The Nation Newspaper

Category: Segun Gbadegesin

  • Hope rising for Southwest

    Hope rising for Southwest

    My heart is full of joy today. No, I did not win a lottery and nothing has changed in my personal circumstance. Indeed, given the uncertainties of life following the general election in my adopted and beloved country, there is plenty to worry a reflective mind. But with the one who can take control of everything and calm the tide and turbulence of life in charge, worrying is unwarranted.

    I have joy in my heart because something great and desirable is finally happening in my native land as hope rises for the West. “It is God’s doing and it is marvellous in our eyes.”

    Between October 7 and October 21, 2016 I did a three-part series on “Rethinking Southwest priorities.” In the second part, I argued that our political leaders, who have been favoured by providence as the Joshuas of our time, must lead our people with vision to the Promised Land. The best way to do so, I observed, is to remove the artificial boundaries that stand in the way of regional development. I submitted as follows:

    “It was because I believe strongly that we must find a creative way of blurring the sharp and dangerous edges that the artificial boundaries between states have created, and remove the wedges that had effectively blocked the development of the entire region that I and other well-meaning citizens welcomed the emergence of the Development Agenda for Western Nigeria (DAWN) a bold initiative of the Afenifere Renewal Group (ARG) a few years ago.

    For no matter the divisions, the people of Southwest are one and their leaders, no matter what the temptations are, must refrain from putting them asunder. States are supposedly created for administrative purposes. They must not be used in a way that retards growth or limit the opportunities for the people, and certainly never in a way that tears apart the fabric of the Yoruba nation.

    In the light of the difference between the past and the present Southwest in terms of the transition from one region to six states, what adjustments need to be made to ensure that the people still matter and their social and economic interests are enhanced?

    Voluntary regional integration must be the policy objective of the leaders of the states and region and party affiliation must not stand in the way of this important ideal. Years ago, I made this point in a keynote address to Egbe Omo Yoruba National Convention that took place in Baltimore, Maryland. It was also part of my submission when I gave the Bola Ige Memorial Lecture a few years ago. DAWN had not been established in those days, and the partisan war over rigged elections was still very much fierce. The challenge was for victims to accept the leadership of those who stole their mandate and work with them for the integration of the region. Happily, that war is over and political enemies of the past now wine and dine together on the same political table. 

    What needs to be overcome now is fiefdom mentality and leadership temptation to resist cross-fertilisation of ideas and practices across territorial boundaries.”

    I never doubted the leadership credentials of our governors and political leaders. Neither did I question their patriotic fervour. The joy in my heart today is that my assumptions have been proved true and my argument in the series has been determined to be valid and sound.

    I had challenged our political leaders on the general issue of regional integration for economic development.  I also challenged my dynamic governors Ajimobi and Aregbesola of Oyo and Osun states respectively on the LAUTECH crisis. A week later, I read about their meeting which resolved the crisis with an affirmation of the joint ownership of the institution by their two states. I sent both congratulatory messages in appreciation of their mature leadership. That was another excellent example of responsive governance.

    On the general issue of regional integration, I have always been aware of the strong commitment of our leaders to the concept. The challenge has been the frustrating combination of a willing spirit and a weak body. Yet the real solution for finding strength for the weakness of the body has ironically been to take the plunge and challenge the body. That is what has just occurred, thanks again to the recognition by the governors that a desperate time such as this needs a desperate solution.

    As I browse gleefully through the communique issued at the end of their conference on November 21, 2016, I could not resist calling our leader, Chief Adebisi Akande, to share my ecstatic state of mind with him. I was particularly thrilled that the governors affirmed the principle championed by Chief Obafemi Awolowo that the sole purpose of government is the welfare of the people. This is expressed brilliantly as the first item on the communique: “That the optimum interest of the Yoruba people should be the prime focus of the six state governments at all times, and that all politics within the region must henceforth be guided by the philosophy of politics of development.”

    Governor Ajimobi’s welcome statement set the ball rolling: “Let’s face it. We cannot continue to pretend that we can deal with the issues confronting our region and her people on a case-by-case, insular State basis. It will not work…State by state solutions, desirable as they might seem, are no longer enough. The capacity to optimise the space for development lies in collective thinking and actions, as well as effective collaborative governance.”

    Other resolutions in the communique are equally noteworthy and praiseworthy:

    “That regional cooperation, synergy and economies of scale are critical to the development of the region.

    “That good intentions are not enough unless backed by sincerity of purpose and commitment to action.

    “That the prosperity of any constituent part of the region is ultimately negated if other parts are not similarly prosperous.

    “That political difference should no longer be a barrier to the economic development of the region where the aggregate welfare of Yoruba people is concerned. All the states consequently agreed to work together within the framework of a people-centred development strategy.

     

    “A regime of continuity, regularity and urgency of interaction was canvassed and agreed upon by the meeting. The present crop of governors therefore agreed to bequeath to their people a good legacy reflective of the visions of our founding fathers and common ancestors.

    “The states also agreed to jointly embark on collaborative programmes in areas of common interest that require immediate action in the region. These include security, education, transportation infrastructure (roads, rail and water transportation), trade, commerce, agriculture and sports.

    “That the DAWN Commission (the regional development agency for pursuing the regional integration agenda of the states of Western Nigeria, comprising Ekiti, Lagos, Ogun, Ondo, Osun and Oyo) should be vigorously strengthened to coordinate the regional development process.

    “That the current Chairman of the Southwest Governors’ Forum, Senator Abiola Ajimobi, should also serve as the chairman of the commission.

    “DAWN Commission shall consequently develop programmes and activities along the identified areas of cooperation and bring them up for cooperative implementation.”

    In a clear message of deviance to agents of destabilisation, and a courageous stand on the unity of the West, the governors boldly declared that “politics and external influence will not divide us.” What blood and historical ties have joined together, let no one attempt to put asunder.

    This is what progressives have urged since the beginning of the Fourth Republic. That Governor Fayose saw it fit and morally obligatory to sit with his peers in the All Progressive Congress, and that Governor Mimiko, despite the partisan bickering that fills the air of Ondo can send his SSG to meet with his political opponents because they all recognise their blood ties and place a premium on the welfare of our people, must go down as the beginning of another glorious era of the Southwest.

    I hope and pray that the new spirit of unity is sustained for the sake of the masses of our people whose lives would be positively impacted. The ball is now in the court of DAWN!

    HAPPY THANKSGIVING!

  • Is politics all about self-interest?

    Is politics all about self-interest?

    Everyone looks after his or her own interest. There’s no other way to correctly explain human behaviour. Even the so-called altruists are interest seekers. They look after others as a way of satisfying their own self-interest. They simply derive satisfaction from helping others. You don’t do something that hurts you simply because it hurts you. It’s unnatural.”

    The sentiment captured above is a typical introduction to psychological egoism, a theory that denies human capacity for altruistic behaviour whether in politics, business, or the professions. For this theory, there is always an element of self-interest lurking beneath the surface of every other-regarding action.

    In a textbook illustration, Abraham Lincoln is credited with providing an interesting defence of the theory. Travelling in a stage coach with a friend and arguing for his belief that all human action is motivated by self-interest; Lincoln suddenly came upon a scene. Some piglets were trapped in a thicket with their mother in visible anguish and distress. Lincoln stopped the coach, stepped out and released the piglets. His interlocutor seized upon what he thought was Lincoln’s altruism and asked: “What possibly can be in that action for you, Mr. President?” Lincoln answered calmly. “That was an act of self-interest. If I didn’t release those piglets, I would never have any peace of mind thereafter.”

    Ethics students characteristically agree with Lincoln. But there are problems with psychological egoism as a sound theory. Granted, it is a very simple theory; its simplicity also makes it inadequate for understanding every human action. Jagun jumped to the back of a reversing car to save a young infant from being crushed. It was on the spur of the moment. There can be no thinking about possible success. He has no time to think about the possibility of dying himself. What can be his egoistic motivation? And how do you know my motive better than I, such that even when I tell you I have a different motive than you attribute to me, you can still suggest that I am wrong?

    In politics, however, the theory appears to have had explanatory success. Surely, not every political behaviour is reducible to self-interest. However, a significant part can be so understood. Consider voting behaviour. Voters have multiple interests and the choice they make of candidates or issues will ultimately reflect the most valued of such interests.

    The recent presidential election in the United States has been a puzzle to many analysts. How can the most educated and affluent nation on earth elect someone who exudes so much that is repugnant to the civilised world? Where are the family values once cherished by the Republican Party? Where is the transparency that has been the hallmark of the Conservative Movement?

    Based on his positions and temperament which would, they thought, give the Democratic Party nominee an easy ride in the general election, many had silently hoped and prayed that Donald Trump was the Republican Party nominee. They got their wish. But the voters in battleground states decided that their interests were better served by Trump despite his demonstrated flaws. It boils down to self-interest.

    You cannot fault a person for voting his or her own interest. It is the foundation of liberal democracy. Rousseau would have thought otherwise. For in making decisions on important matters of the state, such as the question of who should lead the most powerful nation on earth, Rousseau would have voters suppress their self-interest in favour of the general interest. They should not ask “what is in it for me?” Voters should ask “what is the good of the nation?”

    Rejecting Rousseau’s general interest as a fiction, John Locke, the father of modern liberalism, prescribed a “realistic” approach. Voting is a means of adjudicating group and individual interests. There is no general interest beyond the interest of every member of the nation. Therefore, voting is not a means of truth seeking; it is a means of aggregating and reconciling interests. Therefore, voters must approach every question from the perspective of their self-interest.

    American democracy is Lockean. Of course, individuals know that they need to associate with others with whom their self-interests are aligned. Therefore, political parties are formed. But within each political party, there are also interest-groups: conservatives, liberals, evangelicals, labour unions, moderates, etc. And each of these has specific agenda positions, which they struggle to realise within the party and ultimately in national elections.

    There is no doubt, however, that even within these interest groups, individuals have their own important ideas concerning their interests in election cycles and which candidate they can trust with realising those interests. This last election presents a good illustration.

    Considering the rhetoric of Trump on immigration, the Democratic Party and its presidential campaign were reasonably confident about massive Latino turnout for Hillary Clinton. The campaign focused on the Latino vote in key battleground states. Although Clinton received more Latino votes than Trump, Trump out-performed Mitt Romney 2012 Latino vote. This means that many Latinos saw Trump as a better candidate for the interest they considered more important for them, including abortion policy, Cuba policy and gun rights. Trump won Florida, home to the most Latino population in battleground states.

    African-Americans are another indispensable voting bloc in Democratic Party politics and the most consistent in terms of its support for the party and its presidential candidates. Again, while Hillary won much more African-American votes than Trump, she could have performed better if many of them had not stayed home on Election Day. It has also been affirmed that Trump out-performed Mitt Romney 2012 African-Americans votes. This is despite Trump’s association with the alt-right movement and Steve Bannon, who was his campaign CEO.

    Those African-Americans who stayed home, probably had their reasons. They were not as excited by Clinton as they were by Obama in 2008 and 2012. But what about those African-Americans who gave Trump their votes? Many working-class Blacks probably believed that they could trust him with pocket-book issues than Clinton. Trump spoke to the angst of many working-class Americans regarding the alleged rigging of the economic system against them. He inveighed against trade deals which he claimed subjugated the interests of workers to big business. Many Blacks agreed.

    Much has been made of the Trump appeal to the White working-class and the rural voters in mid-America, and the Rust Belt. While many of the latter have usually leaned Republican, the working-class electorate have generally been identified with the Democratic Party. Some have argued that the Obama presidency has alienated this group. Yet Obama has been great for them, especially with his economic policy, which has created millions of jobs after the 2008 recession, and Obamacare which has reduced the number of uninsured by millions. Just like African-American working-class, this group probably concluded that it can trust Trump more with pocket-book issues.

    White evangelicals, as value voters, are most likely not about pocket book. Do they see their value interests represented by Trump? Not Liberty University students who, based on moral and religious values, dissociated themselves from their President’s endorsement of Trump. Evangelicals most likely brushed aside Trump’s publicised moral flaws because they perceived a coalescence of interests on his promise to nominate conservative Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade.

    Is it also self-interest that drew educated White men and women to Trump despite their aversion to his ethics? Clinton won only 39 per cent of educated White men and 51 per cent of educated White women. With this group doing well in an Obama economy, what could be its reason for favouring Trump and defying the polls?  Some honestly believed that Trump’s economic and trade policies would open more opportunities for their children.

    There is a final point. Voting is a gamble. No one is sure what a candidate would turn out to be. This is especially true in the case of an unconventional candidate and president like Trump. But Trump also has self-interest in fulfilling his campaign promises. His body language, including appointing his Campaign CEO as Chief White House Strategist, against bipartisan moral counsel, provides a good evidence for the potency of self-interest in politics.

  • An unambiguous message

    An unambiguous message

    Opalaba’s call woke me up on Wednesday morning. “What just happened?” he queried. I knew that his question was about the result of the United States presidential election. But the true answer was that I didn’t know. Of course he was furious.

    I explained to my friend that I did not follow the result because I retired to bed at 9:30 pm after a few results trickled in. For a while, Clinton and Trump appeared to be in a game of seesaw in Ohio and Florida. My blood pressure was rising. I decided it was enough and retired upstairs. Yeye also did. But she decided to watch more. So I moved to another bedroom and slept peacefully in ignorance until the phone rang.

    “Well, you lost!” my friend announced. “What do you mean I lost? I didn’t contest any election!” I angrily responded. Of course, my head spun and my heart took a beating. “Relax!” I told myself. Opalaba sensed my distress and wisely hung up.

    I ran to Yeye: “So Hillary lost?” “Yeah, it wasn’t even close”, my wife responded. She decided not to wake me up when the election was called for Trump because it was not worth it. “Oh, well. It’s alright. It’s not the end of the world”, I intoned.

    Hoping that the shock would have subsided, Opalaba called back a few minutes later. “But what happened?” “Now, I know who won and who lost. But I don’t know how it happened,” I replied. “I am sure that the pundits and the pollsters will have some explanation why they were all so wrong with their forecasts and predictions.”

    Not willing to let go, Opalaba volunteered his own ideas, none of which I found persuasive because they all fed on conspiracy theories.

    My friend suggested that pollsters got it all wrong for two reasons. First, they substituted their own judgments for the opinions of their subjects, thus misrepresenting the position of the respondents. I found this ridiculous because it suggested that those professionals were fake. That was an unfair pronouncement on people who devote their lives to making accurate predictions and who had been successful at it in previous elections.

    The other reason my friend gave for the failure of the pollsters was that the subjects outsmarted them by telling them what they wanted to hear or simply hiding from them their true views. Why would this be so? Opalaba theorised that, given the negative media image of Trump, many educated whites, including suburban women, were ashamed to declare their support for him in face-to-face or phone interviews by pollsters. This was probably why the only major poll that predicted accurately a Trump victory was the one by USC/Los Angeles Times, which was conducted on the Internet.

    On this last point, Opalaba was probably hitting on something that pollsters will have to examine in the days and weeks to come. But I am not sure that it is true. America is a free country and the idea that educated citizens would hide their preference to avoid shame is ridiculous. Thousands of people flock to Trump rallies with bravado. What may have happened was that many of them were left out in the various surveys, thus skewing the outcome.

    At any rate, despite my friend’s Monday Quarterbacking regarding what might have been with accurate polling, I reminded him that it was needless to cry over spilled milk.

    Of course, that was just the beginning. Opalaba was not done.

    “It’s alright. We will leave polling to pollsters. Now the real question is what message did America just send to the world? I believe that the result reflects an unflattering image of a nation that is still very sexist”, he suggested. “America is simply not ready for a female president.” “Look at it this way”, my friend continued. “Hillary Clinton has been described as the best prepared candidate in a pool of candidates since 1992 to lead the country as its president. Yet she was rejected at the polls in favour of Donald Trump who has no political or military experience.”

    To this, I had a simple answer to Opalaba. Women still constitute a majority of the voting bloc in general election in America. If they all rallied to the candidacy of one of their own, Hillary would be president without a doubt. But if they didn’t, can one accuse them of sexism? Perhaps some of them preferred Trump for reasons other than that he is a man. For instance, the fact that he has campaigned on the basis of change and to make America great again, is a factor that many may have considered.

    Of course, that answer just fired the imagination of Opalaba in another direction. “Well, then, the change they wanted was to a country that predated the gains of the 60s through the 90s which the Obama presidency has improved upon considerably. So if it was not sexism, it could be bigotry and racism.”

    “That’s ridiculous”, I responded. “Obama was not on the ticket. It was White Hillary versus White Donald. What has racism got to do with that? And you must remember that one of the promising features of the new America that pollsters and political activists on the progressive side have been hoping to exploit is the growing browning of America. Minority populations have increased in major battleground states and have been a strong pillar of the Democratic Party. Indeed, one of the fears of Republican leaders prior to the election was that Trump was relying too much on white support which they thought cannot win the presidency.”

    “My fear”, I continued, “was that minorities, including Blacks and Latinos, did not turn out to vote in this election in as large numbers as would have made the difference in favour of Hillary. This was especially true of battleground states, such as Florida and Pennsylvania. This is in spite of President and Mrs. Obama’s efforts on the campaign trail.”

    My last point only heightened the temperature of Opalaba as he moved to another conspiracy theory. “Well, then, it must have been the hatred of the Obamas and the determination of his foes to deny him a legacy. Recall that they wanted to make him a one-term president. They failed on that mission. But they must have been appalled by the idea of a third term for him under Hillary.”

    I conceded that Opalaba had a point here. But it must also be put in context. With the exception of the transition from Reagan to Bush Senior, there has not been a repeat of one party having three terms in the White House in the last 20 years. Therefore, this is just a continuation of the trend.

    “But you forgot that Reagan’s high approval rating gave Bush Senior the edge in 1988. Why can’t Obama’s popularity rating give Hillary Clinton an edge this year?” To this, I reminded my friend that Bill Clinton had a higher approval rating in 2000 but that did not help Gore to win the presidency.

    With this, I stopped Opalaba from further theorising while I offered my own ten cents.

    Simply put, there are two issues going on. First, the majority of American voters have a strong feeling that their government’s embrace of the world and its globalising force has left them behind. Many blue collar workers were hit by the 2008 recession and have yet to recover from it. Trade pacts have not had an empowering effect that they needed. Trump spoke to these concerns and they embraced his message of change. The change they desire is for the return of manufacturing jobs that have disappeared from America’s Rust Belt. Trump promised them just that. Now he has to deliver.

    Second, immigration has been the headache of administrations since Ronald Reagan’s compassionate embrace of immigrants and granting amnesty to millions. In the wake of that compassionate conservatism, which George W. Bush made effort to expand, conservatives resisted and blue collar workers across party divide joined them. Trump tapped into this with the promise of a wall along the southern border. Now Trump, in whom they trust, must deliver.

  • What message will America send?

    What message will America send?

    In November 8, 2016, America, the Beautiful, will make a choice of leadership and priorities. Will the choice be “Morning in America” or, as one insightful Washington Post columnist puts it with a foreboding imagery, “Mourning in America”? Whatever her choice, America will send a message to an anxious world.

    For 240 years, American democracy has presented to the world an enviable resilience. For many, if not most of those years, she has struggled with her own demons—forced enslavement of Africans, disenfranchisement of women and freed slaves, Jim Crow, the internment of Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor, and police profiling of minorities.

    Official and quasi-official acts of discrimination, these have placed an indelible blot on an otherwise outstanding story of democratic governance in which the ideal of “one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all” is the ultimate goal.

    It is this pledge, deliberatively and deliberately embedded in the American experiment that stands it out and recommends it to the world as a beacon of hope for a humanity that needs to see itself as one, even in the face of evident divisions of race, gender, language and ideologies.

    The need is crucial and unassailable if the world must combine its forces to combat the most dangerous enemies of its kind, whether natural or contrived. It is unclear how long the world, as we know it, is programmed by nature to last; but it is clear that by our own (in)actions, we could dangerously accelerate the imminence of that natural order.

    America has sought to present itself as a bulwark of democratic governance with an abiding interest in protecting the downtrodden across the globe and spreading the good news of freedom and justice. It has not always been perfect, especially in reconciling its interests with those of the nations that it proclaims to protect. This accounted for its cold war practice of protecting and supporting dictators whose loyalty she could count upon even as they oppress their citizens. Yes, mistakes were made. But America has also made important contributions to those nations.

    As a land of immigrants, America has been welcoming to citizens of other countries as they seek better lives for themselves and their dependents. Many of the poor countries of the world across Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean and Asia have a lot to be thankful for the better lives that their citizens have found in America not only on account of the huge amount of remittances they receive, but also in terms of the opportunities for professional advancement that the United States provides.

    Such is the case with Dr. Oluyinka Olutoye, a Nigerian medical doctor, who received his medical degree at the Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, and relocated to America.  He and his colleague detached a 23-week old foetus from her mother’s womb, removed her tumour and then placed her back in the womb. The baby thereafter developed normally in the womb until she was born again at 36 weeks, literally answering Nichodemus’ question in our lifetime.

    But what message will America send to the world on November 8? Anyone who has been watching the United States’ presidential campaigns for at least the past 15 months cannot but be concerned about the gutter level of political discourse in the foremost democracy that the world looks up to. The nativism and ultra-nationalism of one campaign is a dangerous recoil from the world, with far-reaching consequences. If Brexit sent a chilling message to Europe, the whole world can expect “Amerixit” to be a damning catastrophe. It is not a coincidence that the only world leaders that have embraced Trumpism are dictators from Asia to the Middle East. No doubt, African dictators will soon join the fray.

    “Amerixit” in Trumpism is not just a withdrawal from the world. It is also a dangerous reversal of the enduring message of hope enshrined in The Statue of Liberty: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”

    This was the America that welcomed the Irish, the East and Western Europeans, the Jews fleeing from the Holocaust, Latin Americans, Caribbean, including Cubans and Haitians, and yes, Africans. It was the America that welcomed President Obama’s father. At more than 50% approval rating two months till the end of his presidency, clearly, that immigrant-friendly America is worth preserving. On his part, the president has at every opportunity reminded his fellow citizens that only Native Americans have a claim to America as original indigenes. Everyone else is an immigrant.

    Surely, there is a broken immigration system which needs fixing. Reasonable leaders in both parties, including former President George W. Bush and Senator John McCain, have at various times risked their political capital to deal with a comprehensive reform only to be rebuffed by die-hard nativists in their party. Now this latter group has a champion in Trumpism. And it seems clear that with a Trump presidency, immigrant-friendly America is doomed.  That prospective message should alarm the world.

    Trumpism is not just anti-immigration; it is also dangerously anti-diversity. A good number of commentators have identified a dark side in the “Take Back Our Country” and “Make America Great Again” campaign slogans of Trumpism as a not-so-veiled resentment against the “other” who happen to be non-white.

    The former Speaker, John Boehner, a Republican himself, saw through this rhetoric when he observed during an interview that there are not enough white men to propel a candidate to the White House. And of the population of white men, Trumpism cannot count on the support of many college-educated men. Nor can he count on the backing of suburban white women with college degree who resent his macho personality and evident demeaning of women.

    Some of those independent observers who see the trouble with Trumpism also have problem with Clintonism. They reference the scandal about the candidate’s use of private server as Secretary of State, a practice that is unsupported by long standing policy. They also cite the rumoured problem with Clinton Foundation. And the much talked about untrustworthiness of the candidate bothers a good number of people for whom this last issue is an umbrella that shelters the others. It is untrustworthiness that births the email saga and the Foundation rumour.

    Certainly, Clintonism has not done a good job of setting the record straight, and therefore much of the rumour and innuendo have been self-inflicted. The email issue should have been settled early on in the campaign with a straight-forward “I am sorry. I made a mistake.” When she finally made this declaration, it was apparently too late. But we know that the FBI decided against prosecution because it considered it a “careless mistake” that was not intentional. The eleventh hour reopening of the investigation will most likely end with the same conclusion. But this matter has undoubtedly given a lifeline to the drowning campaign of Trumpism.

    The truth, however, is that between Trumpism and Clintonism, there is no good ground for comparison. On the basis of policies, Clintonism is right on target regarding education, the economy, security, foreign policy, and yes, immigration. While Trumpism has pivoted to the worst extremism of his party, Clintonism has remained at the centre of discourse and practice where the American people increasingly find themselves.

    And on the matter of character flaws, there is also no comparison. No candidate in modern American history has ever matched Trumpism’s appeal to the worst instincts in humanity with regard to the words that flow therefrom regarding women, immigrants, people of other faiths, and inner city. That many Republican leaders have distanced themselves from that rhetoric and refused to endorse the candidate is instructive.

    With only four days to election, what message will America send to the world? For Lincoln “elections belong to the people… if they decide to turn their back on the fire and burn their behinds, then they will just have to sit on their blisters.” Trouble is, with America’s stature, the blister may spread, and infect the whole world.

  • Their Lordships’ chambers of secrecy

    Their Lordships’ chambers of secrecy

    His Lordship, the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Mahmud Mohammed, has spoken. From his sky-high pedestal in the hall of justice, he unequivocally declared that corruption is the major problem in the judicial branch of the government of Nigeria.

    Coming from the CJN, the declaration is a powerful self-indictment by the head of the arm of government that has the constitutional mandate to adjudicate with fairness and justice. The deliberateness of the symbol of justice as a blindfolded lady is unmistakable. Justice is not a respecter of persons. By the admission of the CJN, however, our system of justice is an exception to this age-old and universal expectation.

    “What do you expect?” a skeptical mind would ask. “The whole system is ridden with corruption and you expect the judiciary to be squeaky clean! Get a life!” It surely is an understandable response borne out of the frustration of the unconnected. But it would be a good response only if we had not been made to believe that in a democracy established on the rule of law, the judiciary is the last hope of citizens. As such, shouldn’t we rightly expect it to live up to that expectation? And if we don’t, is the recourse to self-help in the interest of anyone?

    Apparently in a moment of self-scrutiny, the Nigerian Judicial Council (NJC) has finally come to terms with the huge responsibility the constitution has placed upon it. As the watchdog of the judicial branch, the NJC has formulated the Nigerian Judicial Policy (NJP), which was launched on Monday, October 24 by the CJN.

    While the NJP was formulated and presented as a broad policy on the judicial branch, covering issues ranging from judicial appointment, judicial education, judicial code of conduct, to judicial discipline, it is the matter of judicial (mis)conduct and (in)discipline that received the most attention from the public. This is not a surprise, given the most recent allegations against some judicial officers, including justices of the Supreme Court.

    Yet, it is not the first time that the NJC has focused its attention on the matter of judicial discipline. Two years ago, on November 3, 2014, the former CJN, Justice Aloma Mariam Mukhtar, on behalf of the Council, released the 2014 National Judicial Council Judicial Discipline Regulations. Acknowledging that the constitution empowers the NJC to “exercise disciplinary control over judicial officers against whom allegation of misconduct has been made”, the document presented regulations that govern allegations and complaints of misconduct and the Council’s proceedings in dealing with them.

    Perhaps the most obvious and controversial difference between the 2014 document and the 2016 NJP is the glaring absence of a press gag in the former. The 2014 document contained 15 substantive sections, including the time limit within which a complaint must be made, form and initiation of complaint, preliminary complaint assessment committee, terms of reference of investigating committee, and report of investigating committee.

    A most charitable analysis of the 2014 document may conclude that it was an honest attempt to deal with a most difficult issue. On the one hand, it welcomed complaints against judicial officers, and it guaranteed an objective investigation of credible complaints against them. On the other hand, it strives to discourage frivolous complaints and abuse of the process. This was the rationale for the Preliminary Complaint Assessment Committee.

    The real question is the extent to which there was an alignment of the words of the document with the actions of those assigned the responsibility to investigate cases. In the case of an absence of consistency between the two, however, the document cannot be faulted. But from the fact that two years after its release, the public is not persuaded that there has been a visible improvement in the matter of judicial corruption, it is fair to conclude that the important weapon of deterrence has not been effective, either because those who were charged with the responsibility of investigating these cases have not been up to the task or the loopholes in the system have enabled the accused to outsmart them.

    Yet there have been cases where the NJC has controversially bared its fang to the detriment of justice and fairness. Recall the case of Justice Isa Salami of the Federal Court of Appeal whose complaint against the Chairman of the NJC at the time was handled in a most shoddy manner. That case tested the integrity of the system and the body that had the responsibility to protect it and it failed woefully. And because the ruling government of the day was neck deep in judicial corruption, it went along with the farce, soiling the entire system and eroding public confidence in the NJC itself.

    The Salami case was that of a highly-placed judicial officer complaining against the head of the judiciary and getting whipped as a result. The internal checks of the system failed and there are probably more of such that were not publicly known. The failure of internal checks is bound to attract external probing and that is exactly what happened, unfortunate as it is, with the DSS raid. Any democrat who believes in the doctrine of the separation of powers should naturally be enraged and alarmed at the development.

    The DSS is an agency of the executive branch. It is a dangerous threat to democratic norms for that branch to police another branch, especially the judicial branch. This is the task of the police or the EFCC, which are, at least, constitutionally established as independent bodies. Our constitution is inspired by the United States Constitution. This is why the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), as the Federal Police, is constitutionally charged with such responsibilities in the U.S., and it is an equal opportunity crime buster whether in the executive, legislative, or judicial branches.

    Now, if the NJC 2014 document on judicial discipline did establish a framework for effectively countering judicial misconduct with provisions that respect transparency and fairness, the 2016 NJC Judicial Policy manages to take the path of darkness with its insertion of an oath of secrecy into the investigation of judicial malfeasance. And it is unfortunate that it is this aspect of the NJP that has stood out and has received the most coverage since the unveiling of the policy.

    In inaugurating its judicial policy and its ethics committee, NJC announced that petitions submitted to it must be kept under wraps until the conclusion of such investigations that it may decide to undertake. And even then, public disclosure of findings may only be allowed “subject to following the proper channels for such disclosure.” In other words, the public will be kept from knowing who is being investigated, for what he or she is being investigated, and the outcome of such investigation may either be known or unknown.

    Yet, as the CJN clearly states: “The National Judicial Policy is borne out of the realisation that the Nigerian Judiciary had been adversely affected by the absence of a clear, coordinated policy framework that defines its core morals, values, objects and aspirations.” Continuing, he declares that “corruption has serious implications for both the rule of law and access to justice, and must be fought both institutionally and individually. This is why the National Judicial Policy contains clear provisions restating the judiciary’s commitment to transparency and accountability.” How this commitment to transparency and accountability squares up with the resort to secrecy in the conduct of investigation into allegations of judicial corruption is a mystery!

    The matter cannot be glossed over. A few days before the launching of the NJP, the Civil Society Network Against Corruption (CSNAC) had taken the NJC to task on its (NJC) declaration that it had acted on all cases of allegations of misconduct against judicial officers. Against this declaration, CSNAC alleged that NJC had refused to investigate or sanction judges accused of corruption. The organisation cited 10 such cases which it alleged that NJC had refused to investigate. This was prior to the introduction of the new policy that bars the public from knowing about the existence of such allegations.

    With the new code of secrecy, may God help us.

  • Rethinking Southwest priorities (3)

    Rethinking Southwest priorities (3)

    In the history of Egbe Omo Yoruba, U.S.A. and Canada, one of the great associations with an untiring focus on the unity and progress of Yoruba nation, this week is special.

    Following the model of Egbe Omo Oduduwa, founded in London in 1947, Egbe Omo Yoruba was launched in the United States during the dreary days of military occupation of Nigeria. It was the response of concerned Yoruba patriots to the siege mentality created by the military, just as Egbe Omo Oduduwa was the forum that Chief Awolowo and his colleagues used to battle British colonial exploitation.

    At its inception, Egbe Omo Yoruba, USA and Canada (henceforth referred to as Egbe); branded itself as an anti-military dictatorship and pro-democracy advocacy group for the restoration of the mandate that Nigerians overwhelmingly gave Chief M. K. O. Abiola on June 12, 1993. As such, it entered into alliance with other pro-democracy organisations, including NADECO Abroad, National Liberation Council of Nigeria (NALICON), United Democratic Front of Nigeria (UDFN) and the World Congress of Free Nigerians (WCFN).

    With selfless frontline activities of prominent patriots including Nobel laureate Wole Soyinka, the late Pa Anthony Enahoro, General Ipoola Akinrinade, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Chief C. O. Adebayo, Professor Bolaji Akinyemi, Commodore Dan Suleiman, Leidum Mitee, and a host of others, these groups jointly and severally engaged in diplomatic offensives against military interests, crisscrossing the hallowed chambers of governance institutions in North America, Africa and Europe, leading to biting sanctions against the Abacha regime.

    The groups demanded the release of political prisoners, including those incarcerated on false charges of phoney coup d’etat. Even when they knew that a few of the victims of military tyranny occupied an unfriendly political and ideological terrain, they defended them and fought for their release. Now, of course, those same individuals, acting true to type, would credit their survival exclusively to the kindness of foreign agents. Such is life.

    At the end of the nightmare of military occupation in 1999, the Southwest, as the bastion of progressive governance and the battle front for the democratic war against military dictatorship, rewarded NADECO and its pro-democracy allies with an electoral mandate for the Alliance for Democracy to govern the six states of the region. It was a vindication of Afenifere for remaining true to the spirit of Chief Awolowo and his progressive ideas. Egbe issued a press release as a paid advertorial urging the new governments in the Southwest to stay the course.

    But human frailty set in and the promise of a glorious dawn was broken even before it got started. In 16 years, with more resources at our disposal, we have not been able to achieve the equivalent of what the old West achieved in eight.

    The Action Group of the 50s had the same ideological focus as the Alliance for Democracy of the late 90s. So, it wasn’t ideological difference that accounted for the failure. Rather, the challenge that dashed the hope of millions that looked upon the leadership to take them to the Promised Land was regrettable egoistic pettiness. Recall the debacle that was D’Rovans Hotel and its aftermath. The wisdom of the ancestors suggests that when the young focus on felling a tree in the bush, the elders must watch for and warn about its possible landing. The failure to abide by that wisdom created the unwholesome political and cultural environment that we have today.

    In the wake of that crisis, Egbe sent a powerful delegation to the homeland in early 2002 to plead with every individual and group to embrace peace and pursue unity. The delegation visited with Afenifere, Yoruba Council of Elders, Governors and Odua Self-Determination groups. It was a clarion call without any selfish interest.

    Egbe received assurances of a new era. But it went from bad to worse. Our people blamed it again on the curse of Aole. I have always considered that a phantom excuse and a reluctance to accept responsibility for our own weaknesses. Egbe does not give up on the challenging cause of Yoruba unity and progress. Hence its decision to take the message that it has been sending from its comfort zone in the diaspora back to the land of the ancestors.

    This week fulfils a dream of the association to return to motherland. As the last stanza of its anthem reiterates, Omo Oduduwa ni wa/Nibikibi taa ba wa/E je ka fe ra wa/Ka si maa ranti pe/A o pada sile. (Oduduwa is our spring/wherever we may be/Let’s be kinsfolk/And remember/That home is home for us). The dream has always been to get back home, and this week, after more than 20 conventions across the United States and Canada, the Egbe is back home hosting the Yoruba World Summit with its theme, “Yoruba renaissance: Understanding our past to benefit the future.”

    This summit couldn’t have been more timely, in view of all that is happening around us as a people. Indeed, the spiritually-inclined may, with justification, insist that the summit had been destined to be held this year rather than two years ago when a combination of unanticipated events, including the dreaded Ebola scare, caused its postponement. Whether destined or contrived, it is heartening that Egbe Omo Yoruba is back home with its message of unity and progress.

    What is at stake is the unfulfilled dreams of millions of young people who have been compelled to a state of hopelessness that gives way to despair. The education that their nation cannot provide for them makes them incapable of productive work. And the void is filled for them by the destructive genius of the devil. In the remotest villages, elementary school pupils do drugs and engage in cultism. How a leadership that claims the inheritance of Awo can live with this and feel no unease about the terrible state of the nation is mind-boggling.

    But as odious as the overall condition is, the most worrisome is the moral degeneration that has been the lot of the nation in the last four decades when it appears that the devil has taken control and the large majority of our people have chosen to do its bidding.

    How else do we explain the callousness of adulterated and fake drugs that send innocent victims to untimely deaths? Or hospital workers who privatise public resources and then charge poor patients for their use? What about education officials who collude with principals and headmasters to create ghost teachers whose salaries they share? And these individuals are always the loudest in the raucous critique of government ineptitude!

    What is to be done? Political leaders in the Southwest need to ask themselves the hard question: What will be my legacy? How do I wish to be remembered? In my quest for immortality, which individuals or groups should I partner with? There are sycophants and there are tested objectivists and the difference between them is very clear. Unfortunately, far too many of our leaders prefer the former. If the late author of The Tale of June 12, Professor Omoruyi, is to be believed, that mindset was the undoing of General Babangida who chose the sugar-coated poison of Arthur Nzeribe over the sound advice to avoid the annulment of the 1993 presidential election.

    Organisations, such as Egbe Omo Yoruba are made up of selfless individuals who just want to contribute to the progress of their nation. They sacrifice their time and money. Back in 1997, the standing policy was that every member must pay his or her way to any meeting inside or outside of the United States. Many maxed out their credit card accounts for the good that they desire for their nation.

    A few years ago, Egbe came up with the idea of championing agricultural revolution in Yorubaland. They looked for land across the Southwest. The Jegun of Ile Oluji, Oba Julius Adetimehin, responded by making available several hectares of land to Egbe and one of the highlights of the 2016 Yoruba Summit is the launching of Egbe Omo Yoruba agricultural project in Yorubaland. This patriotic gesture deserves the deep appreciation and encouragement of Yoruba men and women at home and in the diaspora.

  • Rethinking Southwest priorities (2)

    Rethinking Southwest priorities (2)

    Of course, I am not a reader of minds and I cannot unequivocally vow for every person that seeks leadership position what their motivations are. It is possible that the people are deceived and manipulated by sweet-talking political charlatans. It is also possible that the people are too poor and ignorant to know when they are being conned. Such would not be unique to our clime. It happens everywhere including in the most advanced countries.

    But I know that the only reason that a genuine human being with a moral conscience would consider making the sacrifice to run for a leadership position is to make a difference in people’s lives and to make a mark. That was the case with the leader of the West in its golden era. I would like to assume that our current crop of leaders share this motive.

    And I would also assume that they have the skill sets needed to make a mark. There could be a difference in the degree to which these skill sets are shared. But that is not unusual and it should not be a liability in the discharge of the responsibilities of leadership. Therefore, between the past and the present, leadership should not be the difference. To the extent that my assumption is wrong, we have a serious problem.

    How about followership? There is no doubt that there has been a serious erosion of the values that sustained us through the 19th century civil wars and the brutal colonial exploitation. But erosion, serious as it is, is not annihilation. Those values still predominate in the larger Yoruba culture despite the incidences of 419 and it is by appeal to them that we judge actions and behaviours, including those in the economic and political realms.

    We still hold dear our obsession with hard work as we detest laziness and parasitism. We still believe that good education is key to a successful life. Therefore, households make the effort to give their children good education even when they have to pay through the nose. And what must be a concern to all is that the poorest worker or artisan now holds firmly the belief in the superiority of private schools over public schools and is not deterred by the exorbitant cost.

    I think that it is safe to assume that our people are generally good and they have an abiding faith in those cherished values. However, they need the encouragement of leaders and the hope that their hard work will be rewarded.

    To my mind, however, one important difference between the past and the present is the “us” versus “them” mentality that comes with the artificial division of the region into autonomous states. Surely, not all was well between the sections of the Yoruba nation in the remote and immediate past. I touched on this sordid history two weeks ago. And as we know, the creation of states has inadvertently opened up some old wounds of tribal animosity to the detriment of the desperately needed cooperation across the Southwest.

    It was because I believe strongly that we must find a creative way of blurring the sharp and dangerous edges that the artificial boundaries between states have created, and remove the wedges that had effectively blocked the development of the entire region that I and other well-meaning citizens welcomed the emergence of the Development Agenda for Western Nigeria (DAWN), a bold initiative of the Afenifere Renewal Group (ARG) a few years ago.

    For no matter the divisions, the people of Southwest are one and their leaders, no matter what the temptations are, must refrain from putting them asunder. States are supposedly created for administrative purposes. They must not be used in a way that retards growth or limit the opportunities for the people, and certainly never in a way that tears apart the fabric of the Yoruba nation.

    In the light of the difference between the past and the present Southwest in terms of the transition from one region to six states, what adjustments need to be made to ensure that the people still matter and their social and economic interests are enhanced?

    Voluntary regional integration must be the policy objective of the leaders of the states and region and party affiliation must not stand in the way of this important ideal. Years ago, I made this point in a keynote address to Egbe Omo Yoruba National Convention that took place in Baltimore, Maryland. It was also part of my submission when I gave the Bola Ige Memorial Lecture a few years ago. DAWN had not been established in those days, and the partisan war over rigged elections was still very much fierce. The challenge was for victims to accept the leadership of those who stole their mandate and work with them for the integration of the region. Happily, that war is over and political enemies of the past now wine and dine together on the same political table.

    What needs to be overcome now is fiefdom mentality and leadership temptation to resist cross-fertilisation of ideas and practices across territorial boundaries.

    Thankfully, the present leadership is making the effort to reassure us that it gets it, as demonstrated by the recently reported lecture that Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola delivered on “The Imperative of Unity” in Ado-Ekiti at the invitation of Governor Ayo Fayose on the occasion of the celebration of the 20th anniversary of the creation of Ekiti State.

    I would like to end with three observations on this development. First, we should all be pleased with the visuals of Ogbeni Aregbesola and Governor Fayose sitting side by side at an event commemorating the founding of Fayose’s state. Ordinarily this should not even be a remarkable scene but for the degrading level of our politics. That reason appears to be prevailing is therefore a thing of joy. Of course, there will be various interpretations of motivation. I am not worried about that. As I mentioned earlier, I do not read minds. I am genuinely happy however that our political leaders have attained the maturity that enables them to reach out across party divide.

    Second, according to media reports, Ogbeni Aregbesola identified the revival of agriculture, especially food production, as one area of cooperation among the states of the Yoruba nation in order to eliminate hunger. This ought to be a priority of the region’s political leadership. Years ago, with the creation of artificial scarcity, Governor Fashola learnt the hard way that a state must not outsource its food supply to other sections of the country. Vowing to prevent a recurrence, he wisely invested in agricultural projects across the Southwest.

    Ogbeni Aregbesola also advised Yoruba nation to “unite in terms of integrating our development strategies in education, commerce, economy, agriculture and tourism, among others.” Again, this is commonsensical and no one appears better qualified or motivated to lead this effort especially in educational integration. The feat that Aregbesola has accomplished in education in Osun is legendary despite the challenge of resources. Imagine if there is a common effort across Yoruba nation such that, for example, there is a coordinated effort to integrate tertiary institutions with campuses specialising in major areas of learning and scholarship.

    Finally, then, this last point leads me to the unwholesome development in the common effort of Oyo and Osun states in the promotion of tertiary education in the very important field of technology. Both Governors Aregbesola and Ajimobi are two of my favourite leaders with clear headedness and strong commitment to development.

    I am aware that there is a history of rancour dating back to the tenure of Governors Oyinlola and Alao-Akala who also belonged to the same party. The issue is therefore beyond partisan divide. It is past time to ditch the tempting resort of our people to the worst parochialist devil of our nature. Rather, we must now appeal to the best angels therein. It is time for both traditional and civil leaders to resolve the issue in the interest of Yoruba integration of which Ogbeni Aregbesola spoke so eloquently in Ado Ekiti. The future of the innocent youths is at stake.

     

     

     

  • Rethinking Southwest priorities (1)

    Rethinking Southwest priorities (1)

    In the last dispensation, marginalisation was the battle cry of an integral segment of a political tendency in the Southwest. It was a reflection of its perception of a centre and its periphery, a core with a favoured occupant and a margin with its forsaken elements. The tendency was unwavering in its complaint and, though too little and too late, the presidency was forced to respond in some form. Evidence: The over-publicised reconstruction of the Lagos-Ibadan Expressway which it still was not able to get off the ground until the present administration revived it with a demonstrated dedication.

    In reality, however, as aggressive as it was, that political tendency was neither dominant nor self-serving. It was not dominant because there was a greater number in the zone that preferred confronting the administration on the vital question of restructuring to asking for crumbs from the federal table. As it turned out, because the former group was not self-serving, and because its complaint was altruistic rather than egoistic, there was a meeting of minds with the other political tendency.

    The Southwest complaint about marginalisation was less about the distribution of position among political elite and more about the overall development of its infrastructure and the possibility of regional advancement, which had been hamstrung in the politics of the overbearing centre.

    The question for the Southwest has always revolved around the prospect of putting to work, for the advancement of the region in particular, but also the country in general, the mass of largely untapped human and material resources at its disposal. To the extent that it feels helpless in the centralised architecture of a quasi-unitary system that we run in the name of a federal polity, the complaint of marginalisation as arrested development makes sense.

    Having the memory of what the region accomplished in the golden era of Nigerian federalism in the late 50s and early 60s cannot but be frustrating in the present circumstance of retarded growth and unfulfilled expectations. Without the unfortunate brutal interruption of its forward march in the 60s, there is little doubt about where the old West might be now. But here we are with generations of youths condemned to a present mired in confusion, celebrating ignorance and greed, and a hopeless future. It hurts.

    Many of our compatriots who were forced into the trenches in the fight against military dictatorship in pursuit of true democracy truly believed that the successful outcome of the struggle was capable of entrenching freedom and genuinely participatory democracy. In addition, however, they also genuinely believed that the struggle would correct the mistakes of the military with regard to the fundamental issue of the structure of governance. But the midwives that delivered the Fourth Republic and its early paediatricians had also been the loudest cheer leaders for the ruinous policies and practices of the military era. And in and out of office, they have not relented in their defence of the failed ideas and ideals.

    The new administration, which was propelled into office by a coalition of forces that included some of the most strident advocates of political restructuring from the Southwest, appears to still be finding its way. Meanwhile, many of its loyal supporters are expressing the hope that it does the right thing in the matter that could make or mar the success of the progressive brand in four years. While it is still too early to be despondent, there has to be a serious effort in the desired direction to calm worried nerves.

    Of course, no one denies that there are too many irons in the political hearth and it takes wisdom and focused attention to get them all in shape. The inauguration of an Electoral Reform Committee is a case in point. Surely, elections are integral to an efficient and effective democracy, and the administration is right to prioritise the reform of the laws that govern our electoral practice.

    But it is also important to recognise that, as important as elections are, the structure of governance within which elections occur is equally, if not more, important. If the structure is wobbly, elections will not successfully fix it. The demand for the revision of the structure of the polity in the last 30 years has been so unrelenting, even in the face of several successes in the matter of electoral reform.

    So much for crying over spilled milk. My intention here is not to moan or brood over the failures of a quasi-unitary system. Rather my worry is about the state of the Southwest as a cohesive group, a people with a history of achievement that was and is still the envy of others. Assume the worst, that the progressive government at the centre, while willing, finds itself in a situation that it cannot deliver on political restructuring. What ought the Southwest to do? And since “ought” logically implies “can”, what can the Southwest do?

    We are cognisant of the fact that, in view of the constitutional provisions under which we operate, the Southwest cannot secede. There is no self-determination clause that can constitutionally or legally back such a drastic move, IPOB aspirations notwithstanding. A bloodless divorce must have to be the result of a consensual decision of all the parties. In any case, given the differing and sometimes contradictory tendencies within, it is unlikely that such a consensus is reachable, even within the Southwest. The lesson from the recent struggle for democracy is still too fresh to be forgotten.

    But the drastic option of secession is just that. The object of the rallying cry for restructuring is to enable the components of the federation to develop efficiently and effectively. For this object to be realised in the Southwest in lieu of restructuring, there is a more viable and perfectly constitutional and legal option than secession. It does not even require any out-of-the-box imagining. It only requires us to address ourselves to the questions: what worked for us in the past as a people? How is the present different from the past? In the light of the difference between the past and the present, what adjustments do we need to make to our past approach so that we can have a good outcome in the present?

    To the first question there is a simple answer. We had a fortunate combination of selfless leadership with the skill sets for economic and social development, a people with the inculcated values of hard work and the urge to self-improvement, and a large expanse of land and territory that was a boost to the fundamental requirement of the economy of scale.

    Consider this last factor for a minute. From Okeho in the north to Ikeja in the south, from Ado-Odo in the west to Ado Ekiti in the east, the products of the land complemented one another. Production was enhanced by friendly governmental policies such that there was enough for domestic consumption and export. We saw the beginning of an agro-industrial complex with Lafia Canning Industry, Ado-Ekiti Textile Factory, and a host of others.

    There is a need, therefore, to understand what is different from the past in the present. Is it leadership? Is it follower-ship? Is it availability of resources or factors of development? Or something else?

    First, on leadership, I would like to assume that we still have a crop of leaders who are genuinely committed to the development of human and material resources. To be voted into office in a free and fair election in which the  electorate vote their interests on the basis of manifestos shared with them and promises made to them, those electorate must be persuaded of the genuine motivation of the candidates.

    And perhaps more than the writer of the Book of Proverbs, our people believe in the sanctity of names and the fact that riches and honour are important only to the extent that they are not products of activities capable of spoiling one’s good name. Therefore, good leaders try to make their mark and, if they succeed, they have their good names unspoiled. Consciously or unconsciously, Chief Obafemi Awolowo got it. His name has therefore remained unforgettable.

     

    • To be continued

     

     

  • Hope @ 56

    Hope @ 56

    It is another birthday anniversary for dear country. And for nations, as for individuals, birthdays are joyous occasions with boisterous galas, concerts, balloons, fireworks, exciting rendering of the national anthem and display of national colours. For us, however, on this birthday, as others before it in the last twenty- something years, we have been forced to low-key celebrations.

    If we go back just 23 years, 1993 saw us contending with the self-inflicted wound of political unrest following the annulment of the presidential election. From then until 1998, ours was a nation in distress, unsure of its survival or longevity, let alone prosperity. Then the military retreated and the nation got a new lease of life.

    Or so we thought. The depressing state of the nation in the last 16 years, especially after we ought to have learnt from the terrible mistakes of the earlier 40, is mind boggling. History is strict. It works according to its inscrutable laws without bending to the wishes of anyone, and it cares less about human motivations.

    As it has warned us repeatedly as a nation, history repeats itself to the detriment of those who refuse to correct the path it has once pronounced upon as ill-fated. But we have ignored every such warning. There is no point rehashing the foibles of our remote and immediate past. It is more important to remind ourselves what the possibilities are if we set our minds to the task of nation-building, moral regeneration and economic renewal.

    In the matter of nation-building, we must recognise the simple truth that as long as we remain unfaithful to the truth that individuals and groups count and deserve equal treatment, we cannot even begin to see a credible path to nation building, a precursor of national unity. A nation must exist before we can talk of its unity. We now have a country, a territorial space, NOT a nation, if by this term we mean a people with a shared sense of belonging and a willingness to make sacrifices for the continued existence and prospering of the whole.

    Since Nigeria’s birth, nation-building and national unity have not been taken seriously as indispensable requirements for the advancement of the country. We counted on raw power to cow individuals and groups into submission. It has not proved effective and there is no reason to believe that it will. Over-dependence on raw political power is dangerous for a country still in the throes of ethnic divisions and sectarian suspicions. To build a nation where no human is oppressed, we need to invite all its components to the architectural design desk. Once they feel a part of the project, it shouldn’t be difficult to attract them to the construction site.

    To the observation that every constitutional conference or summit in the last 60 years has been an invitation to the architectural desk, I respond that it has not all been motivated by the general will. Instead, the private or group will to dominate and get the most for self or group to which it belongs, rather than the will to do the best for the new country to become a thriving nation, has been dominant. The general will demands not just objectivity of thinking, but also the readiness to sacrifice some self-interest for the greater good of the whole.

    The result of past efforts is that once a group, which had approached the issue with an open mind and a readiness to sacrifice, saw the selfishness of another, displayed with utter disregard for the national interest, it naturally went back in its trenches and soon everyone was in defensive mode. The goal of nation building and national unity necessarily takes the back bench when individual and group interests are prioritised. For this reason, at every turn of the road in our search for national unity, the outcome has been so predictable. By feeding individual or group interest into the box, it is illogical to expect the emergence of national interest.

    For the desirable outcome of nation-building and national unity, we must first ask the question: what are the tools of nation building and what factors preserve national unity? First is seeing the individual or group as part of a whole. Second is identifying the essentials for the survival and advancement of the whole. Third is willingness to make individual and group sacrifice for the sake of the whole. Each of these is a vital link in the chain, the most difficult being the second. It is what goes into its norm and what we have been unable to agree upon in the last 50 years.

    For a country of diverse population with a history of mistrust, what is constitutionally and structurally essential for building trust and promoting unity? When we answer this question with the objectivity and neutrality of mind that it requires, we will be ready for the next higher plane of national advancement.

    In the matter of moral regeneration, we cannot deny that in the last 40 years, we have slid from a people imbued with moral conscience to one wallowing in moral squalor. The evidence is beyond dispute and it is inevitably linked to our economic degeneration. A people without a sense of justice, fairness and decorum in their relationship to their country and to fellow-citizens cannot expect to collectively climb the highest rung of the ladder of economic achievement. Surely, some will thrive at the expense of others. But in their selfish ascendancy, they will negatively impact the rise of the collective.

    Consider the condition of the filthy rich who have it all at the expense of the majority in the dungeon of existence. They are afraid to venture out without security. They live in gilded cages watching their back for fear of kidnappers and armed gangs. Those riches can be used to improve the standard of education across the land, an important prerequisite for producing marketable graduates.This improves employability, which reduces the risk of the devil finding them jobs in the darkest territories of earthly hell. This in turn improves the security of the rich and enables them to enjoy their wealth.

    The absence of moral leadership in the political, business, educational, and, sadly, religious sectors, is inexcusable and is directly responsible for the loss of three generations of Nigerians, thus far, to cultism, drug abuse, robbery and generalised moral lapses. This makes it extremely difficult to see a path towards moral regeneration in the near term.

    Surely, economic deprivation did not promote ethical delinquency in the past. That was because despite their failures in other matters, the leaders of the First Republic managed to provide for the well-being of citizens and they lived modestly themselves. This suggests that leadership by example matters in the matter of moral regeneration. Whatever change you desire to effect in others, let them see it clearly in you.

    The matter of economic renewal is not that complicated. Paraphrasing the enigmatic Kwame Nkrumah, with political kingdom secured, everything else will follow. However, gaining political kingdom is much more than securing flag independence. It also requires dismantling the colonisers’policy of divide and conquer, and transiting from being a mere supplier of raw materials to the coloniser and market for its finished products. Unfortunately, by not addressing the legacy of divide and conquer, we failed to really achieve the political kingdom and all the other steps logically failed to follow.

    Assume we achieve nation building and national unity, and we have purposeful leadership focused on economic renewal, our collective endeavour should be easy to achieve. President Muhammadu Buhari has laid down an agenda of economic diversification based on agriculture and mining. If sectionalism does not get in the way, if every part of the country is treated equally in the development of the infrastructure needed for the exploitation of its natural endowments in agriculture and mining, and if education becomes a priority so that quality products are released to the labour market, then we can be confident that economically, the sleeping giant will wake up again to its destined responsibility in Africa and the world.

    Happy October 1st!

  • Kiriji and Yoruba antecedents to political restructuring

    Kiriji and Yoruba antecedents to political restructuring

    The spirit of Kiriji summons us to re-membering on this 23rd of September.

    As we remember the civil wars that tore apart the Yorubaland of the 19th century, we must also remember the torn pieces and strive to make them whole again for the realisation of the goal of unity that has been so sadly elusive.

    I concede that this is a tall order in view of the obvious political and ideological challenges. The silver lining on an otherwise cloudy sky of the land of Oduduwa is that religious and spiritual differences have not been allowed to aggravate and complicate political divisions. Therefore, unity for the sake of cultural advancement is not impossible.

    Scholars have sought to understand the causes and consequences of the civil wars that ravaged towns and villages in Yorubaland, sending entire populations into refugee camps and forcing the relocation of a lot more to other places sometimes in unfriendly territories. Whether it was the economic and material greed of the military class or the insatiable appetite for territorial control by the political class, or yet, the external push by forces outside the control of both, seeking the enslavement of able-bodied men and women for the New World plantations, the consequences were far-reaching.

    Oduduwa’s immediate offspring had pushed not only the frontier of the kingdom but also the civilisation that it spawned beyond the confines of the original territories such that we could talk about the establishment of an Oyo empire to the north and west. Sadly, however, the wars not only led to the fall of the empire but also to the balkanization of the original kingdom. Yet more than this material consequences, the psychological and sociological consequences, which many have attributed to the symbolic breaking of the pot of charms by Awole, have been far more devastating.

    The significance of Kiriji is two-fold. On the one hand, it was the spirit of freedom-loving, independence-craving resistance against internal colonialism. It was the spirit of cultural democracy and economic liberty. It was the spirit that took over control when a people have had it and can take it no more. That spirit resides in every human group and in every human being.

    On the other hand, Kiriji and other conflicts before it tragically strained the ties that bound the people to a common progenitor. And if consciousness can be projected on to the abode of the ancestors, there is no doubt that the fratricidal wars violently disturbed the peace of its illustrious occupants.

    There is every good reason then for people to heave a sigh of relief at the signing of the peace treaty on September 23, 1886, even if it was facilitated by an outside power, whose active participation in the trade in humans had been responsible for much of the devastation in the first place. It was also true that the interest of Britain in colonial expansion into the hinterland had been an additional impetus for its intervention. Whatever it’s motivation, the initiative prevented the total collapse of the entire Yoruba civilisation.

    Where are we one hundred and thirty (130) years since that historic treaty? In 2004, Yoruba Foundation under the leadership of Ambassador Olu Otunla proclaimed September 23 as Yoruba Day, no doubt in commemoration of the peace treaty signed on that day but also as a conscious expression of hope and a commitment to work for the unity of the Yoruba nation.

    We deceive ourselves and there is no truth in us if we remotely believed that there is unity among the Yoruba. Perhaps, it couldn’t have been otherwise. The external facilitators of peace took over political power and forced their brand of governance on a diverse population that included the Yoruba. Their brand first dealt a death blow to traditional rule, brought those rulers under its control and pitted them against their subjects. It was the first step in what was to become an effective divide and rule policy. The next step was to drive a wedge between one part of the new nation and the others.

    As far as the Yoruba situation is concerned, the fault lines established by the civil wars had tragically endured and new political relationships followed those lines as evidenced by the party affiliations of major towns during the First Republic. That period saw further entrenchment of the divisions and the emergence of new ones, consequent upon the outbreak of the Action Group crisis.

    Words have the power of life and death, with the ability to fetch soothing kolanut from the pocket or deadly arrow from the quiver. The average Yoruba tongue, like its capable surrogate, the talking drum, is extremely effective in producing an arrow.

    Through demonising, stereotyping, or casting aspersions on other groups, we have managed to keep alive the memories of the 19th century civil wars and the 20th century political divisions and conflicts. In so doing, the cause of unity has been inadvertently hampered. More tragically, we have allowed the proverbial lizard from externalsources to enter through the gaping cracks on the walls of the Yoruba nation.

    The evidence of this anomaly is the innumerable associations that have been established for the promotion of Yoruba culture and civilisation. Naturally, we gladly celebrate our fierce independence and freedom of conscience with the wisdom of the elders: “We cannot all sleep and face one direction”. But if the purpose of sleeping is to get a good night rest, that purpose is defeated if you point your feet in the direction of my nose. In other words, if we share the common purpose of Yoruba unity, it must not be jeopardised by the insistence on the freedom of individuals to hold opinions that are averse to that unity. That “if” is obviously significant and it is also important to agree that unity does not mean uniformity.

    What then are the burning purposes that unite or must unite us? One indispensable link in the chain of Yoruba being and consciousness is culture, including customs, ethos, aesthetics, language and spirituality. Of this, I think it is commonly agreed that language is what makes for Yoruba identity. For this reason, there must be a common interest in the preservation and promotion of Yoruba language.

    In the current dispensation, however, Yoruba language is in danger of extinction. Go to the home of any middle class Yoruba family and you will be shocked. When parents insist on their children speaking English or French and they censure the speaking of Yoruba even inside the family home, then we have a serious problem on our hands.

    There is a need for our political leaders, whatever their party affiliations, to see the threat for what it is and engage their fertile minds in the search for appropriate response to this challenge. The need for a purposive unity based on the threat to our linguistic and cultural identity thus recommends a political unity of purpose that does not infringe on the freedom of conscience of each person. By the same token, what recommends the unity of purpose for our political leaders also recommends a unity of purpose across the various organisations and groups.

    Finally, since it is the biggest masquerade that is accorded the honour of being the last to exit Igbale, our royal fathers must understand that the reason of their being is the culture of which they are the custodians. The erosion of that culture from whatever source should be of utmost concern to them. If they agree on this principle, there is good reason for them to jettison all personal animosities and work together for the survival and prospering of the culture.

    From the Yoruba experience discussed above, it should not come as a surprise to other nationalities why the Yoruba have been in the vanguard of the struggle for political restructuring in Nigeria. If they fought against internal colonialism and tyranny within their primordial group with a common identity, they will struggle with all in their control for cultural democracy and true federalism within the larger Nigerian society. The lesson to learn from the Yoruba antecedents is that freedom ultimately prevails.