Category: Segun Gbadegesin

  • Marketing change

    Marketing change

    Sixteen months after the change train left the aversion station, there is little doubt that there is palpable disenchantment pervading the socio-political and economic atmosphere. There are complaints of hunger and starvation. Inflation is sky high. Jobs are being lost daily but new ones are as scarce as the proverbial coins on the masked face of masquerades. In the circumstance, it is difficult to fault the despairing spirit of citizens who voted for change.

    President Buhari seems to understand the challenge that his administration faces: focusing on the task of economic revival, placating innocent victims of economic malaise, and encouraging them to bear the pain a little longer. At every opportunity since he took over the reins of power last year, he has assured Nigerians that he too feels their pain. The gesture is needed and appreciated but even he knows that it is not sufficient for the desperation that afflicts the people.

    The new campaign recently launched by the President may have been inspired by the obvious need to carry the people along. If “Change begins with me” catches on and it succeeds in having citizens internalize the idea that everyone is a change agent, it might as well be the prescription that has always been missing in our national therapy.

    But we have been there before, haven’t we? From ethical revolution of the late 70s, to the War Against Indiscipline (WAI) of the early 80s, to the Mass Mobilization for Social and Economic Reform (MAMSER) of the late 80s, and the War Against Indiscipline and Corruption (WAI-C) of the mid to the late 90s, Nigerians have been preached to ad nauseam. That we still remain the same or indeed, have become worse, appears to be a strong sign of either the incorrigibility of Nigerians or the ineffectiveness of the sermons. There are good reasons to believe that it could be a combination of both.

    Nigerians behave as if they are generally immune to correction. Whether it is in the matter of reckless driving or in jumping queue for lack of patience, or in the indiscipline of lateness to work and its attendant low productivity, there has been no discernible changes in our social and economic attitudes in the last 56 years. Indeed, there appears to be a deterioration instead of improvement.

    A state governor recently saw first-hand the incurability of our lackadaisical attitude to work when he confronted civil servants whose first order of early morning business in office was to pay obeisance to the stomach god with a bowl of amala and gbegiri. Recall that this attitude was one of the targets of the disciplinary efforts of military governors between 1974 and 1979. Three decades later, we are still learning. And tragically, we’ve evolved into more sinister pastimes including kidnapping, armed robbery, cultism, and political assassination.

    That the various campaigns have not been effective is undeniable. But beside the apparent incorrigibility of many Nigerians, it is also true that the leadership at the helm of those campaigns have led less by example than by precept. By leadership, I mean, not just the military president or governors or the civilian president and the cabinet, but all those in positions of authority who are seen by citizens as role models.

    It was not unusual for those in such positions during the military era to see themselves as above board and to exempt themselves from the rules that they laid down for citizens to follow. But Nigerians are not dummies. They quickly found ways of adjusting and acting without being caught. Whereas if they knew that leaders followed their own rules, they too were willing, even if reluctantly, to toe the line.

    For this new campaign to succeed, then, its architects have to learn from the failures of past efforts. The new campaign is for change, in line with the change agenda of the administration. But the change agenda is comprehensive, with emphasis, for citizens and leaders, on attitudinal changes; for leaders on commitment, positively, to efficient delivery of services, and, negatively, the avoidance of corruption and injustice.

    The campaign enjoins that the positive change in attitude must begin with every individual citizen.

    In fairness to the president and his team, I think that the idea of a campaign of this nature is excellent. It is anchored on the challenge of getting individuals to have a good attitude towards the common good of all without needlessly jeopardizing the good of the self. It is of course true that leaders must lead for followers to follow. But the role that a citizen has to play cannot be delegated to the leader and vice versa.

    It is also true that an important piece in the big puzzle is the overarching national goal that both leaders and followers subscribe to as worthy of their sacrifice. There is no need for the Buhari administration to reinvent this wheel because it is clearly identified in the constitutional statement of the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy in Chapter 2 of the constitution. The entire chapter with its twelve clauses encapsulates the Nigeria of the founders’ and constitutional framers’ dreams.

    Unfortunately, in the 37 years since the words were first accepted as our national ethos in 1979, we have not moved an inch closer to the implementation of even its most achievable objectives. The unity that is predicated on everyone sharing a sense of belonging anywhere is still very much out of reach of sections of the country. While the southwest has become a common home to many citizens from different parts of the country, the same cannot be said of some other parts. It is the responsibility of leaders to lead in the effort of national integration. But it cannot be accomplished by mere exhortation. Determined effort by way of example is essential.

    Political violence is condemnable and must never be condoned under any circumstance. As a democracy that has come to stay, we know that the maximum an administration has is four years at the end of which it is returned or rejected. Therefore, a non-performing government can and should be tolerated or impeached. Violence is not part of the equation and cannot be a good substitute for valid elections. This needs emphasis because if violent pays at one time, it can equally pay at another time. What goes around comes around. No one has the monopoly of violent uprising against a government that is legitimately elected.

    Exemplary leadership and committed followership are the key to the success of the new campaign. But it must start with leadership example. And every level of governance, across every zone, must buy into the change mantra and become its most eloquent exemplar. While it is a most difficult scenario to imagine—that leaders in Nigeria can, in deed, commit to disciplined practice of virtue, it is not impossible. How I wish for a pleasant surprise. For simply put, hypocrisy defines its absence. But if exemplary leadership is effectively realized, I am most certain that followers will have no choice but to gladly fall in line.

    Finally, then, let leaders lead and followers will follow. From the President to the  Ministers, from the members of National Assembly to State Legislators, from Governors to Local Government Chairmen, from First Class Obas, Sultans, and Emirs to Chiefs of all ranks and classes, from Permanent Secretaries to Administrative Officers, from the Security Chiefs to Military Commanders, from the Inspector General of Police, to Commissioners of Police and officers, from the Chief Justice to Magistrates, from Vice Chancellors and Provosts to Lecturers and Graduate Assistants, from Chief Imams, General Overseers, Prelates, and Archbishops to Pastors and Evangelists, there is a clarion call to leadership initiative and action.

    President Buhari has called on everyone with an urgent invitation to get on board the change train. If the campaign for discipline and respect for national values enshrined in our constitution is to be successful, it must start with everyone. And when we assume its leadership, we can expect those looking up to us to follow suit. Change is as simple as having disciplined leaders lead from the front.

  • In recognition of responsive governance

    In recognition of responsive governance

    Ten years ago, I answered the publisher’s personal phone call to contribute to his new publishing venture as a back-page columnist. I readily agreed without asking for a contract or compensation. I did because I believed in his mission of truth in defence of freedom and I thought that I can make worthy contributions to the same. My relationship with the paper has remained constant since then. It has been on a volunteer basis and I appreciate the mutual respect that the relation engenders.

    Yet I have always wondered whether I am making any difference. Surely, I get some compliments privately every now and then from readers. And I have constructively engaged thoughtful readers who react to my submissions. But, not on a few occasions, I have asked myself if I am making inroads into the minds of those that wield powers. Do they even read my contributions? And is it worth the effort to continue if I am not making any tangible impact? Or should I just shift my attention to other areas where I can at least make a difference?

    These thoughts never cease running through my mind, especially in the last five years. Then something happened last Saturday. And it changed my thinking. It was a breakthrough that was unexpected. It was a confirmation of relevance. It was a profile in responsive governance, on which I had all but given up.

    Before I get into what really happened, I would like to discuss my understanding of responsive governance as a compact between government and citizens.

    Reference to government requires clarification. For as our people warn, careless disregard for the need to clarify our meanings was responsible for the untimely transition of the first Elempe. Elempe had invited many people to his farm with an instruction for them to be armed with their cudgels, which was going to be their tools for the day. Each of them did exactly as instructed. They assembled on Elempe’s farm, and as soon as he showed up, they welcomed him with thorough beating, sending him to the great beyond.

    By government I mean a democratic government, which is voted into power by the people and is therefore responsible to them. From this, it follows that the people are the best judges of the performance of their government and they have the right and the responsibility to remove it from power if, in their judgment, it fails to live up to their expectations.

    This excludes authoritarian regimes of monarchical or military formations. To ask for responsiveness from such paradigms of government is to engage in wishful thinking or incoherent logic. Thankfully, we have conveyed both to historical archives. If that is the case, then semblances of the past have only historical relevance and should have no dominance in our present.

    To find our way to responsive governance, we need to stop by first at the doorstep of governance. Though derived from government, governance is distinct from its root. Governance is about process. It is the system adopted to carry out the activities of government. Clearly then, it is value-neutral. Hence the common recourse to the adjectives “good” and “bad” to qualify “governance.”

    A system of governance may ignore the right of the people to be heard or consulted. Or it may choose to impose its understanding of what is best for them without their input. Or worse, it may decide to stifle their imagination or suppress their aspirations. In some of these instances, we may have a system of governance, and it may even work to some extent, but it is not a responsive system.

    Ignoring the thoughtful considerations expressed in dignified and courteous language is one of the highest forms of unresponsive governance. But democratic governance requires responsiveness on the part of those we choose to serve in the steering of the ship of the state. In other words, they are servant leaders with a mandate to represent our interests and marshal the resources of the state to advance those interests.

    What, then, is responsive governance and why does it matter? It is a system that takes people seriously and responds to their expressed interests, not necessarily by adopting them (the challenge here is clear) but by not dismissing them with a wave of the hand. A responsive administration reassures the people that they are integral to the resolution of the challenges facing them as citizens and that government is only their agent, which has listening ears and is ready to work with them towards a deserving end.

    Truly, governance can be overwhelming, especially when resources are not commensurate with needs, as it is always the case. Responsiveness implies that an administration or its subset does not play favouritism in the allocation of scarce resources.

    This is not just a question of ethical justice. It is also a demand of sound economic reasoning. For as it happens too often, we do not always pay attention to the way in which we shoot our national interest in the foot just by failing to reject partial approaches to developmental projects. This happens when we neglect one area that is well placed for the realisation of common national interest in some specific developmental agenda but is not well-represented in the corridors of power where decisions get taken.

    Responsive governance is a system that recognises the limitations of those in position of authority- that they do not have the monopoly of wisdom. But recognition of this limitation is not an end in itself. It must lead to three orientations on their part.

    First, they must educate themselves on the issues. The demand for this is so obvious that it does not need justification. If you place yourself before the people to be allowed to lead them, you have to demonstrate your capability for leadership, which requires knowledge of the challenges and the alternative solutions to them.

    Second, they must assume a humble posture that recognises that the people also have some knowledge of the issues, and be ready to learn. Third, they must be sensitive to, and constructively engage, those citizens who volunteer ideas about the issues and/or frustration concerning their perception of governmental attitudes and approaches to them.

    This last point leads me to my promised explanation of what happened last Saturday. Last week, my column was on Ikere Gorge Dam. I had expressed my concern over the neglect of the project initiated in 1977 with a potential to maximise not only the agricultural potential of the country but also its overall development agenda. This much we now know and are rightfully correcting our past missteps.

    On Saturday, I received a surprise phone call from the Honourable Minister of Power, Works, and Housing, Mr. Babatunde Fashola (SAN). He informed me that he had been reflecting on the matter of Ikere Gorge Dam and its potentials. He explained that he was particularly interested in the power aspect of the dam which, as he confirmed, has the potential to increase the rate of rural electrification exponentially. He further explained to me in details, the developmental goals of the administration as well as the specific objectives and action items on its immediate agenda.

    It was vintage Fashola, the thoughtful actor and active intellectual. From his days as Governor of Lagos State, he has established himself not only as a knowledge-driven administrator but also as one with an eye on the people’s need. His thoughts have always been on fair and excellent outcome. He takes his mandate seriously, and he is always looking for how to deliver the best results for the people, working with them.

    Of course, there are limitations to responsive governance, even with the most respectful, sensitive and knowledgeable administration. We operate a bureaucratic system with rules and regulations that can stymie the most ambitious and people-oriented agenda. A case in point is the regulation governing the grossly inadequate maximum amount that can be advanced to mobilise contractors. To enable responsive governance in these dire times, the administration asked for emergency economic powers. Hopefully, the National Assembly and the administration can resolve this matter for the people’s benefit.

  • Ikere Gorge Dam and renewed interest in agriculture

    Ikere Gorge Dam and renewed interest in agriculture

    A few years ago, I drew the attention of readers to the unfortunate abandonment of Ikere Gorge Dam, a project that was conceived with genuine interest in the development of the rural communities of Oyo State and beyond. My intervention then was out of concern for the regrettable daily loss of the immense economic potentials that the project has, not only for the area, but also for the entire nation in multiple ways. I was also concerned about the scientifically-proven risk of deadly flooding that the abandonment of the project poses for the entire area from Iseyin to Igbeti.

    I am revisiting the issue now for two reasons. First, the Buhari administration has rightly pivoted its economic revival policy towards prioritising agriculture. I have no doubt about the reasonableness of the policy direction and the genuineness of the motive of its architects. But I am concerned that in the present budget, the dam has a paltry allocation of N11million for irrigation project, while N9million is allocated for operation and turn around maintenance. This dam is not even operational!

    No doubt many areas and zones of this land of ours are capable of making enormous contributions to this new orientation of the federal government, each with special capabilities and different resource bases. But no one can conscientiously deny that Okeogun is one proven area of agricultural capability, having been branded the food basket of the old Western Region in the First and Second Republics.

    But times changed. Agriculture was abandoned as a matter of development priority for government. And young men migrated from rural to urban centres with no sellable skills. The result has been staring us in the face ever since with the massive unemployment numbers and attendant high crime rate. Even in the backwoods of Okeogun with uncompromising ethical codes, it is now disheartening to hear of cults in schools and area boys around towns and villages.

    The second reason is a rehash of my concern for the risk of the danger that the abandonment of the project poses to the area. This is especially more urgent in the light of the new scientific prediction of an earthquake in the area in future.

    Surely a completed dam project, just by that very fact, does not guarantee immunity from the devastation of flooding during an earthquake. But while a completed dam would at least have inbuilt security devices, including fortification of the dam walls, an abandoned dam that is already corrupted by nature can hardly withstand the fury of an earthquake. The danger such a prospect poses to the lives of the people is better imagined than experienced. Therefore, if our federal government cannot improve the lives of Okeogun people, it should at least leave them undisturbed in their destined condition.

    These thoughts were running through my mind when I was presented with the gift of a wonderful pamphlet that was published by Okeogun Development Council early this year. Titled: Ikere Gorge Dam: A Goldmine Waiting to be Explored, the pamphlet was edited by Mr. Jare Ajayi, the General Secretary of the council, who was kind enough to give me a copy. The pamphlet is a wealth of information waiting to be digested by policy makers if they are truly interested in the agricultural and rural development agenda of President Buhari and his administration.

    The pamphlet conveys a message of economic urgency regarding the potentials of Ikere Gorge Dam for irrigation farming, generation of electricity and tourism. I was elated to learn that the “dam was planned to generate 3750 MW of hydroelectricity for dam and rural electrification programme and to irrigate up to 1200 hectares of farmland” and that “the Gorge also has a big potential for tourism.”  By itself, each of these three economic benefits that the dam is designed to produce (irrigation farming, electricity generation and tourism) is capable of reversing the undesirable and economically-unproductive rural-urban migration that the area has witnessed in the last 30 years.

    Incidentally, the original impetus for the dam more than 40 years ago, was the drought of 1973/74, which jolted the military regime. And upon taking over the government in 1975, the Murtala/Obasanjo administration took steps to prepare the nation for any such natural emergencies in  future. Its policy response was the establishment of 12 River Basin Development Authorities scattered throughout the country in 1976/77. Ogun-Osun River Basin Development Authority, one of the 12, had responsibility for the development of the Ikere Gorge Dam and the Federal Ministry of Water Resources and Rural Development was the supervising ministry. This project has been on since 1977!

    The pamphlet also disclosed, what might be expected from our knowledge of most development initiatives from the 50s and 60s, that the Obafemi Awolowo administration in Western Region discovered the dam in the 50s and it was eventually taken over by the federal government. “During the Awolowo period, there was a big farm… Around 1966. there were about 10,000 herds of cattle… There was also a large cashew plantation.” These were the words of an Iseyin elder, Mr. Emmanuel Oke, in a 2013 interview reproduced in the book.

    Mr. Oke went on to compare Ikere Gorge Dam with Akosombo Dam in Ghana. Both are natural dams. But while “the water level at Ikere Gorge Dam is 38 metres deep, Akosombo Dam is 36 metres.” Greater depth means greater capacity. And “if Akosombo Dam could produce 1,200 megawatts of electricity, Ikere Gorge Dam could do something similar or even better.” One might also add that if Ikere Gorge Dam had 10,000 herds of cattle in a ranch in 1966, as Mr. Oke confirmed, we have a home-grown answer to free range cattle rearing with its unsavoury consequences. And just as Akosombo Dam has turned into a tourist attraction earning enviable foreign exchange for Ghana’s economy, so can Ikere Gorge Dam do for Nigeria’s.

    The current state of the dam is pathetic, but it is not an insurmountable task. The engineering design of the first phase covering 3000ha out of 12000ha was completed. Contract for the sprinkler irrigation system had been awarded since 1990 and by December 1997, it was 72% completed. Much has not been done since then. There is a pilot irrigation with only 20 hectares of land available, which is grossly inadequate. But as Mr. Oke observed, it is a starting point crying for further expansion.

    As the pamphlet reveals, the design of the dam was well thought-out. With “a gross reservoir capacity of 565 cubic metres…it was designed to…”supply 233 million cubic metres of irrigation water to the 3,000ha in phase 1; supply raw water to Iseyin, Okeho, Iganna and environs” and 92 million cubic metres “is to be released  and picked up for treatment and distribution by the Water Corporation of Oyo State.” It was also designed to “release 80 million cubic metres of raw water into the river channel to be taken up at the Adiyan intake of the Lagos State Water Corporation.” And it was to generate “six megawatts of electricity for dam operation and rural electrification.” Beside crop farming, the dam was designed to promote fish farming and cattle ranch.

    There is talk about political will. It is hard for me to understand why political will should be lacking in this case in which taking decisive action to execute the project can only elevate the political standing of a leader. If the initiation of the project in 1977 was triggered by the experience of drought, it cannot be denied we have had a recurrence of the 1973 drought off and on in the last 43 years.

    Presumably, government interest in the project waned because the country enjoyed the influx of oil revenue, which we saw as a substitute for revenue from agriculture. Experience has now taught us that oil is not a reliable source of national revenue, and we have rightly decided to retrace our faltering steps to our source. Serious leadership that takes this prospect of agricultural revolution seriously would commit resources to reviving Ikere Gorge Dam for a prosperous future.

  • Between mind restructuring and political restructuring 

    Between mind restructuring and political restructuring 

    The debate on restructuring is not abating and new thoughts are introduced into the factory of ideas on a regular basis. The latest is from Governor Ganduje of Kano State, who has urged us to bother more about mind restructuring and less about geopolitical restructuring. Presumably once we restructure the minds of Nigerians, either geopolitical restructuring will be added unto it or it would not be necessary after all. To drive home his point, the governor referred us to the United States as a model of diversity without concern for geopolitical restructuring.

    I am sure that Governor Ganduje means well for the country. According to media report, the ultimate goal for which he recommended mind restructuring instead of geopolitical restructuring is “to return the country to the path of progress.” This is also the desired goal of those who believe that absent political restructuring and true federalism, including devolution of power to component entities, the country will not experience the desired progress. Here then we have a conflict of views on the path to progress.

    I commend Dr. Ganduje for offering an alternative perspective towards the same end point, one that is substantive in its recommendation of mind restructuring. There are several issues to raise about the governor’s recommendation of mind restructuring as a substitute for geopolitical restructuring. But before we take on that task, there is a more urgent task.

    In support of his position, Governor Ganduje offered the example of the United States, which “is more geopolitically fragmented with more nationalities than Nigeria” and is the “strongest nation in the world.” Presumably then, diversity is not a liability. If this was the point of Ganduje’s reference to the United States in the context, I do not think he has any opponent, certainly not from advocates of political restructuring of Nigeria. They too see our diversity as our strength, provided it is well managed. By this they mean a truly federal structure, which we do not have now. Hence, the demand for political restructuring for the country to realise the potential strength of our diversity as does the United States.

    But Governor Ganduje meant something else and this is where the facts may not be on his side with respect to the political structure of the United States. The governor argued that “the United States attained its present status because of the ability of its leaders to harness the positive thoughts and actions of its heterogeneous population, and not by the restructuring of the country along geopolitical divides.” That is, it is not the political structure of the United States that helped its development into the most powerful nation on earth. Rather, it is the ability of its leaders to harness the mind and body of citizens that made the difference.

    One philosophical challenge to this position is that it creates a false dichotomy where none is warranted. Certainly if the structure wasn’t right to start with, the mind of the population cannot be harnessed effectively for the task of development. In the case of the United States, we are in a good position to determine which played the leading role in its progress over the years. It is the political structure which was settled early on in the intense debates before its constitution was ratified.

    The debate over the merits of federalism and confederalism engaged the convention delegates for long before they finally settled on federalism with the Bill of Rights enacted as compromise to protect the liberty of citizens. State rights were recognised. Limits were placed on federal government powers, and state and federal governments had dual spheres of authority. Each state has its constitution, state anthem, state symbols and other paraphernalia of governance. States control the minerals under their soil and on the basis of the revenue that accrues to them from taxation on the extraction of such minerals by private companies, some states, such as Texas, choose not to charge their residents state tax. This is how heterogeneity works and diversity benefits the entire country.

    Now, since the structure had been given adequate thought from the beginning and it works, there is no need for restructuring. If it aint broke, don’t fix it! We also opted for federalism in Nigeria at the beginning. But along the way, the country ailed, and in our effort to put it right, we applied the wrong remedy. The military chose to fix the challenge of leadership with a change of structure. It is this wrong move that needs correcting.

    Dr. Ganduje observed that the United States is “more geopolitically fragmented with more nationalities than Nigeria.” To a large extent this is true, but it is also misleading. It is true to the extent that every nation of the world has an imprint in the United States and it has become a nation of nations. But it is misleading because residents and citizens of the United States do not have the sense of place or the sense of origin that many Nigerians are encouraged to have.

    No one asks a United States citizen his or her state of origin when applying for a job or scholarship. Rather the question is always state of residence. That is not the Nigerian experience. Therefore, for Nigerian citizens, place of birth is a barge of identity no matter how long they have resided in another town, city, or state. So, whereas the United States has more sub-nationalities than Nigeria, this sub-national identity means less for a typical American than it does for a typical Nigerian. Americans freely move about states without loss of identity.

    Furthermore, the fact that the United States has a federal system that prioritises the autonomy of states on many governance issues is the most brilliant device which has fuelled its progress. The governor of a state in the United States is the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of his or her state. The governor is in charge of the security of the state. The governor appoints the Police Chief who hires his or her team.

    The governor determines the size of civil service the state needs and, based on the size of its economy, the state determines how much it can pay to its workers. The federal government has nothing to do with these state issues. Surely, there are tensions in the relationship and there are times when the United States federal government attempts to overreach and the states resist with law suits. There are also times when states try to play fast ones with regulations that affect their minority populations especially in matters of voting rights. In such cases, the federal government, especially one that is headed by a progressive president, may seek to intervene to make things right, usually by going to the courts.

    The effectiveness of the United States system of federalism is made possible because the states in the federation are viable entities on their own, and the residents of these states and especially the voting population challenge their governments to be effective. They have nothing to complain about if they are not as effective as they are expected to be. They are to manage their bureaucracies and their economies for the benefit of their population. Therefore, as CEOs, governors have to roll up their sleeves and remain competitive to attract investors and make their states business friendly.

    Viability of states makes the difference. In Nigeria, on the other hand, many states are no more than glorified municipal counties. The point of political restructuring is to correct this imbalance. It doesn’t make sense that states just exist on paper with little to discharge their responsibilities without the intervention of the federal government through financial bail-out. Geopolitical restructuring is the prerequisite for the viability of the constituent entities of the federation.

    Mind restructuring, by which Dr. Ganduje means the development of the mind and the harnessing of the positive thoughts of the population, is not an alternative to geopolitical restructuring. They are complementary, and there is reason to believe that if the structure is not right, the development of the mind will suffer. The evidence is too obvious to ignore.

  • Our followership ethical challenge 

    Our followership ethical challenge 

    Political leaders in general, and elected officials in particular, get blamed for any and all national headaches— unemployment, poverty, insecurity, corruption, underdevelopment. Blame is justified because leaders ask to lead, and blame for lapses comes with the territory that leaders occupy. Not a few will argue that if political leaders voted into office by the electorate are not prepared for the heat, they should not get into the kitchen of politics.

    However, I argue here that followers also share in the blame of bad governance that creates national headaches. Followership blame may come at two levels. First is the low bar that followers set for the evaluation of potential leaders. Second is followers’ selfish expectation of leaders.

    Normally, we should elect leaders and, once they are in office, judge them by their integrity, by their empathetic feeling of the pain that their followers endure, and above all, by their competence. These three qualities are complementary but they sometimes get emphasised differently at different times.

    In the US presidential election of 1980, integrity played a greater role than competence. That was against the background of the Watergate scandal. Jimmy Carter won handily against Gerald Ford who had pardoned Richard Nixon, to the dismay of many voters. Four years later, competence was brought to the fore by a worsening economy and the Iran hostage crisis which respectively impacted the economic fortunes of voters and shook their sense of national security and national pride.

    With his demonstration of an empathetic understanding of people’s pain, Bill Clinton won the first presidential debate against George H. W. Bush in 1992 and he went on to win the presidency. His demonstrated competence in turning the economy around in his first term won him a second term in 1996 and effectively saved his presidency in 1998 even with his impeachment by the House and his damaged integrity.

    A pertinent question is here in order: If and when their votes are allowed to count and elections are not rigged, are our people also guided by similar concerns of integrity, empathetic understanding of citizens’ pain, and again above all, competence? Or are there other considerations that sway us one way or the other? For reason of space I cannot address this question as fully as it deserves. But I can hint at the route to an answer from our most recent experience.

    Back in 2010 at the time of the unfortunate sickness and eventual demise of former president Yar’Adua, an unexpected crisis arose in a republic guided by a constitution that is very clear on succession. There was a reluctance to have the then Vice President Dr. Jonathan serve as Acting President while the President was out sick. And when the President passed on, there was another crisis on whether the North should present a candidate to contest for and complete Yar’Adua’s second term. In both of these crises of succession as acting and as substantial president, clearly other considerations were in play before reason eventually prevailed.

    In the lead-up to the 2015 presidential election, with the emergence of the All Progressive Congress as a strong contender in the national elections, the criteria of integrity and competence were brought up and advanced in favour of candidate Buhari, while the accusation of incompetence and weakness in dealing with corruption and security were levelled against candidate Jonathan. But as the points and counterpoints were being canvassed and litigated, an extraneous issue that mirrored the interjection of 2010 was brought to the fore. The claim was made without any sense of irony that every zone was supposed to get two terms and that the Southsouth should not be denied a second term. Clearly here, the criteria of integrity, empathy and competence were not considered essential to electing the president.

    The above narrative from our recent past gives us a hint about the issues that we prioritise in the selection of leaders. And as a corollary, it should also provide us with a good barometer of leadership perception, understanding, and appreciation of their responsibilities and obligations to different demographics and constituencies. That the fight against corruption has different meanings for different segments of the population should therefore not come to us as a surprise.

    But there is more. Our differing demographics notwithstanding, each individual and/or group could still demand accountability based on the values that each holds dear. However, it appears that beside the group or traditional culture that makes us cling to nativist urges, we share a Pan-Nigerian culture that privileges certain attitudes which we do not find repugnant even though they are antagonistic to our true interests as individuals and as a people.

    We nurture a culture of negative work-ethic, godlessness despite our religiosity, and materialistic greed. “Possessive individualism” is philosopher C. B. McPherson’s description of the liberal capitalist ideology about the nature of market relations and the ethos that they create from the 17th century to the late 20th century.

    That description fits us perfectly as a people based on the way we like to acquire the so-called goods of life. The difference is that where it originates, there is at least a combination of acquisitive tendencies with positive attitudes to work. For them, the urge for production precedes and predominates the urge for acquisition. They work hard to produce much more than what they need. For us, the reverse is the case as we unceasingly indulge our ferocious appetite for material things without a corresponding interest in production. The consequence is that we have to rely on other countries, including those of our age for the satisfaction of our desires, which are not always desirable.

    The difference between the positive work ethic and modesty of life of the average citizens of countries whose consumption pattern we strive to outdo and ours is alarmingly huge. Our national culture celebrates pomp and pageantry, and respects flamboyance at the expense of modesty. We mock the alowomajaiye (penny pinchers) and applaud the profligates with flashy lifestyles even as we fail to investigate the source of their wealth.

    The anti-corruption fight has divided the country into the camp of supporters and opponents for a number of reasons. Some genuinely believe that it is one-sided. Others argue that the fight has left the economy uncared for. It appears to me, however, that one challenge of the fight is that corruption itself is a national pastime whether we want to honestly admit it or not.

    Corruption permeates all the segments of society and while the big-time culprits are being chased, the small fishes in the pond of corruption are swimming safely in its filthy water without being hunted. It is the television producer who demanded N150, 000 from a prospective interviewee or the programme would be cancelled. And it was cancelled. It is the case of the education officer who demanded padded envelope from a school proprietor for the registration of his school. Once given and received, no further questions would be asked and regulations need not be enforced. And we wonder why the education of our children is in such dire straits! It is the case of the policeman who turned the other way after a handshake with a driver’s stuffed hands, not worrying about the overloading of the vehicle, which went on to crash, killing all the passengers.

    The foregoing samples do not exhaust the list of self-help schemes on the part of those with access to some level of power. Hardly is there an exception. Even teachers who used to be role models for probity have also tasted the forbidden fruit and a variety of fees are their means of making more than ends meet. Examination fraud is team work.

    Folks without access to such formal positions of authority resort to “fine bara” of various shades and at various levels. From area boys to party stalwarts, they depend on the crumbs from the table of the powerful and connected and will entertain nothing that stands in the way. Talking ill of their benefactors gets into their skin; defending him/her is self-interest.

    It follows, therefore, that when leaders are ethically or criminally implicated, followers cannot creditably claim innocence.

  • Oba Alani Oyede: In memoriam

    Oba Alani Oyede: In memoriam

    At 71, Oba Moshood Alani Adetoro Oyede, Arolagbade III, the Olota of Ota has joined his ancestors. Death is cruel. Death is heartless. Death is unbeatable. And as the sage observes, Iku to pa ojugba eni, owe lo n pa fun ni (When death strikes and steals away an age-mate, it sends an ominous message to the living.) But the Great Beyond needs not be in a hurry; for sooner or later, we are all going to be its guests. Oba Oyede has only just preceded us.

    My path crossed that of Kabiyesi Oyede in January 1966 at the start of my Grade II Teacher Training programme at the African Church Teacher Training College, Ifako-Agege. Alani Oyede had started the programme in January 1965 and was therefore my senior by one year in the two-year Grade II Teachers’ Certificate programme.

    Senior Oyede, as I fondly called him, was an all-round student, a talented sportsman, a brilliant student and a pleasant gentleman. He was the school goal-keeper, the captain of the volleyball team and the college librarian. He appointed me his junior librarian in mid-1966, and I succeeded him as the college librarian in January 1967 in my final year. We lived in the same Joseph House, and as I mentioned to him during my visit to his palace in Ota in January this year, I inherited his coveted corner space and sleeping bed in the House.

    Teacher training was a hell in those days. As I narrated in All the Way: Serving with Conscience, whether at the Grade III or Grade II training colleges, seniors behaved like monsters fashioned in the pit of hell with the sole mission being the dehumanisation of juniors through relentless physical and psychological harassment and humiliation.

    I will neither understand nor appreciate why prospective teachers were expected to go through such a programme of brutish training experience. Indeed, I do not think that it served any useful purpose unless one erroneously believes in the replication of boot-camp discipline. For juniors soon become seniors with a mind to have their own pound of flesh on new juniors, while seniors go into teaching to unleash terror on innocent pupils.

    There were a few truly notable exceptions to the callousness in the name of discipline that seniority appeared to excite in teacher trainees. These few demonstrated the core of humanity at its best, with an understanding that no condition is permanent. Indeed, roles were often reversed as a senior in one college became junior to a former junior in another. One of the notable decent exceptions was Oba Alani Oyede. He was empathetic and helpful. He was the go-to guy, with listening ears, for advice in dealing with practical issues of campus life. He would also advocate and solicit on our behalf for leniency.

    With time, I observed that it was the smart seniors that were more humane. This was because they were self-assured and self-confident with liberal attitude to life. Oba Oyede belonged to that class of genteel humankind, the ideal of God’s purpose for his creatures. The empty barrels, on the other hand, were the sadists, who used to make the loudest noise and to act the brute.

    Oba Oyede left Ifako and taught for a few years, took the General Certificate of Education (GCE) and got admitted to the University of Ibadan in 1970, the same year that I was admitted to the University of Ife (Obafemi Awolowo University). He read French and received his Bachelor’s degree in 1974. This was no mean achievement. French language was not a curriculum option for teacher trainees. It follows therefore that he studied the subject on his own and passed the GCE examination to qualify for admission, and then earned his degree. That proved my point about his smartness.

    Oba Oyede taught at several institutions at the federal and state level, and advanced to the post of principal before retiring in 1996. He ascended to the throne of Ota in 1997. And smartness, thoughtfulness, and Godliness, his intrinsic qualities, helped to shape his reign as he mobilised the various classes of Ota community—business, intelligentsia, traditional, women and youth—for the monumental development of the ancient town.

    As his knowledgeable biographer, Ruhollah Ajibola Salako noted, the development included the establishment of many businesses in Ota. Among them are the Vaswani Group of Companies, Nyeil Limited, Hong Kong Synthetic Fibre Company Nigeria Limited, De United Food Ltd., Aluminum Rolling Mills, Sona Breweries Ltd., Nigeria Distilleries Ltd., Avon Crown Caps and Containers, Federated Steel Mills Ltd., and Homan Industries Ltd. Higher education institutions, such as Covenant University and Bells University are also worthy of mention. The pace of the development of Ota is a living testament to the positive influence of the monarch and an evidence of his lasting legacy.

    I had not seen Oba Oyede since December 1966 when he completed his Teachers’ Grade II programme at the Ifako, until he graciously showed up at the public presentation of my book on December 21 last year. As those who were at the event witnessed, it was an emotional moment for both of us as he and I were visibly excited at our meeting on that day.

    That Oba Oyede chose to risk his frail health to honour my invitation was the height of affection, which we mutually shared. And rather than expecting anything from me, he also made donations to the Foundation which I co-chair with my wife.

    In January, I visited the palace of Oba Oyede. It was another demonstration of an uncommon affection as he monitored my drive to the palace, giving direction and ensuring that I was alright. At first, he called every 10 minutes, and later every five minutes until we arrived at the palace.

    At the palace, he prayed for me and my family and presented me with invaluable gifts to last a lifetime. He also ensured that he invited one of my former classmates, Bishop S. A. Odu and it was a great reunion. The Oloris, Chief Akinyemi, the Ajana of Ota, were friendly and pleasant hosts. And while I was struck by the modesty of his palace, his down-to-earth simplicity explained it all. At Ifako, many of us were not aware that he had blue blood running through his veins.

    Though, I noticed that he was not in the best of health, I prayed and hoped that he would be alright. It did not occur to me that it was a farewell get-together. And when sometime in March, I was informed that he was in intensive care unit at the University College Hospital, I tried unsuccessfully to reach him from my base.

    It is the fateful reality of mortals! As the holy books affirm, we are not much different from the grass: blossoming in one day, gone the next. What we do, how we touch fellow human beings and other creatures, and what we contribute to the advancement of humanity, are the legacies that will outlive us.

    Our memories in the hearts of those we leave behind matter a lot more than the riches we accumulate here on earth. Why many don’t pay attention to this simple lesson of life is mind-boggling. Attesting to Oba Oyede’s deep understanding of God’s purpose and directives for a meaningful life is very easy for those who came across his path as I did many years ago and most recently. He was truthful to God’s mandate.

    To Olori Adewumi and Olori Oluwakemi, to his adult and young children, his family and friends, his High Chiefs and Emewas, there are good reasons to stand tall and proud of the life and times and the legacy of Oba Oyede, a gem of human being, a classy and progressive traditional ruler, and a God-fearing monarch. The knowledge and understanding that many lack is coming to terms early with the fact of our humanity and mortality and the attitude that it requires of us. Oba Oyede was one of the few that had that understanding. I have no doubt that his generous and kind soul is already resting in perfect peace.

  • Is there light at the  end of the tunnel?

    Is there light at the end of the tunnel?

    These are tough times. The economy is practically in recession because the stomach feels it. Workers are starving. Inflation is in a runaway mode. There is generalised citizen disenchantment. No matter how anyone chooses to parse this moment, the harsh reality is that it is not the ideal.

    Surely, in moments like this, the party in power bears the brunt of citizens’ collective angst. After all, in seeking the support of the electorate, the ruling party had presented itself as the one with the answer to the challenges facing the nation. Even if some or most of the challenges that eventually emerge were never anticipated, the victorious party now carries the unwholesome burden of meeting them. And it must deliver against all odds.

    Still it bears reminding ourselves where we came from and what has been our citizen share of the blame of delayed action in getting our economic house in order.

    We have to go to the very beginning of the republic to revisit the values of hard work and modest lifestyle that would have served us well if we indeed let it endure. Beside taking agriculture seriously and earning decent foreign exchange from that source, we also cut our national coat according to our cloth. Leaders led by example.

    We had a parliamentary system of government that moderated the cost of governance with members of regional assemblies serving on a part-time basis. Development plans were taken seriously and educational institutions were well-positioned, with well-trained teachers, who proudly took their jobs seriously and produced marketable graduates who had no problem securing employment with businesses, industries, and public service. These laid the foundation of a thriving economy to the end of the First Republic and beyond, until the seventies.

    Many things went wrong in the late seventies to mid-eighties. Education was bastardised. Values were dethroned from our  national life. We went from a nation of hard workers to a nation of loafers looking for easy money because that was what we were oriented to. It was the era of emergency contractors and sugar daddies in starched khaki and, later, in flowing agbada and babaringa. What can go wrong? That mindset, inimical to growth and development of the nation and individuals, has never been completely rebuked or abandoned.

    The blame can go round between military and political leaders who led us astray and citizens who betrayed our values of hard work and modest lifestyle, which every ethnic nationality imbibed from its ancestors. Rather than compete healthily for the products of industry and hard work, we threw caution to the wind and engage in the rat race for wealth that we did not produce. If we engage in objective soul searching, no one can go blameless.

    When politicians canvass for votes, what demand do we make of them? Do we take them to task to explain how they expect to move the nation forward and make life better for citizens or do we ask for our share of the proceeds of corrupt enrichment as a condition for them to receive our votes? And why do we reasonably expect that they owe us anything once they ascend to power?

    This accounts for the noxious phenomena of local government chairmen simply sharing among party stalwarts their allocation of funds meant for local development. It also explains the conversion of security votes and constituency funds into personal funds. We are all implicated in the cause of our present predicament.

    Of course, we can excoriate the leadership for its weakness of the will in not resisting forcefully the temptation to accede to the indefensible demands of political activists and hangers-on. The previous administrations must accept the larger share of the blame. So must the leadership at the state and local levels across political parties. Much as corruption has been the bane of our development, there is a much more fundamental source of our present predicament.

    It is not as if we haven’t been here before. But it is shameful that every time we face the reality of our dependence on a single commodity, we fail to take the necessary corrective action that has the potential to endure and put us on the path of economic advancement. Of course, doing this takes a strong political will and an uncommon courage to do what is right and damn the political consequence. While taking such a stand may be unrewarded and, worse, punished at the polls, the positive long-term outcome can be a lasting legacy to the leaders that refuse to be guided simply by short-term political interests.

    The Action Group lost an election shortly after it introduced an epoch-making policy of freely educating children of primary school age in Western Nigeria. But which leader and which party do we keep heaping praises on 60 years after? This is a great lesson in leadership.

    The Buhari administration has vowed to rewrite our economic playbook by redirecting our national development efforts towards the non-oil sector, especially agriculture and mining. It is about time. But it will get worse before it gets better, and the unavoidable hardship will deplete our individual and collective bank of endurance and perseverance. We must remind ourselves, however, that we are simply making transfers from our credit accounts into our savings and investment portfolio for a better future. We have been through 50 years of easy money from fossil oil. It is over for good. The developed world that needed our oil has moved on either because they have struck the black gold themselves or because they now have better environment-friendly alternatives. What is important is to avoid prevarication. The signs, thus far, are mixed.

    On the one hand, the ongoing anti-corruption war has been hailed by some and castigated by others. It is normal. What is more important is that the leadership does not vacillate in the face of expected pushback. How else can it be? Those who looted didn’t expect that they would be thus exposed and required to make restitution. But if deterrence is a moral justified tool of governance, there is no alternative to having them recompense.

    On the other hand, however, those who hail the anti-corruption war and would like very much to see its culprits exposed and shamed, will also be the first to ask for the crucifixion of the administration if the economy does not improve in the near term. This is also normal. In reality, however, the anti-corruption battle and the battle for economic restructuring are two fronts of the same war, the ultimate goal of which is to make life better for the people.

    This is why the Buhari administration must engage in serious multi-tasking and retain the services of economic experts to champion the recovery efforts. The perception of a dithering approach to the exchange rate regime that appeared to have sent wrong signals to investors and slowed down foreign investment, now hurting the naira badly, is regrettable. Lost time must be regained.

    There are indications that the administration is refocusing effort in this direction. The report that the non-oil sector has provided the majority of the revenue to the coffers of the federal government in the last quarter is admirable. The discovery of ghost workers in thousands and the sealing of the pipeline that feeds them is also commendable. Such funds must be directed to investment in infrastructure.

    On top of all these, however, three areas must attract the immediate attention of the administration. First, economic diversification must be pursued with fervour. Second, the public service must be restructured and organised labour must be an integral part of this effort. Labour cannot honourably resist restructuring whose goal is higher productivity, including the generation of internal revenue for states and local governments.

    Third, toughness in the pursuit of national economic recovery must be combined with an empathetic understanding of the grievances of groups and communities, especially minority populations, which have been under-represented and under-appreciated. Respect for diverse cultures and values is the essence of cultural democracy. Pluralism is our heritage, and to see the light at the end of the tunnel, we must embrace it.

  • Adekunle Fajuyi: 50 years on 

    Adekunle Fajuyi: 50 years on 

    There are two versions of the story of Adekunle Fajuyi’s death. But for my position here and elsewhere, it matters little which version is true: Fajuyi died a hero and patriot. Nonetheless, it is a sad commentary on the state of our union that the conflicting versions have been championed by the two victim groups of the counter coup of July 1966.

    One, allegedly narrated by Andrew Nwankwo, the former ADC of General Aguiyi-Ironsi, indicated that Fajuyi, Ironsi’s host was arrested along with his guest and that the mutineers killed Fajuyi first before they killed Ironsi. ADC Nwankwo also submitted that before his superior was killed, he had escaped into a ditch, with the help of Bello, Fajuyi’s ADC. Yet, he could confirm categorically that Fajuyi was killed first and that Ironsi could have escaped, but for his desire to prevent further bloodshed. It is a story of Ironsi’s patriotism.

    Nwankwo’s story contradicted the original narrative that Fajuyi had not been a target of the coupists who wanted Ironsi but that when Fajuyi inserted himself as a human wedge between them and Ironsi, they had no choice. They killed both guest and host. It is a story of Fajuyi’s heroism.

    With regard to the first story, clearly Fajuyi and Ironsi did not kill themselves. If the soldiers that committed the act were on a revenge mission, they got the wrong guys. Ironsi told the mutineers that he was not part of that coup but was only invited to return the country to normalcy. Not that these words exonerated him. But his captors had a good reason to look for the real January coup makers while they kept him in detention. They chose instead to kill him along with his host. Both were victims of a revenge for an aggression they might not have been a part of.

    What is the point of revisionists using this version to query the heroism of Fajuyi? Can the moral culpability of the coupists’ action be reversed just on the grounds that the victims did not voluntarily submit to their deaths? The fact that the revisionists’ version of the story was volunteered by one of the victim groups as a counter to the heroism of Fajuyi in the popular account, is a mirror of the state of an alliance that some still myopically see as the saviour to our current state of national hopelessness.

    Turning to the second story, that Fajuyi volunteered to die if Ironsi was to be killed by the coupists, we must address the following questions: What was at stake for him dying or living? Why did he choose dying over living? He was only 40 with a loving family. If indeed he chose to die, we have to look for clues in two related locations: his philosophy of life and the cultural values that shaped it.

    Meanwhile, assume that in the circumstance, he had chosen living, would he have chosen wrongly? In particular, would he have been guilty of betrayal? The answer, to my mind, is “No”.

    True, Fajuyi was Ironsi’s host. As such, his guest’s safety was his responsibility. But as Head of State (HOS), the guest’s safety was the responsibility of the national security team, which HOS controlled. However, it was a troubled time, with the storm over the first coup still raging, complicated by the promulgation of an unpopular decree that established a unitary system.

    The tight security provided for HOS was up against the determination of a stronger northern military rebellion against him. Fajuyi had nothing to do with this rebellion. He bore no responsibility for the actions that inspired it. For this reason, if, presented with the option, he had chosen living instead of dying with his host, his choice couldn’t be judged morally wrong. That the ADC who had responsibility for HOS’ safety chose to escape is significant.

    Fajuyi’s choice to die went beyond the call of duty. It was a supererogatory act. Surely, he had a moral duty to protect his guest from harm. That duty was discharged with the tight security provided by the agencies of national security. He also had a moral duty not to conspire with coup plotters. He wasn’t part of the mutiny. But he had no moral duty to insert himself as a human shield between the mutineers and Ironsi. In doing that which he wasn’t morally obligated to do, knowing fully that it was going to cost him his life, Fajuyi made a praiseworthy choice.

    What kind of human beings perform saintly and heroic supererogatory actions? People with special upbringing either by way of culture or religion excel in the performance of such actions. It is not surprising that Fajuyi chose that path given his cultural background and his faith.

    First, as a young man brought up in the Catholic faith, Fajuyi imbibed the idea that the faithful need to go beyond the observance of precepts and the keeping of commandments to attain the perfection inherent in the performance of praiseworthy actions. Whether it is as small as giving one’s last Naira to a starving child (with no hope of how one will make up the loss) or it is as big as inserting oneself as a wedge between an assassin and his victim, such actions are the counsel of perfection.

    Turning to Fajuyi’s cultural upbringing, the Yoruba concept of Omoluabi provides the clue for his motivation. A tii gbo o? How might it be construed? What meaning will it convey if the host were to live when his guest was killed in his presence? And what would living turn out to be like? At the individual level, an average Yoruba can relate to this moral predicament.

    But something more global than personal may have motivated Fajuyi’s heroism. Given the volatile nature of the state of the republic at the time, if Ironsi was killed and Fajuyi lived, how would the average Igbo understand that scenario? Would Fajuyi consider life worth living in the circumstance that his choosing to live ignited a hatred of the Yoruba by the Igbo?

    The brave soldier in him must have persuaded Fajuyi that there was something beyond life that was worth aiming for. It is called immortality, aiku in Yoruba. As the ancestors put it, Mo dogbogbo orose, emi o ku mo. Mo digba oke, mo le gboin (I have become an old ose tree. I will never die. I am 200  mountains rolled into one. I am immovable). Fifty years on, we are still appreciating Fajuyi’s heroism.

    If Fajuyi died to avoid the national distress that his living could trigger, how has the nation fared since his heroic death? In particular, what is the state of the relationship between the Igbo and the Yoruba? How has it affected the Nigerian project?

    In my contribution to The Road to Lalupon, I lamented the depth of animosity and resentment that still characterises the Igbo-Yoruba relationship since the end of the civil war. As Professor Achebe’s There was a Country clearly demonstrated, the strain is not just at the level of youthful bloggers and social media activists. It resides dangerously at the upper echelon of the divide.

    During the crisis that followed the annulment of the June 12, 1993 presidential election, Nkemba Ojukwu made the critical observation that Nigeria was established on a tripod and one leg of that tripod must not be left out of equation. That was his ominous reflection on the Igbo position regarding the crisis. A majority of the Igbo paid attention. It did not matter that one leg had been left out of equation before. Think of 1960-66 and 1979-83.

    The arch of nationality cannot bend toward unity until each group is prepared to swallow the bitter pill of forgetfulness and advance the cause of a more perfect union. The alternative is a mutual acknowledgement of an unbridgeable gulf that reasonably requires the parting of ways in a peaceful manner. The consequence of such a decision on each group is unpredictable. But I am persuaded that the capacity for survival is in the African DNA that each group proudly carries.

  • Reconciling democracy and restructuring

    Reconciling democracy and restructuring

    I take seriously the reactions and responses of readers to my weekly contributions and I take time to digest them and, if necessary, respond. It helps also that they have been few and far between. They have also been generally thoughtful and thought-provoking. The latest, on last week’s column, is not an exception. While I find the tone of the comment mature and reasonable, and its general stance agreeable, I think that the logic of the argument is shaky. It is because I sympathise with the commentator’s fundamental position that I have chosen to respond to the flawed logic of the argument.

    The comment is interesting for at least two reasons. First, the author took the time to dig from the archives my column of January 16, 2015 to interrogate my position in the column of July 15, 2016. Quoting from my January 2015 column, the author wonders why I should now maintain my current position. In fairness, the commentator did not directly accuse me of inconsistency. Still, I suspect that there is a sinister aspect to his or her point: If that was your argument then, why worry now? You wanted the elections. You got the elections. Now live with it. For the commentator, it was a got you moment. Here, below, is the comment and in its totality.

    ‘“Fifth, if restructuring is an important issue for the polity, it is not too much to ask the presidential candidates to explain their positions on it to the voters before they (voters) head for the polls. Hopefully, candidates will have opportunities for debate on issues because such is an occasion for the electorate to get to know more about their prospective leaders. However, if voters don’t care about issues of restructuring and constitutional amendment, we cannot force them and we must be reminded about the inviolability of Lincoln’s wisdom: “Elections belong to the people. It’s their decision. If they decide to turn their back on the fire and burn their behinds, then they will just have to sit on their blisters.” (Riding Out the Gathering Storm (2) January 16, 2016.” The people have decided. Why are you worrying?’

    What is my response to the question: why are you worrying? First, I am not worrying. Rather, I am concerned about the future of the country that we all claim to love. With all the negatives that she has drawn to herself especially in recent times, does this country have a robust future that makes nations great? My intervention, through this column, has been generally focused on issues surrounding this question. Last week was not an exception.

    Second, the commentator seemed to infer that if I pitched my tent in favour of conducting a democratic election and letting the people vote their conscience, and they eventually did, then I should not be in a position to re-litigate the case for restructuring. “Why are you worrying yourself?” means “ You argued for the election to go on in lieu of restructuring before election. Why are you now arguing for restructuring?”  A fair interpretation of my column under reference and the one that preceded it cannot come to this conclusion. It’s worth recapitulating.

    The man of God, Pastor Tunde Bakare, had in a powerful submission, suggested the postponement of the presidential election to avoid what he referred to as “the gathering storm.” He recommended instead first dealing with the restructuring of the country. I differed respectfully while acknowledging the thoughtfulness of the pastor’s intervention.

    Surely, there was a gathering storm. But to my mind, that storm would have become a Level V hurricane if the election had been halted. And in view of the revelations since then, I still firmly believe that it would have been a huge mistake. I then suggested that a debate could be organised for the candidates with restructuring as the major issue. This is how democratic elections are conducted. If this is a matter that people cared about, they would make up their minds on the best candidate based on their evaluation of his or her position on the matter of restructuring. It was from this mindset that I brought in Abraham Lincoln who had suggested that citizens will have to live the consequences of their vote.

    Now, what contradiction is there between asking democratic elections to set the stage for restructuring, and now, after elections, asking for restructuring to be placed on the front burner? I certainly don’t see any.

    What is more, it was also clear that the antecedent of my suggestion, namely a debate on restructuring as the major issue of the campaign never received the blessing of electoral authorities. Therefore, there was no way to know what citizens’ preferences were. They went and voted presumably on other matters, including the proverbial and detestable stomach infrastructure appeal for which all parties competed with gusto.

    If the platforms presented by the political parties were evaluated through the medium of a political debate, and the people chose a candidate who rejected restructuring, the commentator would at least have a point. But since that was not the case, the logic that the argument relied upon is deeply flawed.

    But there is more. Assume what is not the case—that the people actually went to the last elections on the basis of an informed understanding of the candidates’ positions on restructuring. Assume further that with such an understanding, the majority chose to elect a candidate who rejected restructuring. Would the commentator then have a valid argument against me? Would I be found guilty of inconsistency? The answer from my humble opinion is “No”. The reason is quite simple and there are two parts to it.

    In the first place, democratic elections do not sentence a country and a people to a life-time of helplessness or hopelessness. When elections are conducted and won or lost on the basis of ideological positions, the losers do not as a result choose to fall on their own swords. They brace themselves up for the next time hoping that their position will attract more voters and secure a majority.  Therefore, while democracy is against imposing a position on the people, it is not against a persistent appeal to them all-year round and at every election cycle on behalf of a position that one truly supports. Consider that as my present position on the matter of restructuring.

    The second part of my response is quite simple. My last column takes the All Progressive Congress (APC) up on its declared interventions by way of its documented platform as contained in its manifesto. The point I made was simply that while I concede that the party did not make any direct pronouncement on restructuring, it should start fulfilling its promises on at least the three items that were clearly articulated in its manifesto. These included the matter of restructuring the police force with an emphasis on community policing, reforming the Land Use Act to encourage freehold or leasehold, and refocusing the economy, with particular reference to a new approach to mining.

    Is there any inconsistency in upholding the sanctity of democratic elections and calling on the victorious party to act up to its promise? I see none. Suspending an election in a democracy could be more problematic to the polity because it would create a dangerous precedence. The nation missed the opportunity for serious debate on restructuring through a sovereign national conference in 1998 prior to the return to civil rule. Of course, the military had also then been traumatised as an institution and was just too eager to quit the political scene. We can moan that missed opportunity for ever. But we cannot make up for it by intervening in the democratic process without appearing to favour one party or the other.

    Meanwhile, however, there is a moral justification for calling upon a political party to fulfil its promises to the electorate because, as Hobbes would say, justice is keeping promises voluntarily made. That was my message to APC. And if the party refuses to keep its promises, well, there is always a next time coming. I respectfully rest my case.

  • Toward a more perfect union

    Toward a more perfect union

    It is undeniable that there is a deafening clash of ideas regarding the fundamentals of nation-building in Nigeria. While one group insists on true federalism and demands restructuring of the country toward that end, another sees unitarism as the answer, as a former senator boldly argued some years ago. And though a third group rejects unitarism, it sees nothing wrong with the constitution. For this group, what is needed is strong and visionary leadership.

    One voice advocates resource control and fiscal federalism. Another argues that the centre needs to corner the most resources. The pattern we have seen thus far suggests that whichever party controls the centre would see itself as the protector of the nation’s unity, and cannot be expected to give an inch, even when that inch can gain a mile in the journey to lasting unity.

    We have held four constitutional conferences including at least one national dialogue in the last 25 years with nothing tangible to show. The last confab was no exception with its decision to refer the crucial issues to a technical committee. Year after year, it appears that we are drifting further apart at the seam of national unity, with groups seeking new regional or zonal alliances which have never succeeded beyond the euphoria of the moment. The aftermath of a brutal dictatorship failed to teach us the most important lessons of democratic governance.

    The first of those lessons is that sovereign power resides with the people and that their desires expressly canvassed must be the basis of political wisdom and public policy. The second is that in a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural system, respect for democratic norms also requires respect for the diversity and complexity of the polity.

    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 advocates of true federalism understand clearly.

    True federalism does not espouse national disintegration as its adversaries wrongly contend. A pseudo-federal structure however fuels 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 animal grazing, or in the issue of revenue sharing, or in national cultural policy, there is plenty of room for diversity of positions and thus of mischief getting in the way of rational adjudication.

    Consider the case of animal grazing. Is this a state matter or a federal affair? To the extent that the federal government has an interest per its constitutional mandate, it is by no means an overriding interest, especially since the same constitution vests ownership and allocation of land in the states. Since land matters are cultural, one would expect that states are in the best position to oversee such issues. That is what a true federal system mandates.

    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.

    But what sources are available to states? They could tax their citizens. Yet, beside the Pay As You Earn (PAYE) system and Value Added Tax (VAT), there’s hardly any other fruitful source of taxation for states. Many of these states do not have big businesses or industrial complexes to tax. Taxable landed properties are a rarity; and self-employed citizens hardly pay tax because they don’t make much. The states surely have to do more. But we sometimes ask for the impossible, and miracles don’t come often these days.

    Which leads us to potential sources of wealth which, no thanks to over-centralisation, have been practically made inaccessible to states. Many of these states are sitting on enormous amounts of natural resources, including solid minerals, fossil fuel, and forms of renewable energy. States could attract private investors or incorporate public companies to explore these natural resources for direct benefit to their constituents. The federal government could then impose taxes on state earnings.

    That approach would not only enable the states to fulfil their obligations to their citizens, it would also make them less dependent on the federal government. And since almost every state has some such source of potential revenue, only a few without, if any, will continue to need the intervention of the central government for financial assistance. Would this threaten the unity of the country any more than inaccessibility of funds now does? Hardly. The present dire situation is more prone to chaos as we have witnessed thus far.

    The issue of policing and security has been on the radar screen of the public, especially since the beginning of the present republic. There is no denying the fact that the Nigeria Police is overwhelmed and overstretched. Some state governments, despite their own fiscal challenges, have had to raise funds for their police divisions. Yet crime is on the rise.

    The constitution provides for one police force for a diverse population of over 170 million. The reason for this, as every unitarist has argued ad nauseam, is to eliminate abuse and oppression of opposition by states. While there is a point to this argument, it is obviously one-sided, failing to see the log in the eyes of the supporter of the status quo. The federal government has also used the Nigeria Police for political ends as the last dispensation copiously demonstrated.

    In a federal system where governors are supposedly the Chief Security Officers of their states, they have no authority to control the Commissioner of Police whose boss is the IGP whose boss is the Minister of Police Affairs who works for the President. The charge of abuse of the police can go round. But if city police functions without abuse in other jurisdictions, we can certainly have state police without abuse. Surely, in an era of limited resources to states, this could be an additional burden. But if their responsibilities increase, so must the resources that accrue to them.

    I have identified a number of areas where we could make corrections and amend our constitution toward a more perfect union: cultural sensitivity to land use, resource generation and allocation, and policing and security. I do not think that advocates of true federalism and restructuring are asking for much more. Perhaps some may consider doing all at once as revolutionary and potentially destabilising. We must at least start somewhere.

    The present administration received the support and goodwill of a solid majority of Nigerians on the basis of its manifesto of common sense revolution and promise of change. Admittedly, APC shies away from a direct pronouncement on “restructuring” as a centrepiece of its manifesto; nonetheless its explicit insistence on change commits the party to sensible action on behalf of the people.

    First, APC can start by fulfilling its promise to “develop state-level Community Policing” and to “devolve the oversight of local policing, including the nomination of the State Police Commissioner and management of the prison service to the State.”

    Second, APC can revisit its promise to “revise Nigerian mining legislation to end its ambiguity, providing for a transparent tendering process for mining rights”, and to “provide a fixed percentage of revenues in guaranteed benefits schemes to local communities.”

    Third, APC promised to “amend the constitution and Land Use Act to create freehold/leasehold interests in land…”

    Spearheading these changes can start moving us closer to restructuring and toward a more perfect union. Let’s do it.