfilment of the promise, their sense of citizen obligation to the state is rekindled. Citizen engagement and mobilisation is not activated in a vacuum. Government must lead the charge for citizens to follow. Transformation must begin with leaders.

    Lagos State is a microcosm of Nigeria. Every ethnic nationality is represented in the fabric of the state. The amazing story of Lagos is that while there have been ethnic skirmishes, especially at the beginning of this republic, no group has chosen to check out. This is because everyone is hopeful of making it in Lagos.

    With transformational leadership and good policies, Nigeria can also reassure all citizens that they can make it.

     

    • Follow me on twitter: @segungbadeg2002
  • Between individualism and communitarianism

    Between individualism and communitarianism

    Congratulations! I saw the book.” Opalaba announced his New Year entrance into my world even before his usual boisterous “Happy New Year” greeting.

    “Happy New Year! Old Chum”, I replied. “But what book, if I may ask?”

    “It’s the beginning of a new year, and please don’t let us start it with old dirty games” Opalaba answered in his familiar baritone voice.

    “You know the book. It is in your honour. I saw it with my own korokoro eyes. I was even allowed to browse through. It says boldly on the cover: Exploring the Ethics of Individualism and Communitarianism: Multidisciplinary Essays in Honour of Professor Segun Gbadegesin. Of course, I was not invited to contribute and that’s alright. After all, I do not pretend to be an egg-head. But I am your friend of 60 years. And that must count for something.”

    Opalaba is right about our friendship, which has survived many trials and tribulations. But I had to confess to him truthfully that I had nothing to do with the book. And this did not help matters.

    “What do you mean you have nothing to do with the book? It is in your honour! Are you telling me that the authors did not alert you about their plan? Are the contributors not your friends and former students?” I can see that my friend was now agitated.

    “Alright, calm down, Omoloju Olofin” I teased him with his praise-name.

    “The book was conceived and edited by my old students from two continents. They collaborated with my former and current colleagues and friends across the continents. It was all their effort and not mine. That is why I can neither claim any credit for it nor feel comfortable being congratulated about it. But I feel proud about the outcome of their efforts for some reasons.

    “First, the three editors, Enoch Olujide Gbadegesin, Yunusa Kehinde Salami and Kola Abimbola, have made enviable progress in their intellectual journeys since the late 1980 when I had anything to do with their education. They have all done well for themselves and I cannot be more proud of their individual achievements.

    “Second, the work that they did on this book is an undeniable testimony to their skills and talents as scholars. While still expecting formal reviews of the book, the informal ones coming from those who have seen and read it such as your good self, have been encouraging. The editors have a lot to do with this and I cannot therefore hide my own feeling of satisfaction and gratitude to them.

    “Third, the editors cannot have accomplished the feat without the cooperation of the contributors that they invited to be a part of the project. These are first-rate scholars who I have worked with in various capacities and who have collaborated with me on scholarly projects and know my academic interests. It was not therefore difficult for them to agree with the editors on the topic of individualism and communitarianism, my life-interest in scholarship and research.”

    Opalaba was willing to accept my Mea Culpa. However, he was not pleased about not being involved.

    “And that is precisely why I am peeved that no one shared with me anything about the project prior to its completion”, he complained. “Even though I am not in the league of your first-rate scholar colleagues, I know at least one or two things about your focus on the dynamics of individualism and community and the necessary trade-offs between them in a progressive society.

    “On the one hand, the community is the anchor of individual progress and advancement. By which is meant that without the community, the individual is like an atom in the void. None of us can claim complete independence from community influence and impact. This was the meaning of former President Obama’s 2012 campaign slogan “You did not build it” with which he taunted his opponent’s individualistic posture. Obama’s point was that even the most successful entrepreneur cannot claim to do everything alone. The community made his or her success possible by its various tangible and intangible social investments in the life of individuals.

    “On the other hand, individuals make up the community, and it is their various contributions to its life that make the community thrive. Benthamites are right to the extent that the idea of a community without individuals that comprise it is a fiction.

    “This is where the dynamic of individualism and community plays itself out, and where we have to get right the ethics of the interaction between the two.

    “First, we must be mindful of the extreme positions and try not to be attracted to them. On the part of individualism, there is a temptation to see the individual as separate from the community and to argue for the promotion of its interest without recourse to its impact on the community. This is the spirit of crass egoism too much of which has rendered comatose community advancement across the globe. Our own share of the grief is unquantifiable. It is the spirit that drives individuals to corruptly enrich themselves at the expense of the community. It is what Yoruba sages decry as “imotara eni nikan, (selfishness).

    “On the part of communitarianism, there is the extreme tendency to see the individual as an expendable entity based on the notion of a metaphysical and spiritual predominance of the whole over its parts. It is the spirit that leads to the unjustified and counterproductive tendency to abrogate individual rights by appeal to the needs of the community even when it is only powerful individuals that benefit. This is the recourse of dictators trying to legitimise their usurpation of the will of the people.

    “Second, then, getting right the interaction between the two requires us to understand the basis of the relationship in the first place. For it is derived from the sensitivity of the individual to the role of the community in his or her life. It is my coming to the realisation of what my community meant to me growing up that fires up my sense of giving back in my adult life. My recognition of the impact of community love and sacrifice urges me to give back love and make sacrifice in return. To paraphrase Jesus the Christ: No one forced me to make the sacrifice; I voluntarily made it because I know the value of the community.

    “This is the African approach. I think it is the understanding of every individual-in-community in which the spirit and culture of extreme capitalism has not taken hold of individual psyche. It is what drives the average rural dwellers across the world to see themselves as their neighbour’s keepers. It is behind philanthropic giving by successful entrepreneurs from Bill and Melinda Gates to Aliko Dangote”.

    Opalaba’s perfect summary of my position on the matter of the relationship between individual community interests was quite impressive. And I told him so.

    “To the contributors, I owe a debt of gratitude for the honour. Dr. Wayne A. I. Frederick is the President of Howard University, Washington, DC. I know how busy his schedule is. But he enthusiastically wrote a beautiful foreword that he only can craft. A surgeon by profession, Dr. Frederick is a proud triple alumnus of Howard.

    “Dr. Dana A. Williams, chair of the Department of English at Howard University, is my sister and dear friend, who has given all to the Howard experience for students. Between Freshman Seminar and General Education reforms, Dana has been a great inspiration to me. Her lead paper in the volume is a reflection on her humility and communitarian spirit.

    “The contributions of Harvey Sindima, Tunde Lawuyi, Jide Gbadegesin, Segun Ige, Yolonda Wilson, Lawrence Bamikole, Charles Verharen, Gbenga Fasiku, Kola Abimbola, Simeon Ilesanmi, Bimbo Adesoji, Saheed Amusa, Yunusa Salami and J. O. Famakinwa to the 16 chapters of the book are great examples of first-rate scholarship.”

    Opalaba, my unchangeable friend, whimpered: “All well and good. But where is my copy of a book in your honour!”

    To him I responded: “In the spirit of community, go to Amazon.com!”

    Needless to add, I hung up before he exploded.

  • Celebrating democracy and First Amendment

    Celebrating democracy and First Amendment

    The peaceful transition of power from one administration or political party to another is the beauty of democracy, which should be a pride of all democrats and celebrated by every patriot. The succession crisis in little Gambia, with a sit-tight Jammeh, unperturbed about the image of his country, is a reminder of what might otherwise be.

    Americans have reason to rejoice in the strength of their institutions to withstand stress. An electoral institution that has, through the vagaries of life, stood firm and resolute for 240 years, is worth celebrating, and a people that have made sacrifices, including the ultimate one, cannot be accused of hubris if they chose to revel in grand style. The inauguration of a new President has offered the most adequate opportunity for such a national euphoria.

    In January 2009, I, along with members of my family, who had journeyed from three continents for the purpose, participated in this national festival of democracy when Barrack Obama was inaugurated as the 44th President of the United States. Some 1.8 million other citizens, residents, and visitors were there, including many who did not vote for Obama. That was the spirit of the time, following a long tradition.

    This time last year, a large majority of citizens had also hoped to be among the celebrants on the mall today. Many had made hotel reservations to beat the rush and the inflated cost that normally comes with procrastination. They didn’t have to know who was going to win the election. They just wanted to be part of the festival of democracy.

    As the primaries got under way, however, and the insults and bigotry came along with it, disillusionment and despair ensued. Whatever hope many of those trudging along for an acceptable outcome nursed was dashed on election day. And for many, the transition period from November 8 to date has not offered any reprieve from their sense of gloom and doom.

    Thus, while 900,000 visitors are expected for inaugural ceremonies in Washington, D.C. today, many are also coming to protest the inauguration of Donald J. Trump as the 45th President of the United States. Another 400,000 are estimated to participate in the Women’s March on Washington this Saturday. Per the National Park Service, protest permits have been issued to 22 groups, which is “a considerable uptick” compared to past inauguration permits of an average of six groups. This year, inauguration protest and boycott is the most intense and passionate in 35 years. Why?

    The “why” question must not be misconstrued. We must not assume that celebrating democracy and engaging in protest are, in some way, antithetical. Indeed, they are two sides of the same coin. Democracy idolises freedom, while dictatorship privileges repression. Protest for or against an event, a candidate, or even a president’s inauguration, is a time-honoured exercise of freedom and, therefore, a celebration of democracy.

    That is not just a positive spin. It is the truth and it is the reason that the National Park Service cannot legitimately deny permits for protests and rallies no matter how embarrassing anyone, including the President-elect may find it. Indeed, there is no good reason for the man elected as the leader of the free world to feel embarrassed with the celebration of freedom in the form of protest.

    There is another reality, however. While protest is an expression of freedom, it is also primarily a symbol of resistance and opposition to the incoming President and his administration. The disillusionment and despair that has been experienced by many citizens from the primaries to the conventions through election day and to date is directly attributable to the pronouncements made and positions taken on various issues by the man who is being installed as President today. For many, there has not been in recent memory a presidential candidate or a President-elect who has so effectively and successfully captured the White House by what his critics characterise as a campaign of division and hate-mongering.

    These are not frivolous charges even if Trump as candidate and President-elect, thinks otherwise. For Mexican-Americans and their Latin-American, African-American and European-American friends and sympathisers, labelling undocumented immigrants from Mexico as rapists and criminals was simply mean. The attack on a female journalist, Megyn Kelly, for daring to ask tough questions during a Republican primary debate, turned off many women. And when the Access Hollywood tape emerged out of the blue, it only confirmed the charge of misogyny that many of them had made against Trump.

    The mocking of a disabled journalist, an accusation which he has repeatedly denied, but which video images apparently confirmed to many, only increased the number of groups with an unfavourable image of Trump even before the election. African Americans are naturally upset about Trump’s characterisation of inner-cities as crime-infested in a weird appeal to them to give him a chance because they had nothing to lose. This was all before the elections. So, when polls showed him losing to Hillary Clinton up until the eve of the election, it wasn’t difficult for voters to believe that he was cruising to a big loss.

    Even the FBI surprise announcement of further investigation into Clinton email just a few days before the election was not considered a game changer at that time. Who will vote for a misogynist, a bigot, a protectionist and a Putin “puppet”, as Clinton put it? That was the basis of the confidence of many in a Clinton victory and a Trump routing. But they were all wrong. The polls were wrong, or the election was impacted by outside influence as the intelligence community later revealed.

    Since the election, President-Elect Trump has not backed down from his controversial positions and pronouncements. He has intervened in policy decisions of the Obama administration, ignoring the tradition of Presidents-elect waiting their turn. And for someone who had accused Obama of being an illegitimate president based on the conspiracy theory that he was not born in the United States, and who has held on to this bizarre claim for seven and a half years, it was the height of hypocrisy for Trump to be offended when his election was described as illegitimate.

    But that was exactly Trump’s reaction to Congressman Lewis, a civil right icon, who had made that observation, based on the intelligence community confirmation that Russia hacked the emails of the Democratic Party and Clinton Campaign Chair. Trump, who apparently can give insult but cannot conceive of himself receiving it, attacked Lewis as “all talk, talk, and no action” just days before his inauguration. And in solidarity with Mr. Lewis, about 50 House Democrats are boycotting the inauguration activities today. Again, in exercise of their First Amendment, they choose to express their disgust with their absence from the stage.

    There is a way in which all these actions and inactions, verbal expressions and silent motions are reconcilable as they can all be construed as what the founding fathers of American democracy had hoped for. Even though we may be offended by the misogynistic utterances, and by religious bigots and ethnic chauvinists, and even when the hypocrisy of haters that demand love disgust us, the beauty of democracy is its affording everyone the right of expression. It is the promise of the First Amendment.

    Of course, elections have enormous consequences which cannot be dismissed lightly. Policies will be made that can turn lives around in disastrous ways with no good escape routes. Checking out is not an option for many. Again, however, there is hope and it needs to be kept alive.

    In four years, there will be another opportunity for protesters and boycotters of today to exercise their rights to choose a candidate whose views and interests align with theirs, and whose policies they subscribe to. Voting is the ultimate positive form of political expression and it is to be celebrated and taken full advantage of. Perhaps, if everyone that qualified had taken advantage of the opportunity on November 8, 2016, a different outcome may have emerged. But it would not have prevented protests. Only a different group of protesters would probably have taken to the streets today.

  • National resolution for 2017 and beyond (2)

    National resolution for 2017 and beyond (2)

    While our primary challenge as a nation is the weakness of institutional structures, there is hardly a doubt that this is itself linked to our cultural predilection for misplaced priorities in the arena of values. When our warped values endorse, but institutions condemn, to us, that’s just too bad for institutions. That is how we have carried on, at least in the last thirty something years.

    Consider the following personal narrative which I had shared in this column before. After successfully completing the Secondary Modern School in December 1960, and not having secured admission for further education, I was hired as a pupil teacher by the late Chief I. A. Adelodun, the headmaster of First Baptist School, Isia, Okeho, to teach his class because, as headmaster, he had assigned himself a class while he was also an Honourable Member of the Western Region House of Assembly. He paid my salary of £5 per month from his pocket.

    I would like to highlight a few salient points from this story. First, membership of parliaments in the First Republic was not considered a full-time job and members were expected to keep their day jobs. How they managed the two was between them and their conscience on the one hand, and between them and their constituencies on the other. But where any of them might have a weak conscience, their constituencies did not let them get away with cheating.

    Second, because of the combination of a strong conscience on the part of many of those legislators and political appointees and uncompromising constituencies who monitored them, the values of hard work and honesty were preserved. Therefore, when in those days, we taught children J. F. Odunjo’s immortal lines “Ise logun ise” (work is the antidote to poverty), it resonated with them. When we taught them the lyrics “Bi mo ba ka we mi, bata mi a ro koko ka...” (If I am well-read, I am on the road to comfort), they were motivated, for they were witnesses to the stories of “rag to riches” because of education.

    Third, however, those values have suffered disastrously in the face of newly discovered vices of indolence, dishonesty and selfish greed that have unfortunately been promoted and celebrated as modern values. A headmaster could not have done otherwise than Chief Adelodun did in those days. His conscience would not allow him even if he wanted. And the parents and school authorities would not have condoned an absentee teacher.

    Now, however, we have some headmasters without other official jobs not only absenting themselves from their stations, but also condoning teacher absences. We have teachers seated in their boutiques three days a week at the expense of their students and getting paid at the end of the month. Far more serious is the contemporary phenomena of ghost teachers and ghost workers. We have evolved tragically in our embrace of greed and dishonesty as a new national value. And it appears we are not letting prudential considerations obstruct our dangerous sprint toward the edge of the cliff.

    Fourth, but who are we to blame the crooked tail when the head is itself wobbly? The teacher in his classroom, the headmistress in her office and the clerk in his cubicle, are all variants of a mini iromi. They all dance to despicable beats coming from the drums of selfish greed and economic sabotage. It’s surreal. Legislators pass bills for their self-aggrandisement. They vote to give themselves raises even when they know that there are no funds to repair roads or provide potable water for their constituencies. They allocate to themselves funds for constituency projects but heaven helps anyone that tries to find the location of such projects in the constituencies. In the age of twitter and snapchat, the teacher, the headmaster and the clerk are very much aware of what’s going on in the corridors of power. They are naturally, therefore, cynical about sermons that tell them to be the change they want to see.

    Fifth, as a corporate entity, we have lived our entire life spending beyond our means with an insatiable appetite for borrowing to finance our flamboyant lifestyle. We have never cut our national coat according to the size of our clothes. And because our productivity has not met up with, let alone overtake our consumption, we are in constant debt to other nations from which we import to satisfy our wants.

    Though we can live comfortably without much of what we import, our vulgar wants must be fulfilled. And the big ones among us are in the lead for these desires of the flesh. So, the driver is an insider to the boss’ lifestyle and he cannot wait to have what Oga has. What course is open to him? Theft or conspiracy to kidnap Oga’s kids! In the economies that we envy, individuals go about in jeans and T-shirts, while saving for education, home, nutritious food and vacation. We go into debt for aso-ebi.

    Sixth, while there are certain cultural values that have been passed on to us from our forebears and which we rightly think of as morally obligated of us to continue, we have, without much thought, taken them to insane heights. Naming of newly born, wedding and funeral represent the three most important landmarks of a person worthy of celebration. But while tradition recognises this, it does not impose on us an obligation to go into debt in recognising them. Unfortunately, this is what many folks have done, cheered on by the rest of us. We make feferity, apology to the late Chief Anthony Enahoro, our cultural pride, without the necessary constraint to rein in its excesses.

    Seventh, meanwhile, we hold government responsible for our normal parental responsibilities without even bothering to do our part. Besides civil servants and private sector employees, who are forced to part with taxable portions of their incomes through the PAYEE system, it is only a few conscientious ones that pay taxes these days because we assume that there is oil revenue to take care of our national wants. And when there is lull in the oil market giving rise to recession, we grumble.

    Eighth, as citizens, we aid and abet corruption with our inordinate and greedy demands from government and from candidates and elected officials. It is a rational law of economics that one invests to make profit. Therefore, when the electorate demand and receive gratification from candidates to give the candidates their support rather than support their positions on issues which would benefit them in return, those candidates are rational to consider the bribe they give voters as investment from which they must make reasonable profit. Do we then really have a good reason to complain when on getting to office, those elected officials dip their hands in the coffers of government?

    Ninth, from the immediate prior paragraph, it seems clear that big-time corruption, the type that involves politicians in 10 figure theft of public funds, has its root in the petty corruption initiated by the electorate. The victim may have been the culprit in the first place. Without recognising the impact of citizen demand and the culture that tolerates it, we are not going to resolve the big problem. More importantly, without dealing with the cultural ethos that celebrate undeserved opulence, and the perverse values that thwart our original belief in the wealth that comes from hard work, we are not going to successfully confront and win the war against corruption.

    Finally, we may then ask the question: what should be our national resolution for 2017 and beyond? First, we must create strong institutions that can withstand the onslaught of political jobbers parading as patriots. Second, we must reverse the vice of conspicuous consumption and vanity that presents itself as a fundamental cultural value. Third, we must affirm once again the truth that hard work is the antidote to poverty and teach the coming generations the same. Fourth, let us truly and in practical terms adhere to the declaration of our norm with a firm embrace of discipline, integrity, dignity of labour, social justice, religious tolerance, self-reliance and patriotism.

    • Concluded

     

     

  • National resolution for 2017 and beyond (1)

    National resolution for 2017 and beyond (1)

    Nigeria enters 2017 in a bad shape, perhaps, its worst economic meltdown since the oil glut of the 1980s led to harsh austerity measures. With divine intervention, the country survived that period but learnt nothing from it. History has thus repeated itself.

    I just attributed to divine intervention the nation’s survival of harsh conditions when, all things being equal, she should have collapsed. I could have cited chance or sheer luck. But it feels good to be reassured of a superior being’s interest in our survival.

    As a former leader put the matter recently, Nigeria was created by God and God does not make mistakes, and the one who created the nation will not stand by to see her crumble. The God who has been our help in ages past is still our hope for years to come. If so, the various agitators for her collapse and disintegration in favour of more homogenous artifices may be wasting their efforts! Unless, of course, God changes His mind.

    And change of mind is always a possibility for the divine who is self-controlled and owes none any explanation. Paradoxically, however, were a survey of Nigerians conducted today, a sizeable majority would favour a change of mind on God’s part, with preference for a dissolution of the God-officiated marriage by which the many became one. The reason is not far-fetched. They are tired of a country that is endowed with the potential for greatness, but has settled for smallness its entire life.

    It’s no use cautioning cynics against impatience. They have been patient for more than half a century. It is counterproductive to counsel them against the unknown. They rationally respond that when the known poses an imminent threat to personal survival, the unknown cannot be worse. And there is little doubt that as it is presently constituted and operating, this nation poses an imminent threat to the survival of many of her citizens and residents. Just go to the street corners and the dung hills and you will find tears rolling down your face for God’s creatures. A loving God will change His mind in a jiffy.

    But the good news is that it can be fixed, provided the root cause is recognised and dealt with sincerely. If Nigeria was created for greatness and if the greatness of the nation was to have a multiplier effect on the citizens, there must be a formula that the original author, who provided that, has been abandoned at some point. The remedy is to find it and apply it once again.

    Let me suggest the following reasoning to find that formula: The greatness of a nation is a function of the goodness of its people. Therefore, for a nation to be great, it must have good people. But the goodness of the people is a function of the goodness of their leaders. Therefore, there must be good leaders. However, the goodness of leaders is a function of the strength of the institutions which create them and monitor them. Therefore, there must be strong institutions. Ultimately then, for a nation to be great, it must have strong institutions.

    What is an institution? It is a system of rules and practices established for the purpose of efficient and effective governance. Strong institutions produce good servant leaders and prevent the emergence of leaders that see the nation as their personal estate. Strong institutions prevent the abuse of power.

    Consider the case of electoral institutions, a pillar of democratic system of government. With a weak system of rules and practices governing elections, electoral corruption is unavoidable. For the better part of her life, this nation had a corrupt electoral system. It was the immediate cause of the first military incursion into politics and it nearly caused the disintegration of the nation.

    We did not learn from that near-death experience which we repeated during the Second Republic, leading again to another military takeover. When finally we appeared to get something right about electoral system in 1993, the personalised rule of the military ensured that it never worked. The institution of the military, which produced strong leaders for the purpose of the defence of the country from external attack, found itself being asked to respect the institution of “bloody civilian” elections. The tail wagged the dog and it also nearly led to the disintegration of the country.

    Since the beginning of the Fourth Republic, we have seen the rise and fall of institutional structures which had not been designed well to withstand the assault of egoistic leaders who prefer personal rule to the rule of law. From the Police to EFCC, from Code of Conduct Bureau to INEC, each has been tools in the hands of those they were supposed to rein in. It is not just at the federal level. The states and local governments are veritable grounds for the emasculation of institutions, including the judiciary, whose independence is constitutionally guaranteed. The latter has sadly been exposed as corruption-ridden.

    The country has indeed been subjected to the ridiculous competition between the executive and the legislature in the matter of controlling governing institutions. Witness the ongoing effort on the part of the National Assembly to cow the Code of Conduct Bureau.

    Surely, there is always self-interest and self-preservation lurking around the corridors of power. Just as I write this column, a news flash appeared on my screen. The Republican Congress in the United States voted to gut an independent ethics law that Democrats had put in place after a series of scandals some years ago. Republicans who now control Congress and the White House wanted Congress to control the Independent Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE). But what happened? There was an avalanche of criticisms, including two tweets from the president-elect. Republicans had no choice but to bow to public opinion and reverse their decision just within 24 hours.

    Meanwhile, in our corner of the world, there is intense suffering in the land, with great anxiety for the future, and a frightening precursor to national upheaval which handouts cannot prevent. No human being is satisfied with the indignity of waiting for a handout from anyone. We are wired to be productive agents and not idle consumers. With good planning, strong educational and economic institutions assign people to tasks they are capable of performing without the intervention of god-fathers or god-mothers.

    Whenever they suffer from human-made problems, as in the United States economic recession of 2008, citizen resilience, combined with the smartness of good leaders bring them back up. This is why the U. S. unemployment rate is now 4.6%, the lowest in more than 10 years. Our economic institutions are weak because leaders either have little or no clue, or are encumbered by self-seeking gimmicks that preclude respect for the objective laws of economics.

    What then must be our national resolution for the year 2017?  From the experience of established democracies, we know that strong leaders produced by strong institutions risk a hostile backlash from the public when they attempt to weaken those institutions which have worked effectively and efficiently.

    We must collectively resolve, therefore, to create and sustain strong institutions of governance going forward. This is of course contingent upon our collective willingness to give the Nigerian experiment another chance. The leadership slogan of an indivisible entity is just that. Without a willingness on their part to build the institutions that will ensure its indivisibility, it is all going to be a mirage. But the indivisibility of a country must be the outcome of citizens’ reflection on its meaning and promise for them. It cannot be commanded from above.

    Assume then that there is the willingness to give the Nigerian project another chance. There must be individual and collective efforts to identify institutions that are required for democratic governance in a federal setting, and a determination to strengthen them. It will not be easy as the leaders at various levels may be tempted to place their self-interest above the national interest. They need to be persuaded to the side of reason. Otherwise, they must be shamed. No one is indispensable.

  • Can anything good ever come out of politics?

    Can anything good ever come out of politics?

    I admit that I have raised a loaded question, with no expectation of a satisfactory answer, a candid expression of my frustration with politics of self-interest parading as anything but.

    Politics is the institution for managing the affairs of a community for the well-being of its people. As such, it is a noble venture. As the political community is the highest organisation, politics is conceptualised as the highest institution worthy only of selfless patriots.

    There is a good reason for that characterisation. A community is a close-knit entity with a common purpose and a sense of history that binds it to the past and links it to a hopeful future. Active agents on its political scene come and go, but they share a common objective of contributing their quota to the progressive transformation of the community. Their pride is in the sacrifice they make for the community, even when they have little or nothing to show for themselves.

    An early documented intimation of this conception of politics came from Aristotle for whom politics is the highest calling and politicians have the noblest assignment of framing the constitutional order of the political community, the goal of which is the good life of citizens. Note the characterisation of the three elements: politics: the highest calling; politician: with a noble assignment; political community: with the goal of good life of citizens.

    If the good life of citizens is the goal of the political community, it makes sense that the institution established for achieving it must be of the highest ranking, and active agents in that institution with the responsibility for achieving the good life for citizens must be deemed as having a noble assignment. In that regard, the question “can anything good ever come out of politics?” would make no sense. The fact that this question makes sense is, therefore, a challenge to the characterisation in question.

    Does the political community exist to promote the good life of citizens? Think of the foundation of local communities, from family to village to city. Chief Awolowo got it exactly right in People’s Republic. Every family wants the best for its members, and it must be assumed that when they join other families to form the nucleus of a state, they do not give up the goal of seeking the good life for their people. Therefore, a political community can be assumed to be justified because it seeks the good of its citizens.

    If the above makes sense, then it is reasonable to claim that the institution established for the accomplishment of the goal is of the highest ranking. What is devoted to benefiting the entire community and prioritising the needs to be pursued for members is certainly a higher order than that which aims at the good of a section.

    It must also follow that the group of citizens who take on the responsibility for the achievement and realisation of the goal for the people have a noble assignment. Politicians are a different breed in the positive way. They frame the constitutional order that makes possible the seeking of the good life and its achievement.

    Something is not right! The above is not the reality that stares us in the face. The political community that we know does not seek the good life of its citizens. Politics as we know it does not appear to be the highest calling. Indeed, it is one of the most debased of any calling, which is why many good people find it nauseating and repugnant. And while it may still be a noble assignment to fashion the constitutional order for a people, it has evolved into a vile and base task in the hands of political charlatans.

    What has changed then and since when? At the family and village levels, the political goal of the good life predominates as the community identifies the key actors who take the assignment seriously. With the combination of villages, the understanding of the good life gets murky, interests clash, and there need to be negotiations and compromises. Intrigues set in and the process of debasement follows in short order.

    With the combination of tribes and tongues, the escalation and intensification of tension and anxiety over the understanding of the good life and its requirements is inescapable. Amid such a heightened sense of expediency, various characters of dubious integrity are catapulted onto the stage of politics with varieties of motivations and questionable agenda, which may be far out of the field of any sense of the good life that any of the component communities may have set itself. In the circumstance, there is a clash of conceptions of the good life, not just among the component communities, but also among the individual politicians. This is the state of politics, politicians and political communities today, ours included.

    Can anything good come out of politics today then? Let us grant for discussion what is a contestable assertion: that we have come to an agreement on the good life for citizens of this country and it is encoded in the Constitution as Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy. It is contestable to the extent that the 1999 Constitution itself is a work in progress still being litigated in the court of public opinion. To the credit of its framers, however, the bone of contention regarding the principles that are presented as the good life for citizens is that they are still not justiciable.

    So, we have the good life. But we still do not agree on the various aspects of how to achieve it for the people. What structure? What level of government is responsible for what? And this is where the betrayal of the idea of politics as the highest calling and politicians as having a noble assignment is most pungently demonstrated. The hustle and bustle of politics as we come to know it becomes glaring in the attempt to frame the constitutional framework for achieving the good life with politicians seeing themselves as representatives of sections whose interest must outweigh that of the collective. They hold the Aces because there is no real threat to the existence and prospering of their sections should the collective fail or disintegrate.

    There is a second level of hustle and bustle which further complicates the volatile political environment of differing tribes and tongues. Lone Ranger politicians with selfish agenda can negotiate across ethnic and national boundaries in a manner that benefits them but harms their immediate group. It is the nature of the contemporary politics. Some may find it a degenerate form of politics because of this; others may consider it intrinsic to the nature of politics. And it is the most problematic for the characterisation of politics as the highest calling and politicians as having a noble assignment.

    For in the case of politicians with agenda of self-interest, there is nothing ennobling unless there is, what is unlikely, a coincidence of self-interest of the individual with the good of the political community. A system can probably withstand the egoism of a few, but it will collapse under the weight of many self-conceited individuals hustling for their share of a national cake they are not inclined to bake. They move from party to party in search of spoils. They look to exploit precarious circumstances which they probably helped to instigate.

    About the clash of the conceptions of the good life sought by the various communities that come together voluntarily or by force, it is also inconceivable that something good can come out of the politics that ensues unless there is a strong determination for compromise to reach common grounds on fundamental issues.

    But when such compromises have been attained, they are products of elite self-interests parading as the common interest. In the end, the good life for citizens is stymied while the special interests of a few get promoted. So, some good does come out of politics when elite compromise unintentionally benefits the collective. If the compromise lasts, stability can be sustained. But the moment it collapses, the benefits to the collective is fatally assaulted.

  • A world of war celebrates the prince of peace

    A world of war celebrates the prince of peace

    I did not plan on writing on religion so soon after last week’s conclusion of my two part series, “Risky path toward theocracy.” But two related events last Sunday changed my course.

    First, in his sermon, my pastor alluded to the troubling senseless violence going on in the country. Kidnappers are on the loose. Militants are wrecking disaster. Armed robbers are on the prowl. To us, it was stale news. Then he threw in the bombshell about human beings beheading fellow human beings and cutting them into pieces as if preparing them for the cooking pot. It must be one of those fake news, I told myself.

    I certainly did not want to believe such a terrible story of human cannibals in the civilised world. But my pastor’s follow-up question was pertinent: what is the role of Christians in a world that is lost in evil? Are we contributing to human depravity or aiding and abetting sin? In the midst of abject poverty that leads people to crime, suicide and homicide, what is the Christian message? It was a sermon, so there was no room for answer.

    Second, however, at a house fellowship in the evening, the discussion topic was the coming of the Prince of Peace and the question was “how can the message of peace that Christ delivered be effectively disseminated today?” Unlike the pastor’s question, this question was a call to open discussion. My contribution to that discussion is the subject of the column today.

    The paradox could not be starker. The world is in tumult. From east to west, from south to north, peace is elusive. There is external aggression and vicious internal repression. International terrorism rivals domestic disturbance. Religions preach peace but practise war in its various dimensions- in word and in deed. How then can the message of peace be disseminated when the messengers are neck-deep in war?

    Let us step back a little. Before Christ, there was religion but no Christianity. That’s pretty pedestrian. What is significant is that the religion of the Old Testament celebrated violence as God’s ordinance through his prophets. Declarations of war were considered divine and any order to destroy an entire nation with its innocent children had to be carried out to the letter. Within communities, it was an eye for an eye. And the ultimate punishment reserved for the blasphemous was death on the cross, which became the lot of Christ himself.

    Then Jesus the Christ was born as God’s final gift to a sinful world. He was to serve as the supreme sacrifice for humankind. He preached and practised peace in word and deed. He fed the hungry. He healed the sick. He blessed the poor. He intervened to save a poor adulterous woman from her hypocritical accusers. He even saved one of his assailants from the sword of an angry disciple who had sliced his ear in defence of Christ. And he taught his listeners to avoid conflicts by turning the other cheek so their attackers can gratify their aggression.

    For true believers, then, Christ had set the bar for the promotion of peace and the dissemination of his message. Believers are to promote the well-being of the poor because doing it for the wretched is doing it for Christ himself. They are to be peacemakers so they can be true children of God. And even if they were persecuted, as he predicted, they should rejoice in the understanding that they have a place in heaven. In any case, he also admonished that just as his kingdom was not of this world, they also are not of this world. They must therefore not build their treasures here on earth.

    Where are those true believers now? The first disciples tried their best to abide by the master’s instructions. They prayed their ways through persecutions in the hands of the established religious traditions. They were martyred but did not give up the faith or betray the cause of Christ. They were poor in material wealth, giving their lives to itinerant preaching and healing without pomposity. It was because those who witnessed their actions saw in them the attributes of Christ that they named them Christians or Little Christs. Generations later, those Little Christs were a rarity. Today, they are virtually non-existent.

    From being the persecuted in the aftermath of Christ’s death, resurrection and ascension, the “Little Christs” became the persecutors once they gained political power. They went after pagans like lions after their prey. Whereas Christ preached with compassion, the political Christians, with the backing of the state, preached hate. In concert with the entrepreneurial class of the time, they endorsed the Atlantic slave trade, which killed millions of Africans and took many more to the New World as chattel slaves in the plantations of “Christian” capitalists where they were treated as expendable properties. Slavery was abolished only when it was no longer useful for capitalism.

    Meanwhile, from the same New World that treated Africans only as tools of labour, came missionaries that preached the gospel of Christ in the African homeland. But the land that sent them to Africa continued to treat the sons and daughters of Africa they had enslaved as expendables, unworthy of the rights and protections that were extended constitutionally to their fellow human beings. It was fellow (White) ministers of the Church that attacked Martin Luther King Jr. for being too aggressive about civil rights. His response to them was the Letter from Birmingham City Jail which exposed their hypocrisy.

    They have not changed. Obamacare provides health insurance for the poor, with tens of millions benefitting. Evangelicals overwhelmingly supported a presidential candidate and congressional candidates who promised to repeal the law. One presidential candidate with evangelical credentials even rated Obamacare as worse than slavery.

    Perhaps foreign Christians are a different species that falsely identify as Christians. What about native Christians from the heart of Africa? What has been the state of Christ’s message of peace and compassion?

    Recall that Christ himself predicted all that is being experienced today. Didn’t he tell his disciples to be aware of foxes in sheep’s clothing? Did he not tell us that many will falsely come in his name? What has been common to most if not all Christian evangelicals today is the shameless love of money, fame and power at the expense of the peace of God and compassion for fellow humans.

    The Internet is saturated with fake news and one must not indulge in lending many of them credence. But reading about a pastor who made a deal with a man to have the man fake death and be placed in a coffin so that at a rally, the pastor will “resurrect” him from his death, I wonder what Christianity is becoming. Is this how to disseminate the message of Christ? How about the exploitation going on in a number of African mega churches. The poor are in need of help with food, shelter and education, but many churches are milking them dry.

    There are notable exceptions, of course, where members are taught the principles of success and economic breakthrough, without the emphasis on the miraculous. But even in providing opportunities for higher education which is the modern avenue to success, many poor families are left out in the lurch with costs way beyond their reach.

    We have wondered aloud why, despite the phenomenal growth of Christianity, with churches littering every city corner across the land, there is more violence and less peace in the land. The epidemic of violence appears congruent with the expansion of churches.

    The reason is not far-fetched. While Christ’s message is delivered in all sanctuaries 24/7, the practice of that message has not been commensurate with the words. So the world of war persists even as it celebrates the prince of peace. So long as word and deed are poles apart, the paradox endures. Fortunately, so do the words of Christ. In the fullness of time, the hypocrites using his name in vain as tools for their personal worldly gains will receive their judgment and be damned in hell.

  • Risky path to theocracy (2)

    Risky path to theocracy (2)

    That the House decided to even consider “a bill to set up the Ecclesiastical Court of Appeal in the country” is a puzzle. That the bill passed a second reading is a shock, in view of all the serious issues that the country has on its lap at this time.

    It is a puzzle because, the idea of a religious court within a secular constitution is an anomaly. It is true that the Sharia Court has been adopted in the constitution since 1979. But the Muslim argument with regard to that clause is that there is no unbridgeable gulf between the religious and the political in Islamic faith. But this is clearly at variance with the Christian doctrine as exemplified by Christ himself in his divine intelligent reaction to the tricky question of the Pharisees: Give unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar and unto God that which is God’s. This acknowledges the church-state dichotomy and the need to keep them as such. It is especially more critical in an environment of religious pluralism that we inhabit.

    Since this new attempt at aggravating the sensitive issue of the politics of religion, there have been observations to the effect that the constitutional provision for a Sharia Court and the acceptance of the Sharia judicial system was an original sin which should not have been condoned. Let us assume that this is a cogent argument. But is that why we should proceed to commit more constitutional sins? Should we continue to multiply sins without necessity? What next? An Ogun judicial system in deference to Ogun worshippers? Or a Shango judicial system? How about an Ala judicial system? Indeed, did it ever occur to our lawmakers that the Common Law system which is the foundation of our constitution and judicial system has its ancestral roots in the so-called Christian jurisprudence?

    Let us assume that Ecclesiastical Courts are needed. On whose authority are they to be set up? By definition, these are courts or tribunals “set up by religious authorities to deal with disputes among clerics or with spiritual matters involving either clerics or laymen.”(Encyclopedia Britannica). These courts also have Bishops or Archdeacons with knowledge of Christian Law as officers. In the system proposed by our lawmakers, who appoints these officers? The church or the state?

    In the bill sponsored by Honourable Gyang Istifanus Dung, the courts will “adjudicate matters of personal Christian Law and civic matters, which shall be prescribed in the rules of practice and procedure of the Ecclesiastical Court.” Such matters are to include marriage and its dissolution, guardianship of infant, will, and the “guardianship of a Christian who is physically or mentally infirm.” The rationale for the provisions of the bill is the “constitutional guarantee of the right of every citizen to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including the freedom to propagate his religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance.”

    We have been on this ridiculous and dangerous path for some time. It is more like sibling rivalry between immature kids. One child is diagnosed with a slanted vision and she needs prescription glasses to correct it. Her older sibling is envious and fakes vision problems so she can also have prescription glasses. Muslims get to visit Mecca and Medina on holy pilgrimage as part of the recorded pillars of their religion. Christians have no such injunction. But there must be equality of rights and privileges for all religions! Therefore, parity requires that Christians also visit Israel on holy pilgrimage. And if Sharia is allowed in the judicial system, why not Ecclesiastical Court?

    The reasoning is troubling to say the least because it has reduced our discourse in the public sphere to absurdity. At a time of high rate of joblessness, runaway inflation and mass poverty, all that our lawmakers care about is the creation of a religious court that has no meaning whatsoever in view of the Christian origins of our civil law tradition. When Paul chided the early Christians for going before non-believers to adjudicate conflicts between them, he did not instruct them to request the civil authorities to help them set up courts. His instruction was that they—Christians—had the obligation to resolve differences between them internally. They were to set up an internal conflict resolution system managed by spiritual elders. Our People’s House has turned that instruction on its head.

    It is gratifying that the Northern wing of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) has distanced itself from the sponsorship of the bill. It is hoped that the national body will also do so.

    Our secular constitution has no room for state religion or the adoption of a sacred religion by the state. That is logical. Even if a disproportionate majority of citizens embrace one religion, it would still be unfair to the minority with a different religious leaning to have them succumb to the religious will of the majority.

    Thankfully we have a multi-religious system and it presents the nation with an unusual opportunity for the development and promotion of a Nigeria-wide civil religion, a secular celebration of our national history, values and institutions. This is the cause for which leaders in the executive and legislative branches should commit to, instead of their current obsession with the propagation of divisions in the religious realm.

    The private religious leanings of citizens must not be allowed to stand in the way of a national civic orientation that nonetheless uses religious symbolisms as tools. From the triumphs and failings of the past, we could assemble a mix of notable and memorable events to which we can all relate and which can serve as a solid framework for our common allegiance. The national day is one of such events. Even those significant events that a large number of us have come to disparage as the beginning of our collective misery- the amalgamation day- could be turned around in the hands of purposeful and visionary leadership. After all, what is in a day but for the rudderless leadership and unjust and callous policies that make its memory infamous! The pride of citizens in their nation is a function of many factors not least of which is how it nurtures their sense of belonging and their idea of fairness.

    The point is that it takes an exceptional leadership who is able to rise above the pettiness of ethnic chauvinism and religious bigotry to create the environment for a disparate people to see themselves as one indivisible nation and to rally round their flag and other symbols of their common heritage. Following the clarion call to national greatness, patriotic citizens will eschew the divisiveness of private religion, and embrace a national civil religion that prioritises commonality over differences. Thus if prayer is warranted at the opening of the Federal Executive Council meeting or the National Assembly, they can creatively pray in the name of Providence or Creator of the Universe instead of God or Allah or Ogun. To these they can freely revert in the privacy of their homes or the sanctuaries of worship.

    I should be remiss if I do not here acknowledge the reasonableness of some of our moderators at special events who initiate opening and closing prayers by asking the audience to recite the last verse of our National Anthem. That is what civil religion is about. It is a recognition of and respect for our common bond.

    A national public adoption of civil religion and a private allegiance to our various sects is not only desirable, it is required if private religion will not continue to be the clog in the wheel of national progress. If nations with a predominance of one religion can afford the risk of unfair theocracy that deprives minorities of their religious freedom, this nation of plural religiosity cannot. The leadership of every branch of government therefore is morally obligated to creatively steer the wagon of the state away from the risky path to archaic theocracy and to                                                                                       wards the peaceful thoroughfare of civil religion, which celebrates our common political heritage and summons us to embrace same, beckoning us to a hopeful future.

    (Concluded)

  • Risky path toward theocracy (1)

    Risky path toward theocracy (1)

    In the past week, I had two divergent emotional experiences, no thanks to the uneven messages contained in the substance of our national discourse.

    On the first occasion a week ago, I received the full text of an inspiring lecture given by Mr. Babatunde Raji Fashola, SAN, the Honourable Minister of Power, Works, and Housing. It was the Convocation Lecture he delivered at his alma mater, the University of Benin. Coming from a Minister of the Federal Republic, a distinguished lawyer, and a former Governor of the Centre of Excellence, who is also a practising Muslim, I felt so elated about his position on religion and the affairs of the state that I quickly sent a note of congratulations to him. Over the years, Fashola has intervened in important matters with his signature clarity and commonsensical approach to issues.

    Fast forward to this past Tuesday, I perused the Internet for the news of the day, and I couldn’t be more depressed with the first item that caught my attention on the web site of Premium Times. It read: “Bill to establish Christian Court scales second reading”. “Is this a joke?” I asked myself repeatedly. I tried to surf more pages on the Internet thinking, perhaps, Premium Times got the whole story wrong. Seeing no other related news at the time, I wanted to be reassured that it was not true. I sent a message to my good friend, Distinguished Senator, Professor Sola Adeyeye, who promised to find out and get back to me. However, before he could get back, I got a confirmation from The Nation, which carried even more details, including some of the main clauses of the bill and its rationale.

    Juxtaposing the inspiring lecture of Minister Fashola and the depressing news of the legislative priority of the People’s Representatives was a hard nut for me to crack.

    Fashola’s message is “most profound”, to quote Senator Sola Adeyeye, a born-again Christian, who kindly sent the text of the lecture to me and who had himself had his share of frustration as a member of the House years ago, also on the matter of religion and our national obsession that sometimes defy logic and commonsense. We resort to prayer sessions and leave unsolved the clearly mechanical problem and human errors that cause motor accidents. Fashola’s objective was to encourage the graduating students to free themselves from fear or what Francis Bacon referred to as idols of the theatre—the menacing impact of false beliefs from orthodox doctrines on our private and public lives.

    It is important to keep distinct and separate three issues in this discussion: religion in private life (within and beyond the limits of reason), religion in public life, and civil religion. My position is that every human being has a right to have a religious belief in the privacy of their lives as well as a right to freely worship whatever is the object of their beliefs. Of course, should they choose, each also has a right to not hold a belief in God or Gods. And society has no right to punish anyone on account of his or her belief or lack thereof. Francis Bacon who warned against the Idols of the Theatre also famously defended religious belief: “a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion.” Fashola’s philosophy professor is probably deep in this Baconian understanding of life.

    In view of the well-known character of philosophy, Fashola’s narration of his encounter with his philosophy professor should not come as a surprise. The mission of philosophy in the Socratic tradition is to critically examine issues from an objective perspective and not be satisfied with an opinion that has not been subjected to the crucible of fiery questions. But we are also wired to believe in non-demonstrable and non-evidential ideas, including spiritual and religious ideas. We easily traverse the universe of science that is evidence-based, and the world of religion that is faith-based. As long as we are aware of the difference and we are able to navigate the chasm between them, we should be fine.

    The challenge is that, out of an irrational anxiety and a tragic deficit of self-reliance, many fail to use their natural endowments and acquired skills and would rather indulge the attitude of dependency on others, and in the ultimate, on the unseen, which is variously named. And in case the expected help from the unseen doesn’t materialise, the human mind easily settles on a soothing explanation that appeals to the irrepressible presence of destiny at best, or fate, at worst. What will be will be!

    There is a more productive way of navigating the chasm. Belief in a divine being does not negate the need for hard work and the use of the intellect which is our gift from the divine. Apostle Paul was clear about this. Neither does faith in a good God negate the struggle for justice in the face of oppression. The prophets of old understood this very well. Therefore, the easy resort of our people to the search for miracles where hard work and intelligent strategising matters is a proven path to failure.

    Unfortunately, the laziness and obsession with shortcuts that characterise our private lives regularly finds its way to the conduct of our public affairs. No public institution is immune from the recourse to the occult, including our citadels of learning where sacrifices often litter cross roads and participation at prayer vigils surpasses class attendance.

    In a passage of the lecture that is especially pertinent to my interest here, Fashola observes as follows:

    “…at least the two faiths are not original to us. They are inherited. The propagators of the faith have made them personal affairs and not public ones.” Then he recalls how the meetings he has attended in the West and in the Middle East had never started or ended with prayers because such meetings for them “represent public undertakings and places of work and productive undertakings to deliver prosperity.” On the other hand in this country “the heads of governments, heads of ministries, and businesses, devote early mornings at work to prayers with their staff while productive man hours tick away.”

    Let me make a friendly modification here, which in no way diminishes the import of the minister’s point because his critique of fear as a motivation of conduct will be applicable wherever it is observed. My modification is that, perhaps unlike other Western nations, the United States, after decades of productive engagement with nature and acting as the leader of the free world is also, no thanks to a substantial vocal segment, becoming progressively engrossed in the deification of superstition and fear.

    Congress has a Chaplain who leads the opening and closing prayers when it is in session. Here, however, despite the extremism of some, a commonsensical balance is maintained between reason and faith. And though the United States is a predominantly Christian country, her leaders are uniformly aware of the diversity of religious sensibilities including the various denominations of the Christian faith. Therefore, most public prayers end “in the name of God”, the common denominator of all faiths, instead of “in the name of Christ” or “in the name of Allah”. Note that I have not denied the existence of extremists of any faith and their mission of spreading hate in public places. Thankfully, most public servants are moderates in the matter of faith and they take seriously their obligation to uphold the constitution in its secularity.

    The difference between Nigeria and the United States is not in the private practice of religion and faith. Just as the majority of believers of different faiths have been moderate in the practice of religion, many citizens in both countries have also embraced a form of religiosity that goes beyond reason in their embrace of fear. But while individuals have the right to believe what they may, it is utterly irresponsible for the public arena to be the locus of fear. But that is precisely what we seem to have turned our nation’s People’s House into.

    To be continued

  • Still on true federalism

    Still on true federalism

    Six months ago, I called for a deliberate movement toward “a more perfect union”, which respects the federal structure that the founding fathers of the republic envisioned. Here I quote from the first two paragraphs from my July 3, 2016 column:

    “We have been speaking pass each other for a long time. Especially since 1966, we have used terms and concept that different groups interpret as fighting words. As often as it does happen, the natural reaction of everyone is to flee to their corners to fight back and the hope of one nation bound in truth and freedom has been the loser.

    “While one group takes a stand for true federalism and argues therefore for restructuring the country to bring about that change, another mocks the idea and instead calls for strong leadership. (At a point in the present republic, a senator actually argued boldly for unitarism). While one voice advocates for resource control and fiscal federalism, another argues that to avoid disintegration, the centre needs to corner the most resources. It appears from the pattern we have seen thus far that whichever party controls the centre sees itself as the protector of the nation’s unity at all cost and cannot be expected to give an inch, even when that inch is going to yield a mile in terms of lasting unity.

    I emphasise the last sentence of the paragraph above to affirm that my understanding of the pattern of support for and opposition against the idea of true federalism has been precise. The ruling party has generally seen itself as the defender of unity, which it wrongly assumes is threatened by true federalism. On the other hand, the opposition has been in the vanguard of the demand for true federalism. I do not intend to impute any motives but it is amazing that the party positions turn out this way.

    One reason that many progressive-minded citizens gave their unflinching support to the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the last presidential election was their belief that it shared their values about a true federal structure as the best way to advance the nation.

    The “Manifesto of the All Progressives Congress (APC)”, which was publicised as the contract between the party and Nigerians, is still prominent on its web page. In the first bullet point of the manifesto under the first heading, “The Constitution”, the party promised to “initiate action to amend our constitution with a view to devolving powers, duties and responsibilities to state and local governments in order to entrench true federalism and the federal spirit.”

    I hope that I am not alone in deducing from the quoted item on APC’s manifesto the following conclusions. First, I inferred that APC is committed to entrenching a true federal structure in the country. Second, the party and its members, especially those in leadership positions, understand the fundamentals of a true federal structure. Third, I deduced that once Nigerians gave it their mandate, APC intended to educate those of its members, who are given positions of authority in government so that they are in sync with its resolve to fulfil its promise to the electorate.

    I did not infer, nor did I expect any dissension within the party hierarchy regarding the meaning of true federalism or the need for its entrenchment as the pillar of governmental policy in an APC administration. That was what the logic of the statement of the manifesto led me to believe. To the extent that a different conclusion has been inferred and acted upon, it is not unusual, but it is not a validly drawn conclusion. It is not unusual because the phenomenon of akrasia or weakness of the will is a familiar one. That which is known to be right is avoided because at the point of action, the knee buckles.

    My inferences gave me reason for shock and embarrassment when I read a screaming headline from the Nigerian Tribune of November 11, 2016: “Minister tackles govs over true federalism.” Prior to reading the content, I had imagined the minister encouraging governors to do more to implement the party’s manifesto. But I was wrong.

    I am still unsure if Minister Adebayo Shittu was quoted correctly by the media. But I have waited for a rebuttal, which has not been forthcoming. Here is what the minister was quoted to have said at a forum at the University of Ibadan: “A lot of people have been talking of true federalism. But it is always a problem when you ask them to define what true federalism is. The question I ask is what is the definition of true federalism? What are the expectations? A lot of times they talk about the fact that the federal government takes more money from the federation account.”

    The reason this is embarrassing is that it is coming from a minister of the All Progressives Congress, which has as its first platform a strong commitment to true federalism. Is there such a fundamental ideological division within the APC-led federal government?

    The minister went on to tackle the governors to do more about local government autonomy, a legitimate observation, which ought to be kept separate. It would make more sense for the minister to proceed as follows: “The APC government is committed to a true federal structure and intends to deliver on its promise. However, the states must help in this effort especially by granting local autonomy as an important strand of true federalism.” Why, for heaven’s sake, do you have to contemptuously dismiss true federalism just because you have issues with state governments on local government elections? I don’t get it!

    Interestingly, it was a PDP stalwart, the Secretary to the Ondo State Government, who had called for true federalism and suggested that “the federal government was holding the jugular of development across the country.” It confirms my observation above.

    To answer the minister, I quote again from my July 3 submission about the primacy of true federalism in our type of political structure:

    “Just as the establishment of a legitimate political authority is the answer to potential anarchy in situation of absolute individual freedom, so federalism is the panacea against potential chaos where ethnic nationalities cohabit and each has an abiding interest in the protection of its inherited values and ideals of life and feels compelled to repel perceived encroachments on such values. This is what the advocacy for true federalism understands intimately.

    “While true federalism does not espouse national disintegration as its adversaries wrongly assume, a pseudo-federal structure lends itself to resentment and thus political crises of the kind that we have witnessed in our recent history. For even when there is no intention to impose values or to marginalise, “mind-readers” are pretty much in the business of psycho-analysing and drawing conclusions, right or wrong. Whether it be in the matter of grazing reserves versus private ranches, or in the issue of revenue sharing, or in national language policy, there is plenty of room for diversity of positions and thus of mischief getting in the way of rational adjudication.” 

    In other words, the first point of interest for advocates of true federalism is not about granting more funds to the states. That is secondary. The first question is what areas of governance are best left in the hands of the states or regions. Once that is resolved, the question of how those areas are funded can then be determined. I also observed in the submission under reference as follows:

    “In the matter of revenue sharing, the central government has its obligations just as do the states. And while the nation has to determine the matter of what accrues to the centre and what to the states, it is not a matter of conjecture that states, being closer to the theatre of action regarding the welfare of the people, have a huge responsibility to bear. Therefore, states must explore all available sources of revenue and generate as much as possible for the discharge of their obligations.”

    True federalism is leaving for states what rightly belongs to them, and to the centre its areas of responsibility.