The Nation Newspaper

Category: Segun Gbadegesin

  • There is a future to embrace

    There is a future to embrace

    Some narratives of the past are soothing and reassuring. We used to take pride in our communitarian ethos which abhors crass materialism and greedy individualism. Nationally, we’ve been through some good times which we unfortunately failed take advantage of. But we cannot now afford to cry over the milk that was spilled.

    On the other hand, however, there was plenty in our past that we are better off forgetting because, even in our neck of the wood, they are painful reminders of our individual and collective human depravity. Within and across nationalities and ethnicities, we were accessories to repugnant crimes against humanity, including slavery and genocide.

    Both of the foregoing observations go to show that the past is better left where it belongs. Of course, this is without prejudice to the wisdom of learning from the past to avoid repeating its mistake. What it means is that we can learn a lot from a time slice without obsessing with its positives or agonising over its negatives.

    The present is beckoning us for an embrace of the opportunities it offers for a makeover. Where the past divided, the present urges unity. As opposed to the moral and material impoverishment of the past, the present offers opportunities for genuine all-round enrichment of values.

    But the past demons have placed themselves strategically on the path of the present possibilities, blocking our views, and presenting us instead with illusive optics. With these demons, the present is simply an extension of the past, with its counter-productive understandings of our various conditions.

    These past demons mis-educate us about the reality of our condition. They pit us against the better angels of our nature. They present us with false hopes about the way out of the morass of our national existence. They recommend approaches that are inimical to our interests. Unknowingly, we succumb to their entreaties. Unfortunately, as a result, it has become clear that our present is no different from the past, the grievous mistake of which we are reliving and repeating. It is no surprise because we have allowed the demons of the past to attack our present.

    Nations have histories which have better be left as such. Ours is no different. Now is the time to embrace a future that is without the baggage of the past. How is this to be done?

    The present administration came to power with a great deal of optimism and a lot of goodwill. For even the most loyal supporters of the previous administration knew that something was terribly wrong that needed to be fixed. They might have thought that the necessary fixing could be done by that same administration. Now we know that a lot was wrong and that if the last administration was not the sole source of the wrong, it was an integral part of the rot that it created. It wouldn’t have been able to fix anything by itself.

    Corruption is no doubt at the centre of the nation’s challenge. And it is one area that the present administration has focused, rightly, like a laser beam. It also happens to be one of its campaign promises. It therefore needs all the support and encouragement it can get to do it right and lay a solid foundation for a future to embrace.

    But important as the fight against corruption is, corruption itself is a symptom of a more dangerous disease that needs to be cured. While a sizeable number of Nigerians applaud the administration’s anti-corruption fight, many yet have faulted it for one reason or the other. One of the reasons is the perceived one-sidedness of the fight, which they argue have been against the administration of former President Goodluck Jonathan.

    While this is an understandable partisan grudge, it is not a valid point to argue, especially because the PDP administration has occupied all the branches of the central administration since 1999, while states just depend on the crumbs from the federal table. Secondly, at the same time that we shout on the roof top for true federalism, we must not give the impression that we need the federal might to probe state governments unless the largess from the federal purse are traceable to them as is the case with the allegation levelled against the Ekiti State governor.

    The partisan division in the matter of the appraisal of the anti-corruption fight is just one aspect of the challenge in that struggle, but it is far from being the only one. The other is more fundamental to our predicament and one of the demons of the past that has not faded away in the present.

    A few weeks ago, there was a news item regarding the position of the Southsouth and Southeast on the militancy in the Niger Delta. According to that news, the political leaders had approached the administration to drop all the anti-corruption investigations against members of the past federal administration, especially those from that zone in exchange for the cessation of hostilities in the Niger Delta.

    The particular information may be false for all we know. But if it is true, it is a demonstration of a past demon that is not unique to the Southsouth. It permeates our reasoning across the zones and states of the nation. In general, we route for those we perceive to be our kith and kin even when they misbehave. And we refuse to see the logs in our ethnic or zonal eyes even when we focus on the speck in the vision of others. It is a confirmation of our core challenge: uniting for a good common cause even if it requires our shunning old parochial alliances.

    To meet this challenge, there has to be a recognition that we are a nation of individuals with a common purpose that cuts across our ethnic or linguistic divides. Basic to our common purpose is a prosperous and secure future that our great grandchildren can look forward to. How do we secure that future for them in an atmosphere of mistrust that has characterised our past and threatens the present? True, the root of that mistrust feeds deep into the crust of a forced marriage. But it is a difficult proposition to prove that each of the partners to that marriage has not benefited in some way. Not a case of the end justifying the means; but rather, a realistic invitation to come to terms with a reality that is inescapable.

    That reality beckons us to seek a promising way out of the unprofitable constant recourse to our various corners where we make no effort to rise above the primordial instincts which write the other off as irredeemably evil. In a world that is clearly shrinking by the hour, we are dealing ourselves very dangerous cards.

    In all these, however, leadership matters. Whether in politics, religion, education, business, or culture, leaders have a huge responsibility to rise above pettiness. A populist ideology that only seeks to manipulate the ignorant innocence of the masses is potentially more harmful than the threat posed by a gun-trotting maniac. The former, being in a position of trust, is more likely to negatively impact the lives of many more people.

    More pungently, our present environment of serious inter- and intra-group mistrust requires leadership intervention to allay fears and rekindle the hope of future leaders and followers in project Nigeria. This demands more than words of exhortation. It requires action that revamps hope for fairness across the board.

    Importantly, it calls for paying attention to and grappling with the structural defects that have presented debilitating obstacles to national development and individual and group prosperity. Too many lives are being wasted.

    Majority of Nigerians would answer the call to duty on behalf of their country if only they know that their labour of love will not be in vain as it appears to be the case with those who had paid the supreme sacrifice without much changes in the affairs of a nation for which they gave their lives. There is a future to embrace if only leaders will just pick up the mantle and lead in its direction.

  • Farewell to HU

    Farewell to HU

    After 24 years of productive engagement in teaching, research, and administration, and learning a lot from colleagues and students, I ended my formal relationship with Howard University (HU), Washington, DC. yesterday, the 30th day of June, in the year of our Lord, 2016. It has been a memorable journey in many respects; and I am grateful for the positive experience and successful outcome of the journey.

    I first stepped on the campus of Howard University in February 1992 when I was interviewed for the position of Professor and Chairman of the Department of Philosophy. As soon as I entered the campus, even before the rigorous interview began, I knew that Howard was the place for me. It turned out to be everything that I longed for to make my contributions to scholarship and community.

    I chose Howard University over other institutions that gave me offers of appointment because of its long and rich history of scholarship and service. Founded in 1867, Howard University earned its reputation as the Mecca of scholarship for African descendants worldwide. On top of her scholarship, however, Howard is also attractive for its social engagement, and for the training of servant-leaders with a focus on freedom, justice and equality.

    Many African leaders passed through Howard University, from where they renewed their abiding interest in freedom and justice and pledged their commitment to the freedom of African peoples worldwide. Howard has produced exemplary leaders for America and the global community.

    Occupying the Chair of Alain Locke, the first African-American Rhodes Scholar and towering figure of Harlem Renaissance, was an honour and an uncommon professional opportunity that I grabbed and made the best of. Locke placed philosophy at Howard on the map of philosophical scholarship. Though Africana philosophy had not been a recognised or sought-after specialisation at his time, he anticipated its rise in the second half of the last century, with his focus on the philosophy of race and intercultural relations.

    With my departmental colleagues on board, and the encouragement of a supportive administration, I was determined to advance the cause of Africana philosophy as a tribute to the pioneering efforts of Locke, and the success of that determination remains one of the initiatives that I will always be proud of.

    Howard Philosophy department not only features an undergraduate programme in Africana philosophy, there is also an infusion of Africana content throughout the entire curriculum. My colleagues and I conclude that if philosophy must be true to itself as the search for truth, it must stand for the whole truth, and not a partial truth which celebrates the wisdom of only a fraction of humanity.

    It is near impossible to pull that off in other institutions. But Howard is special in the sense that, as an institution of higher learning, the leadership of Howard, from the beginning, understood its uniqueness and assigned to it a mission that cannot be replicated elsewhere. With “an enduring commitment to the education of underrepresented communities in America and the global community”, Howard has opened its doors to the world’s marginalised and neglected from its inception.

    The mission of Howard is unique. It prides itself as “a culturally diverse, comprehensive, research intensive and historically Black private university, (that) provides an educational experience of exceptional quality at the undergraduate, graduate and professional levels to students of high academic standing and potential, with particular emphasis on educational opportunities for Black students. Moreover, the university is dedicated to attracting and sustaining a cadre of faculty who are, through their teaching, research and service, committed to the development of distinguished, historically aware, and compassionate graduates and to the discovery of solutions to human problems in the United States and throughout the world. With an abiding interest in both domestic and international affairs, the university is committed to continuing to produce leaders for America and the global community.”

    The key is the “development of distinguished, historically aware and compassionate graduates and the discovery of solutions to human problems in the United States and throughout the world.” Howard has been faithful to this mission. Howard is the foremost university in the development of students who take seriously the issues of social justice and community service.

    It is not a coincidence that most of the major breakthroughs in the cause of social justice were initiated at Howard University. The landmark ruling on Brown versus Board of Education, which ended school segregation, had Howard School of Law faculty at its vanguard. The campaign for the freedom of Nelson Mandela and divestment from South Africa were spearheaded by Howard students and faculty. Mandela repaid this handsomely by choosing Howard as the institution to receive his first honorary degree after he regained his freedom and assumed the presidency of a free South Africa.

    More recently, Howard University students have demonstrated their fidelity to the core values of the institution with their unadulterated and unambiguous position on justice for the downtrodden in the face of police brutality.

    What will strike an African student or faculty just relocating to the United States and visiting Howard University for the first time is the commitment of the institution to Africa in all areas of its operation. In curricula offerings, in service programmes, in social activities, Africa is celebrated and venerated. There is no denying the fact that Howard students have a yearning for African original values undiluted by colonial presence and its post-colonial jaundiced vision.

    Where some African institutions neglect the study of African history and African languages, Howard is constantly adding to its offerings in these areas. From Hausa to Yoruba and Swahili, students have a variety of choices to advance their African cultural understanding. It is no surprise, as I reported two weeks ago, that Ooni Ogunwusi, Ojaja II received a red-carpet reception at the historic Blackburn Centre of the university recently.

    It was Howard University that first initiated the idea of an Alternative Spring Break (ASB), a student initiative to give back to the community. Some of these students have been volunteering their spring break for worthy causes for a long time. But shortly after the tragic Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Howard student leaders formally organised and decided to spend their Spring Break in New Orleans caring for the victims of the hurricane. Howard students have since been to Haiti, Chicago, Detroit, Atlanta, Baltimore and the District of Columbia.

    ASB participants are self-organised. They raise their own funds. They go to inner cities to help drug addicts, assist struggling young people in elementary and high schools, and counsel HIV-AIDS patients. As one television anchor puts it, these are students that will change the world. For in the process of helping others with their time, they are also transformed, becoming more compassionate and less self-centred.

    Howard students are not in the business of asking for their individual rights. They are asking for how they can help less privileged ones in the community. That is the spirit of Howard. It is also what education is about. It is why like-minded individuals, be it faculty, administrators, staff, or students find a comfortable home at Howard and stay even when they have more attractive offers elsewhere. Howard is in the top rank of institutions that send students to the Peace Corps.

    My years at Howard have been greatly rewarding. I met here some of the most hardworking, self-less and genuinely committed individuals. In the last few years that I served in college administration, I have seen up close the milk of compassion flowing in high and low places. My faculty colleagues have been wonderful. Of those who helped me selflessly with the administration of the college, I must mention Drs. Greg Carr and Dana Williams. Dr. James Donaldson offered me the opportunity to serve and former President Ribeau concurred. I am eternally grateful.

    Dr. Wayne A. I. Frederick, an outstanding surgeon and triple alumnus of Howard University, is a rare gem. His commitment is unassailable. His energy and dynamism is electrifying. His vision for Howard is inspiring. Exiting with him in charge, I am reassured that Howard University will “keep on keepin’ on” in truth and service.  HU! U Know!!!

  • What makes a nation?

    What makes a nation?

    More than one hundred years after the birth of modern Nigeria, there can be no credible denial of its tottering steps to true nationhood. The ominous signs are there for the blind to see. The cacophony of divergent voices regarding its true character is too deafening to be ignored by rational minds. Assume that Boko Haram is a fanatical jihadist insurgency without an ethnic or tribal coloration, both the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) and Niger Delta Avengers (NDA) have not been ambiguous in declaring the objective of their struggle. Neither of these groups feels a sense of belonging to the Nigerian nation.

    It is a terrible mistake to think that these two groups are outliers in an otherwise assembly of patriotic groups in the Nigerian nation space. No, there has never been a time, especially since the beginning of flag independence, when this country has enjoyed a total commitment and patriotic sentiment of attachment to the nation. Instead, a good number of ethnic nationalities have taken advantage of several policy decisions to rally their groups for ethnic solidarity with various serious consequences, including violent clashes between ethnic groups.

    At every such point in the checkered history of the republic, there is a reminder of the prophetic words of the sage: Nigeria is not a nation; it is a mere geographical expression. The import of that declaration, it’s raison d’etre was to challenge the “mere geographical expression” to strive to become what it was not; to embark on the journey to nationhood. But it was twisted, and the patriot was villainized.

    The various governments, from civilian to military, have come to perceive their duty in the very narrow and mechanical sense of providing for the security and social and economic needs of the people. But there has always been a crucial need to mobilize citizens for the creation of a nation out of the motley crowd. Unfortunately, this critical need has never been met.

    The intra-party crisis in the Western Region in 1962 took such a dramatic and tragic turn because it exposed the ethnic fault lines, a further exacerbation of the pre-independence tensions. The civil war of 1967-1970 was the shameful gangrenous outcome of an untreated political wound.

    Since 1970, we have moved from crisis to crisis because we have yet to learn the lesson of those first ten years of the life of the republic with the hope of attaining nationhood. But what makes a nation?

    In 1882, only thirty-two short years before the birth modern Nigeria, Ernest Renan, the French philosopher and historian, gave an answer to this important question. In a conference presentation, Renan dismissed all potential answers, including race, language, geography, religion, ethnicity. While any or all of this may help, they do not suffice. For, a nation is “a spiritual principle resulting from the profound complexities of history. It is a spiritual family, not a group determined by the lay of the land.”

    One essential character of this spiritual family is the individual sentiments toward the entity, which they see as representing their interests, and for which they are willing to make sacrifices including, if necessary, the supreme sacrifice. Individuals see themselves as belonging to a history that reaches back to generations before them. They are proud of the labor of their past heroes and willing to contribute to the future life of the entity. It is this voluntary self-abnegation, this dialectic of individual and community being, this remembrance of the past and witnessing to the present, that constitutes the nation.

    Renan suggests that a nation “is a great solidarity constituted by the feeling of sacrifices made and those that one is still disposed to make. It presupposes a past but is reiterated in the present by a tangible fact: consent, the clearly expressed desire to continue a common life.” He then introduced what has become a popular metaphor: a nation’s existence is a daily plebiscite, just as an individual’s existence is a perpetual affirmation of life.”

    Nations are modern. Tribes and empires are ancient. There is something paradoxical about the origin of nations and the Renanian account. Historically, the Germanic invasions of Europe facilitated the creation of nations, including France, England, Italy, Spain, etc. But the nations so created had their distinct characters, independent of, or in spite of the character of their invaders. It helped that the Germanic invaders took over the language of their victims; that the conquerors adopted a new religion shared by their victims; and that conqueror and conquered intermarried. With the virtue of forgetting and forgiving, the brutality of the conquests soon gave way to the molding of nations.

    Nigeria does not share the history of France or England. Rather, the story of some of its ethnic nationalities, the Yoruba, and Hausa-Fulani especially, is closer to the story of the founding of those modern nations. Compare the Oduduwa invasion and hegemony with the Germanic invasion, and you get the founding of the Yoruba kingdom and its spread from Ile-Ife to Benin Republic. Similarly, the Fulani invasion of the Habe kingdoms and its expansion to Ilorin is noteworthy.

    We may not know how each of these kingdoms would have ended up if there was no invasion by Britain and the southern and northern protectorates were not amalgamated in 1914. We know, however, that apart from stopping the emergence of genuine nations in this hemisphere, British invasion created a new entity to which it did not devote the kind of attention and sacrifice that the Germanic invaders devoted to it at its infancy.

    Instead of welding the new entity together in a way that promotes unity and generates a common purpose and sense of belonging, Britain deliberately divided in order to conquer and maintain her stranglehold. Therefore, rather than creating and molding a new nation, Britain created several more nations. The seed of that deliberate strategy did not fail to germinate.

    Whereas the memory of a historic past, of ancestral sacrifices, of common suffering and common joy are integral to the spiritual principle that constitutes the nation, we have a multiplicity of these in the various constituents of the country. Whether it is the memory of the civil war, or the memory of June 12, or that of the Ogoni 9, we are not short of memories. But not everyone identifies with each of these memories and there lies the challenge. We do not appear to have a national memory that serves as a unifying force. Even the memory of anti-colonial struggle had its divisive facets.

    If memory does not unify, or if it serves to divide, then we need the mental attitude of forgetfulness. It is hard but as the Yoruba elders put it: those who don’t learn how to forget past palaver will live their lives in solitude.

    But there is more in our circumstance to worry the nationalist. Many now have problem forgetting the past and joining others towards the writing of the Nigerian history as a nation that we want it to be. They feel that at every point they are still being reminded of past atrocities even when they try to forget. They feel like second-tier citizens or aliens. Whether in reaction to policy decision and implementation, appointments and deployments, a feeling of helplessness and betrayal is hardly a positive factor in instilling the national consciousness that is needed for nation-building.

    Absent these conditions, it is difficult to cultivate that other factor in the creation and sustenance of the national soul. The first, which we touched upon above is memory. The second is the “desire to live together, the desire to continue to invest in the heritage that we have jointly received” as Renan put it.

    A present desire to live together is predicated upon the perceived justice of present arrangements. It falls upon the political leaders, therefore, to make justice and fairness, compassion and empathy, forthrightness and the fear of God, their watchwords. Even at this late hour, Nigeria can be a nation of men and women, desirous of embracing its imperfect present while vowing their contributions to its glorious future. The alternative is too scary to contemplate.

  • Development matters

    Development matters

    His Imperial Majesty, Ooni Adeyeye Ogunwusi, Ojaja II, made history on June 15, 2016 as the first Yoruba monarch to visit Howard University Washington, DC. in recent memory. In his honor, a symposium on Culture, Healing and Development was organized by the Departments of Philosophy and Mathematics, with Dr. Kola Abimbola as the Chief Organizer. In a moving ceremony, Provost Anthony Wutoh and Dean Bernard Mair welcomed Kabiyesi to the University on behalf of President Wayne A. I. Frederick who was out of town. My contribution to the symposium, which was keynoted by Professor Wande Abimbola and Kabiyesi himself, is the subject of today’s column.

    The 1987 World Commission on Environment and Development, also known as the Brundtland Report, defines sustainable development as “development which meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” This definition raises five important points.

    First, the emphasis is on “sustainability” which requires consideration for the future generation. Second, this consideration for the future generation is African. A typical African will refrain from jeopardizing the future of his or her children and grandchildren.

    Third, however, sustainable development appears to have, over the years, come to represent the struggle to protect the environment on the fear that if our human actions or inactions negatively impact the environment, we are collectively endangering the future of our grandchildren.

    But Africa is in a dire shape. The resources available to her people are miniscule compared with those available to the West. The present generation of Africans in general, and Nigeria, in particular, are struggling to survive the harshness of the lottery of life that is their lot.

    Africa has mineral resources and fossil fuel deposits which others have exploited at the detriment of the owners. African land is easy target for dumping of toxic wastes from the West, which unsuspecting landowners negotiate to keep for money to feed their children and grandchildren. But what they bury on their land today will germinate in the not-too-distant future to harm those same children.

    The fourth point is no less troubling. If we shift the focus of sustainability from the future of the planet, an imperative which many in the wealthy West still resist, and concentrate instead on sustainability as preserving resources for our children and grandchildren, Africans are still in an uncomfortable position. The poverty that many who exist at starvation level endure in the present is so evident that there is little or no expectation that they are even capable of leaving anything for the future of their children. As in the case of the Widow of Zarephath, their concern is to fetch the firewood to cook their last meal.

    Finally, on the matter of sustainable development, there is always going to be outliers even in Africa, and some of these are not necessarily positive. For even in the midst of the hopeless desert of resources, there are oases of stupendous wealth, many of them acquired at the back of the poor masses. This is the group that Growth theories of development favor, the ones who benefit directly from the corrupting influence of capital and political patronage.

    How about focusing on development as meeting the basic needs of the people for, say, nutrition, health, education, and shelter? The purpose of development must be to provide the people with the opportunity to live meaningful lives. This requires moving away from abstract accounts of gross national product, rebased economy, and similar jargons, to concrete and specific issues of the needs for the survival and flourishing of human beings.

    Assume that we focus on basic needs and the sustainability of development that makes basic needs the center of its approach. We must then ask the question: What matters in the matter of achieving sustainable development goals for Nigeria? Fortunately, Nigeria is not alone. She belongs to the comity of nations, which collectively sets standards for acceptable human interaction and relationships. Since what affects one part impacts others directly or indirectly, we have to abide by the treaties that we sign and the resolutions that we adopt.

    On September 25, 2015, the United Nations Summit on Sustainable Development, in which Nigeria was an active participant, adopted seventeen goals for sustainable development, the top eight of which are significant for fulfilled life.

    The top eight goals are to end poverty in all its forms everywhere; end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture; ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages; ensure inclusive and equitable quality education, and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all; achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls; ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all; ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all; and promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all.

    The United Nations is as strong as its weakest member. It cannot, and it is not expected to, take over the reins of power in any of its member nations to implement the resolutions that members adopt. It relies on the ability of each of its members to do that. Therefore, when one goal expresses the imperative of ending “poverty in all its forms everywhere”, what it actually does is to express its desire that every member state must make this a goal with a timeline of 15 years, to 2030. It is the call of duty and responsibility. So, what really matters and what does it require on the part of Nigeria?

    What matters are visionary leadership, ethical consciousness, and strong institutions. I recall my observation back in August 2015 that “a strong and selfless leader with a vision will see through the cracks, rise above the fray and inspire the entire nation, young and old, men and women, of all faiths and all backgrounds, with personal example of hard work, self-discipline and transparent incorruptibility. He will not be distracted by perennial nay-sayers, or partisan critics because he has his eyes set on the prize of national advancement. He will go for the necessary restructuring of the economy and the polity, and investment in human development, as the sine qua non of transformation.” I still believe that leadership matters in the case of Nigeria.

    Ethics also matters, and the major culprit in our development-deficit circumstance is the ego which has become the be-all and end-all in all areas of our lives. Where everyone only looks out for self and no one worries about the collectivity without which the self cannot be, the result is an inadvertent annihilation of the self. More seriously, however, where the focus of the self is the greedy lust for material possession, regardless of considerations of desert, it is easy to see the inescapability of a Hobbesian anarchy of the kind that has characterized the republic thus far.

    Finally, institution matters. Strong and purposeful leaders will create institutions that will outlast them, and ensure that their legacy of discipline and moral probity is immune to destabilization by forces of retrogression. We lack strong institutions because we lack strong and visionary leaders.

    For lacking visionary leadership, ethical consciousness, and strong institutions, Nigeria has yet to make the expected impact in the matter of sustainable development. Yet we have the tools and the potentials. The sleeping giant just has to wake up from slumber.

    Among the tools are traditional ethical and value orientation, including the values of truthfulness, hard work, community and fellow-feeling. Every nationality group in Nigeria has moral resources from its pre-colonial past to dig into and deploy for sustainable development.

    We also have the National Ethics, embedded in the “The Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy” clause of the 1999 Constitution, which includes discipline, integrity, dignity of labour, social justice, religious tolerance, self-reliance, and patriotism. We only need to worker harder to activate these in our national life to secure the future.

    Ooni Ogunwusi has started well in the matter of traditional leadership with the various steps that he has taken. I pray for an abundance of perseverance, consistency, and longevity for him.

  • Rethinking public education in Oyo State

    Today, I offer my two cents on the ongoing dialogue on public education in the pace-setting state of Oyo. I recognise the agony of the Number One citizen of the state, Governor Abiola Ajimobi, on the unacceptable condition of the state’s public institutions and the future of the children that they produce. On this basis, the governor has presented a proposal on the management of schools to education stakeholders. Titled “Participatory Management of Public Schools in Oyo State”, the governor made it clear that it is “still an initiative, not yet a policy.” It is incumbent on every responsible citizen to contribute to the shaping of a progressive educational policy out of the initiative or to suggest alternative initiatives.

    There are two different issues that demand our attention. The first is the matter of form. Then, there is the question of substance. By form, I mean the process or the means of approach to the initiative. Is it democratic or dictatorial? Is it imposed without discussion or is it adopted as a consensus after dialogue? Substance refers to the content of the initiative. What are the key provisions of the initiative? One may find an initiative commendable with respect to form but condemnable with regard to substance. The converse is also true. One may commend the substance and reject the form. I would like to speak to both of these issues.

    We cannot overemphasise the importance of education as an indispensable factor in the development of nations and individuals. Beside the fact that education is a leveller and equaliser, it is also true that the nations that have excelled in development have been the ones that invest heavily in the education of citizens young and old. Examples abound in the East Asian countries that achieved independence at the same time that Nigeria did.

    By the same token, it stands to reason that if a nation is to maximise the full benefits of citizen education, it must deploy ALL its resources and mobilise all its forces—human, material and mental—toward the development and implementation of an optimum education policy. Deploying all forces and mobilising all resources mean engaging all stakeholders in productive dialogue and affording them the opportunity of contributing to the emergence of a policy and program of action which they can all buy into.

    Democracy, which we proudly affirm, functions properly and productively if and when no individual or group is left out of the market place of ideas, and if and when no one approaches that same place with a mentality of “my way or no way.” Democracy rewards open dialogue with near-perfect policy ideas which procure benefits for the greatest number of people.

    However, some entity has to initiate the dialogue. Proposals have to be placed on the table by someone. In a democracy, the entity that is entrusted with the responsibility to direct the affairs of the nation or state is also expected to initiate and lead the dialogue about which direction to go in the matter of the education of citizens. Should it be public or private? Or should we have a combination of both? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each?

    To initiate the dialogue with some ideas placed on the table of ideas does not mean that those ideas are sacrosanct. They are merely the starting point for discussion and other well-reasoned ideas are to be entertained. Between any government and citizens as groups, organisations, special interests, and individuals, this should be an article of faith, a mutually understood procedural template.

    This is precisely my understanding of what Governor Ajimobi tried to do with his administration’s new initiative on the management of public secondary schools in Oyo State. Inviting the public to debate the pros and cons of the initiative is an excellent example of respect for participatory democracy and it is a commendable approach.

    We must acknowledge the interests of segments of the state populations in the matter: parents, teachers, labor, religious groups, and whole communities. A sound education is the means to future happiness of each of these groups and its members. In particular, labor has a stake as parents and workers. Hence the invitation extended to these groups for dialogue.

    It is disturbing that organized labor allegedly decided not to take advantage of the opportunity for dialogue to present a reasoned opposition to the initiative but instead chose to disrupt the stakeholders’ meeting to which it was invited. It is alright to reject a proposal based on any ground of reasoning. But reason also requires that it be done in an atmosphere devoid of intimidation and physical abuse. Going that route is very unfortunate for several reasons, top of which is that it does not bode well for the moral education of the children on behalf of whom we claim to act. For it’s unclear the ways in which the uncontrolled violent aggression of adulthood is better than the temper tantrum of childhood.

    Now to the substance of the governor’s initiative, which I interpret as the force of reality over idealism. The present situation is unacceptable. The state does not have the resources to singly educate her children. Therefore, since it takes a village, she needs partners in the halls of public institutions. But realistically, these partners cannot be expected to act like CARITAS. They need to be incentivized. If they are going to put their resources into funding public education as government partners, there must be some return.

    Children in such collaboratively managed schools may have to pay some fees for their education that will not apply to children in pure public schools. And for many citizens, this doesn’t go well with their idealistic view of free education of all children by the state. Of course, there are still going to be purely private schools, including, ironically, the one established by the National Union of Teachers (NUT). Surprisingly, no one has sensed any contradiction in that venture.

    I find myself torn in this matter. I have an abiding belief in the responsibility of the nation to provide good education for its children. But the state has to have the resources to discharge this responsibility. Where the resources are unavailable, we must ask serious questions regarding why? And there are multiple culprits including limited tax base; tax fraud by businesses and individuals; inability of states to tax personal and business properties; proliferation of public institutions with avoidable running costs; low workforce productivity, etc.

    The fact is that there has always been a combination of school models even prior to the beginning of the first republic. When free education was introduced in the former Western Nigeria, there were public institutions, private schools, and grants-in-aid mission schools, including, Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, Anglican, Christ Apostolic, African Church, Ansar-Ud-Deen, Ahmadiyya, Nawar-Ud-Deen, etc.

    These schools charged fees and received grants from the government which moderated the amount of tuition they charged. When such schools, including the purely private-for-profit schools, were taken over in 1975 by the federal government, many objected that it was a wrong step since the mission schools were doing a great service at moderate cost to the state and parents. Indeed, those grants-in-aid institutions were quasi-public institutions.

    In response, therefore, to the governor’s clarion call for input, my humble suggestion in the face of the reality that the state is faced with is this. The five models of collaborative partnership enunciated in the initiative document need to be packaged into one model. If it is going to be structured more like the grants-in-aid institutions of old, then it needs more tweaking and cropping.

    On the other hand, however, it makes sense to start small by inviting the former proprietors of grants-in-aid institutions to negotiate a new partnership arrangement. Those missions and communities that are so interested in the education of children may be requested to provide infrastructure and facilities management, while the state is responsible for the training, recruitment and payment of teachers. Those schools still bear the names of their various founders. It is time for the progenitors to shoulder some responsibility for the maintenance and upkeep of their adorable babies.

  • Addressing political violence (For Kudirat Abiola)

    Addressing political violence (For Kudirat Abiola)

    This Saturday marks the 20th anniversary of the martyrdom of Alhaja Kudirat Abiola. She did not volunteer her life to be ended by the assassin’s bullet. Rather they killed her because they believed that she was in their way. What she stood for was antithetical to their belief. She stood for democracy and respect for the voice of the people freely expressed. They stood for dictatorship and the muzzling of the voice of the people with the gun. The only way they knew to deal with that situation of opposing views on the best form of government or approach to governance was by violently silencing her.

    Kudirat Abiola was not the first to suffer that fate. In the first and second republics, intolerance of opposing political views and positions claimed the lives of many innocent citizens. And when we include the mother of all political violence-the insane fratricidal war- it is beyond doubt that we are in a special league of irrational politics in which reason plays a subsidiary role to emotion.

    Alhaja Abiola has not been the last either. Since the beginning of the Fourth Republic, we have seen an escalation of political assassination across the board of political party platforms. From ANPP Chieftain Marshall Harry to Attorney-General Bola Ige and Engineer Funsho Williams, political assassination has been the norm in the so-called new dispensation.

    How do we make sense of this irrationality? Let me admit that it begs the question to suggest that it is irrational to engage in political violence. For we have to first understand what is irrational in the behavior or practice. For those politicians who deem violence the most efficient and effective means to the end they desire, it may be the height of rationality if in fact it is truly efficient and effective. This cannot be determined in the abstract. Therefore, for them, we cannot pronounce the irrationality of political violence a priori.

    On the other hand, if you believe, as I do, that certain conducts are irrational no matter the contribution they make to the realization of a desired end, then, you might be persuaded to agree that political violence is irrational. To make sense of this claim, we need only to ask ourselves the question posed by the Golden Rule: how would I like it if I was the recipient? What if it happened to me? And if we are not willing to be the recipient, but we choose to inflict violence on others, to that extent we are irrational because we are not consistent in what we will for others and what we will for self. Inconsistency and irrationality are identical twins.

    Political violence is irrational to the extent that none of its perpetrators will it for themselves. So the obvious question is “why inflict it on others?

    There are several answers to this question. There are two categories of agents of political violence. First there are state agents, those who wield state power, claim the protection of the state and claim to act in the interest of the state. And while the law or the constitution does not offer them any protection, they claim it anyway, with the connivance of other agents of state, especially the judiciary. In the darks days of military dictatorship, separation of power was a myth as the maximum ruler held sway over all levers of power. Therefore, what the constitution doesn’t permit is doneanyway, or the constitution itself is suspended.

    It was, therefore, easy for the dictator and his agents to commit evil against whoever was perceived to stand in their way. They had the raw power and no one can ask questions. It was state terrorism. It was the kind of power that even traditional rulers in our monarchical past did not possess because, at least in Yorubaland, these rulers had to contend with a number of checks and balances.

    Beside the state agents, there are those who aspire to become state agents. In a democratic system, the ballot box is the tool for the choice of rulers. This means that prospective rulers have to canvass the support of the electorates. Where freedoms of choice and association are respected values, and the humanity of everyone is recognized, this practice offers itself as the best. But not everyone respects the humanity of others, and certainly there are free citizens who are only too willing to deny the freedom of others. For them, placing their policy platforms before the electorate to compete with those of their opponents is just too much when they can sponsor violent attacks against them and their supporters.

    We all probably understand even if we do not endorse the motivations of these two sponsors of political violence—state agents and prospective state agents. There is a third category, namely the human tools and instruments that they use. Abacha didn’t go out himself to fire the shot that took the life of Alhaja Abiola. And those that pumped bullets into the body of Chief Ige and waited to see him breath his last, were different from those who really wanted him dead and sponsored his murder.

    These instruments and tools in the hands of the big bosses are the wretched of our earth. They entertain no qualm to kill for money. They make themselves available for the highest bidder. But who gets into this kind of “kill for money” business? The answer is not far-fetched. They are the ones created by the policies and practices of state agents who ride into power with the help of willing tools who inflict violence on the innocent. And as long as these state agents get their way, they will always willingly and deliberately produce willing tools to do their dirty jobs.

    Beside the state agents, aspiring state agents and their murderous willing tools, however, there are the enablers who encourage the actors either by their staying silent in the face of evil or by actively rewarding evil with their votes. Enablers are as morally culpable as the perpetrators of violence and together they account for the untimely deaths of thousands of innocent human beings in the last twenty-three years, excluding the first and second republics.

    Unfortunately, we cannot wish away political violence as long as the conditions for its existence in our body politics subsist. These include, first, mass unemployment of youths and young adults who willing tools simply because the big men they work for have the means to hire them.

    Second is the promising prospect of easy money in national politics. As governors, senators,representatives, and local government chairmen are seen as super-rich and their lifestyle confirms the narrative, many more citizens will be attracted to politics, and to ensure that they have a good shot at positions, they will recruit “boys” to “work” for them.

    Third isthe absence of strong institutions to enforce the laws against political violence. Many victims of political violence either suffer in silence or take to self-help because institutions of law enforcement have been deliberately weakened to the point that they are not capable of performing their constitutional duties. The police tragically take side with any government in power against the dictates of fairness. For politicians of an opposition party to rely on police protection from harm is seen by many of them as the height of folly, if not self-abnegation.

    Can we reverse our culture of political violence? To the extent that it is not an innate tendency of our humanity,and certainly not of our Africanness, one cannot foreclose its reversal. But there has to be a deliberate and sustained effort to humanize our systems and strengthen our institutions. How is this to be done and who is to take charge?

    Politicians have proved ill-equipped because the majority of them benefit from the chaos despite their constitutional obligation. Therefore, morally conscious citizens muststand up and call them out. Alhaja Abiola and other victims of mindless political violence deserve nothing less. For their sake we must address and reverse the culture of political violence. Their martyrdom must not be in vain.

  • The change train: One year later

    The change train: One year later

    One year ago, the Change train left Aversion station. That station was notorious for its numerous undesirables- governance impunity, fantastic corruption, depressed economy, high rate unemployment, gross indiscipline, and generalised moral degeneration. Captained by Engineer Progress, the train, with its over 140 million enthusiastic passengers, headed for Desire station.Draped in banners of hope and clamorous chants of change,they embarked on a four-year ride.

    The Change train targeted Desire station because of its promise of increased prosperity. Engineer Progress had vowed that the prosperity he had in mind for them would be deliveredthrough moral probity in governance, party discipline, compassionate policy choices, diversified economy, and a strong determination to battle wrong, and fight the war against corruption to its logical conclusion.

    In short, captain and passengers saw Desire station as the unparalleled destination for maximum desire- satisfaction. One year into the four-year journey, it makes sense to pause and ask, what has been the experience of the passengers on the Change train? And what is the prospect for the train’s safe arrival and success in realising its goal?

    We must,however, avoid the illusion that everyone on board the Change train had the same motivation or purpose. Indeed, there are good reasons to believe that, as strange as it may sound, not everyone was averse to Aversion station. In the first place, despite its dreaded condition of existence, quite a good number of folks found it appealing because they benefitted from chaos. The Yoruba refer to this group as arijenimadaru, literally “those who feed off of chaos.”For this lot, then, getting on the Change train was a source of apprehension and resentment, especially because of their egoistic reasoning “what can possibly be on this train for me?”

    Second, even for some of those who were not particularly favored at Aversion station, the fear of change could be overwhelming. As they say, the devil you know is better than the angel you don’t know. With that mentality, some who should favor change and get on the train were the most reluctant. Recall the story of the reluctant Hebrews getting out of the land of Egypt. An objective assessment of the performance of the Change train in its journey to Desire station must therefore take cognizance of its reluctant passengers, including some of its technicians, conductors, and makers of its rules.

    This has been a major setback and an ongoing concern for Engineer Progress. It is bearable and manageable if passengers are the issue. They can be reassured through good performance. But if technicians and conductors on the train, who are supposed to be facilitators of the smooth ride, are less than fully engaged, or worse, engaged in activities antithetical to the smoothness of the ride, there is a big deal of a problem.

    It was in the context of such an absence of synergy between the various groups of facilitators that a major derailment occurred just as the train was pulling out of Aversion station.

    The Change train has five cars. EngineerProgress and his navigation experts occupy one. The second car is occupied by those responsible for making rules for the smooth operation of the train and the welfare of passengers. In the third car are the folks responsible for ensuring that the rules are kept and for apportioning punishment in case of infraction.

    The fourth car has the group that facilitates the emergence of the captain and the Change train in the first place. As stakeholders in the success of the journey, they are to provide direction and roadmap for the captain and his team, as well as for the occupants of the second car. The fifth car is occupied by passengers who rely on the expertise and selfless collaboration of the first three and the direction of the fourth to get them to their destination safely.

    Where expertise is in place, but selflessness is missing, ego shows up in a jiffy and takes over, to the detriment of the collective task. That is the reality of our humanity.And this was what caused the derailment, as some of the occupants of the second car prioritized self-interest above collective interest. Sadly, though the cars survived the derailment with little reparable damage to their integrity, the damaged rail lines are still being repaired, almost one year after the onset of its journey, and the train has had to be diverted to a longer route.

    Naturally, passengers are unimpressed and upset. They have goods and services that they have to get to the market at Desire station. They need the supply of raw materials for their businesses. And most importantly, they need the peace of mind that this train is capable of reaching Desire station in one piece.

    On the whole, however, the passengers appear to have confidence in the captain.They chose him over other contestants for the positionbecause of his character, which they admire. But it is human nature to doubt and despair, and when the pocket is in jeopardy of losing its content, it is hard to blame them. They rightly worry about when and how they will get there.

    There is good reason for apprehension. In the train, the innocent passengers are experiencing a lot of hardship. Supplies are getting scarce and expensive. While the captain is methodical and stoical, the passengers feel the pinch of scarce resources and are very unhappy about what they perceive as slow efforts to find them alternative sources to replenish their supplies.They should have been warned that Hardship is a temporary stop on the road to Desire station.

    In his wisdom, the captain once tried to fire the greedy contractors that supply energy to the train so as to save valuable resources. He also promised alternative sources of energy. But despair appears to have set in so much that the passengers do not believe any promises will be fulfilled. There was a semblance of a protest which was quickly put down with the assistance of some of the captain’s co-investors in the Change train.

    In a situation of generalised uncertainty, with everyone struggling for survival, it is natural for there to be suspicion of everyone’s moves. Thomas Hobbes got that right. On board the Change train, passengers are becoming paranoid about each other’s moves. A war of all against all nearly ensued. Passengers are afraid to leave their car in case someone decides to appropriate what is not his. This was especially the case when some found their cubicles in the car less appealing and attempted to help themselves to thespace of other passengers. It nearly got out of hand, but reason prevailed as the rule-making occupants of the second car reassured all passengers.

    The one thing that almost all the passengers trust the captain to do well is fight their cause against those who cheat on board and those who take undue advantage of the chaos in Aversion station to enrich themselves at the expense of others. Even while they moan their hardship, almost all the passengers hail the captain for standing firm on this one issue. For they know that if those stolen resources are recovered and managed well to their advantage, there will be an improvement in their condition and the journey to Desire station will be less arduous, and they can expect to exhale at the end of the ride.

    Of course, this warm feeling and this enthusiastic support for the war the captain has sworn to fight and win is not universal. Again, it is to be expected that those at the other side of the war and their supporters, including those who benefitted from their action, will be against the war.

    But that war is ongoing and the captain is unrelenting. The reason it is important is not just because there must be restitution and recovery of looted funds;it will also serve as deterrence against future occurrence. This is the position of the captain and the stakeholders on the Change train. And with the captain’s determination,the passengers on the Change train can still enthusiastically keep hope alive.

  • Cleaning the subsidy removal muddle

    Cleaning the subsidy removal muddle

    Let us begin with some knowns. First, Nigeria, a giant of OPEC, does not produce enough fossil fuel for the needs of the populace. Second, while the crude oil it produces is dwindling by the day due to sabotage on many fronts, it lacks the facilities to refine the little. Therefore, it has to outsource to more expensive refinery locations. Third, it thus has to rely on importation of refined products with predictable hardship for its poor masses. Fourth, NNPC, the national oil company, does not have adequate resources for importation. Therefore, it relies on oil marketers as contractors. Due to foreign exchange scarcity, the government has had to subsidise the pump price. This much we know.

    Next, to the public at least, there are a few unknowns. First, the pricing of petroleum products by a government agency is arguably a misery. What is the formula? Kerosene, a household product that is used by the poor and needy, has been deregulated, but not petrol. Second, there is confusion in what government has just recently announced through the office of the Minister of State for Petroleum Resources. Is it removal of subsidy? Is it price hike? Is it deregulation? All of the above? A few weeks ago, we were informed that subsidy had been removed and savings were recorded. And as Labour rightly asked, if the market has now been deregulated, why is government fixing price?

    The significance of the unknowns is that they play dangerously into a narrative of confusion that appeared to have characterised the conduct of the petroleum sector since the inception of the new administration.

    No doubt there are real challenges, including the inherited near collapse of the oil sector due to falling crude price and foreign exchange crisis, leading marketers to abandon ship and a consequent scarcity of fuel and long frustrating queues at gas stations nationwide. Though Nigerians are long-suffering, Minister Kachikwu appeared to have drained their reserve of patience with his unguarded “I am no magician” remark. He learned a good lesson in the ethics of servant leadership, and forgiving Nigerians moved on.

    But the challenge of fuel scarcity persisted and appeared to be worsening with the unstable and unpredictable foreign exchange regime. This has certainly led to the decision of the federal government to deregulate and have private entities import and supply fuel to meet the demand of Nigerians. If the decision is to let the market decide, why is that a problem? We saw the effect of the market decision regarding communication. Why are we apprehensive of the market in the case of oil?

    The analogy is not a perfect one. It is commonly believed by Nigerians that oil is our heritage, a common patrimony of sort, a divine endowment that must serve the collective interest of all Nigerians. On the other hand, our mobile devices are privately initiated and the outcome of private investment, deserving to be market-driven in order to reward initiative. What can we really enjoy as the chosen of God with Eden-like provisions if we still pay for oil through the nose?

    It is a good question and those citizens who have called out the administration on the matter are in part coming from a mindset that informs the question. The other part of their concern is their interpretation of government action as “insensitive and untimely”, with “unbearable negative consequences” on the masses. The critics are as ideologically opposite as fire and water. And the reactions are a mix of drama and realism.

    Dino Melaye, a distinguished Senator, member of the President’s party and loyalist of the Senate President gave his party a seven-day ultimatum to reverse the change or he will mobilise for “the mother of all protests.” Shehu Sani, another distinguished Senator of APC, more concerned about the reaction of the administration to Labour’s threat of strike, accused the government of hypocrisy on the grounds that the party supported Labour once when it protested the removal of subsidy and urged the government to stop its “campaign of calumny and blackmail.” These are harsh words from a party man.

    Femi Falana, SAN, a consistent human rights icon, wondered aloud why the need for subsidy removal again within just one month of government announcement that it had removed subsidy and saved $2 billion; had repaired refineries, and pipelines were being put to good use. Beside, Falana argued that increasing fuel price was illegal and unconstitutional because the body legally charged with the regulation of fuel price had not been reconstituted. For him, and for a host of critics, price increase only benefits marketers who also profit from subsidy. The remedy is the full functioning of oil refineries.

    The one body that has unswervingly taken on the role of the solicitor and advocate of the masses is the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC). It is, therefore, no surprise that the organisation was among the first to pick up the fight. But it is also an unpleasant surprise that the labour union has turned out to be a divided house that can’t stand. The first sign of the Tower of Babel scenario was the approval of the increase in oil price by NUPENG and PENGASSAN, two oil sector union members of NLC. Then, of course, the administration deftly exploited the internal crisis within NLC that resulted in its division into two factions. And that appeared enough to kill the proposed strike, leading major media houses to declare the NLC strike proposal as “dead on arrival.”

    Should the strike fail, there is no doubt that it will permanently damage the reputation of NLC and it will hopefully learn a great lesson in organisational solidarity.

    Yet, while government may thus have its way, it also must pay attention to relevant lessons from its actions and policies. First, a progressive party and the government that it leads must treat Labour with respect and courtesy. Labour is the foremost ally of any progressive administration because both are for the masses and the downtrodden. Therefore, they should be partners. It is not expected that every policy of a progressive government will be acceptable to Labour. Nonetheless, mutual respect demands that government dialogues with Labour before the implementation of policies that may affect its members.

    Second, even if it serves a short term interest of government, it is not in its long term interest to alienate Labour or exploit any internal conflicts within its fold. Third, government must not give room for accusations of flip-flopping in policy decisions. The way that the fuel crisis was handled, especially since the beginning of this calendar year, leaves much to be desired. Transparency is the hallmark of a progressive government, which has nothing to hide from its citizens. Therefore, it is important that government levels with the people all the way, no matter what the situation. Claiming to have removed subsidy almost a month before it was actually removed is, to say the least, rather strange.

    Fourth, while the removal of subsidy may not have been avoidable, its timing could have been more smartly planned. Many thoughtful observers have wondered why government did not tarry a bit, release some budget allocations, especially those targeting the poor, and allow the impact to be felt by them before implementing the full weight of subsidy removal. Hindsight, they say, is always 20/20. But now, even after the fact, it is still important that the budgetary palliatives be implemented effectively and monitored efficiently so that the negative effect of fuel price increase does not suppress the positive impact of the palliatives.

    Finally, the faction of the labour union that is in accord with government must have something to show for its “reasonableness” and/or “loyalty” to the “national interest.” Surely, government cannot now reverse itself on subsidy removal. But Labour has proposed a review of the minimum wage, and while government will be hard put to support a minimum wage of N90, 000 or even N56, 000 in the present state of the economy, it cannot deny Labour the right to negotiate on this matter. Fortunately, Comrade Governor Oshiomhole has a track record of successful negotiations.

  • Revisiting the herding challenge

    Revisiting the herding challenge

    Following the President’s public intervention in the precarious situation of herdsmen-farmers conflict, which has resulted in the death of hundreds of Nigerians this year alone, it has become necessary to revisit the matter on which I wrote just a couple of weeks ago. As many informed citizens have confirmed, this has been a perennial national issue, which only just escalated beyond the level of tolerance in the last two or three decades. As it turns out, Mr. President himself had been actively involved in the task of finding a solution to the crisis.

    It may be recalled that at the height of the last presidential campaign, some partisan cliques tried to link then candidate Buhari to the herdsmen-family crisis in OkeOgun.They accused him of calling on Oyo State to stop the harassment of herdsmen by local farmers in the area. Those who raised this as a campaign issue sought to paint the APC standard-bearer in a very bad ethnocentric light. It didn’t work.The reason it didn’t work was that voters were just done with the last administration.

    Now, as the nation’s leader with a huge responsibility for peaceful coexistence among its people, President Buhari has decided that it is time to find a lasting solution to the crisis, which has the potential of tearing the nation apart. He knows that it is not a north-south quarrel. It is also not a Christian-Muslim conflict. It is an economic conflict that pits crop farmers against livestock farmers. Farmers in the northern zones are even hit harder because of their location. There have been scholarly studies of the conflict in Yobe, Borno, Plateau, Benue and other states in the zone. The loss of farm crops to cattle breeders and the loss of cattle to rustlers are just aspects of the incessant conflict.

    It is in the light of the seriousness of the issue that the President’s decision to intervene must be commended. Not that he has an option. After all, he swore to an oath to promote the security of citizens and the unity of the nation. And where the livelihood of citizens is jeopardised, there is potential for violence, which has been demonstrated beyond doubt.

    But what is Mr. President’s solution? Back in his Petroleum Trust Fund (PTF) days, there was a study and a report on how to resolve the incessant herdsmen-farmers conflict. That study had recommended the establishment of grazing reserves and stock routes throughout the country. Parcels of land were to be mapped out and taken over by the central government and routes were to be created from north to south. This cannot be left to state or local government because as Mr. Muhammad Bello, the Secretary General of Miyetti Cattle Breeders Association of Nigeria revealed in a Premium Times interview, the Nigerian government has a treaty with other countries in the West African region for the facilitation of economic movement across the region. I suspect the reference is to ECOWAS.

    ECOWAS has generated an influx of cattle herdsmen from neighbouring countries traversing the Nigerian landscape for grass and water for their cattle. Because of the treaty, the federal government has responsibility to sister governments to keep their citizens safe and provide for their economic needs. Mr. Bello conceded that in the First Republic, government charged cattle tax but that no one now pays cattle tax. Yet the federal government has responsibility to provide cattle breeders with cattle feed and water for which there is no return to government. In fairness to Mr. Bello, his argument is that cattle breeders do not pay cattle tax because they have not been receiving any service. Therefore, if government were to provide them with grazing fields and veterinary services, they would be sufficiently responsible to reciprocate.

    The PTF study and report to which Mr. President has referred governors and the Minister of Agriculture apparently anticipated Mr. Bello’s position that grazing reserves must be carved out throughout the country.

    Though the story about the ministry’s decision to set up a committee on the matter first broke last July, it did not receive a wide publicity until recently. Various media outlets reported at that time that the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Mr. Sonny Ochono, announced that the Federal Government had set aside over N1 billion as compensation for farmers who were affected by recent clashes with herdsmen and that more than N310 million had been disbursed to farmers in Kano, Plateau and Bauchi.

    Mr. Ochono also announced the inauguration of “a Committee on Strategic Action Plan for the Development of Grazing Reserves and Stock Routes Nationwide.” He stated at that time that the ministry was acting on the directive of Mr. President. He also stated that the incessant clashes “necessitated Mr. President to direct the ministry to consider the recommendations of the studies commissioned by the PTF and the Northern Governors Forum on the same subject with a view to developing a pragmatic strategic action plan for the development of grazing reserves and stock routes nationwide.” The ultimate objective was to “develop strategic recommendations that will end the persistent farmers and herdsmen conflicts in the country.” This was reported fully by Nigerian Tribune of July 13, 2015.

    It would appear from the terms of reference of the committee that the establishment of grazing reserves was a fait accompli. The name of the committee reveals this much. It has also been confirmed that a bill on the establishment of grazing reserves was introduced in the 7th National Assembly, but it was rejected by the Senate. No effort has been made to reintroduce it in the current Senate.

    Fast forward to 2016. Mr. President made a case for grazing reserves and stock routes, citing the same PTF study. He even revealed that the PTF Report mapped out areas for grazing reserves and stock routes, but that the rich and powerful politicians took over the various lands for themselves. My reading of the President’s remark is that he is all for grazing reserves. With due respect to him, it is not a good idea and it will not work. The federal government has no authority over land. State governments do and they keep the land in trust for the people and for projects that are of common developmental interests.

    Herding or cattle breeding is NOT a COMMON developmental project. Like crop breeding, cattle breeding is PRIVATE BUSINESS. Crop farmers buy their farmland or lease it from government. This is what cattle breeders must do. Nomadism is not a cultural tradition that must be preserved at the cost of national unity.

    The current Minister of Agriculture, a farmer of immense experience, and his team have also been rubbing mind on this issue. As reported by Premium Times of May 11, the ministry has proposed ranches as opposed to grazing reserves and stock routes. As noted by Mr. Lokpobiri, who represented Minister Audu Ogbeh at the Senate hearing on the matter, “The nomadic nature of cattle rearing in Nigeria make (sic) the cattle less productive. In other countries, the cows do not move; they are kept in ranches and so they are very productive.”

    Continuing, Mr. Lokpobiri wondered aloud: “They used to argue that nomadic cattle rearing is a tradition but we have to ask, as a tradition, is it profitable to the rearers; is it sustainable in the modern realities?” These are excellent questions for proponents of grazing reserves and stock route. But there is at least one very important question: With what rationale and what justification will the federal government acquire land from any state government for grazing reserves and stock route? Pray with what justification other than naked and brutish use of federal might?

    The cattle herded by the poor and wretched are owned by rich and powerful individuals who can afford to buy or lease land for private ranching. They can afford to grow nutritious grass to feed their cattle. Why impose that responsibility on states when the venture is a private one? As a matter of justice and fair-play, in the interest of peace and harmony, private ranching for cattle breeding is the most reasonable policy option.

  • The imperative of change

    The imperative of change

    Opalaba asked me the other day how I would describe my experience of change almost one year to its introduction into our political lexicon. Perceiving a deviously laid trap, I cleverly wiggled out. “What is your definition of change? What does it involve?” I asked him.

    “For me, it is simple. Change is the movement from an undesirable to a desirable state of affairs”, my friend responded. And on my part, I thought that I got him. So I agreed. “In that case, while there is still a lot to do, I can say that change is happening.”

    “Sure, I guess you could say that” Opalaba intoned. But I knew that what was coming after was going to be damning in the least. So I hit back first.

    “You cannot combine certainty with doubt in the same breath. You are either sure or you are guessing” I volunteered.

    “Your grammatical sensitivity, my foot”, Opalaba shot back. “This is serious business and you better see it as such. For the very future of progressive politics is at stake. What I am witnessing is different than what you choose to see.”

    My friend opined that it was not enough to define change as he did. “It is also important to give the conditions for its possibility. Leadership is important. Change requires leaders with the strong will and determination to go the whole length no matter what. Successful change requires humility and respect for the people, taking account of their suggestions and sensibilities. If change is meant for the good of the people, their voice deserves to be heard in the process of effecting change.”

    Opalaba then lounged into a litany of complaints. He acknowledged the fact that the government of change inherited too many undesirables, including executive impunity, legislative licence, institutionalised corruption, ethnicised politics, inflation, unemployment, wage compression, infrastructure decay, value deficit, violent clashes, etc.

    My friend observed that in the best of times, with a robust forex earnings capacity, the inherited pit is too deep for the nation to climb out of. In the regime of harsh economic realities, it is simply Herculean. But this is hard to explain to the victim of untold poverty and unbearable suffering. While the masses of our people are unemployed or self-employed in drudgery, the country in general, and the media in particular, does not appear to be perturbed by the condition of the wretched of the earth in our midst. Yet homelessness, hunger, and disease have been their portion in recent times.

    Resentful of the advantaged position enjoyed by the well-positioned, Opalaba observed that we know more about the undesirable condition of public servants who are owed months of salary payments because they have the voice to make their case and they have labour unions to fight their cause. But we do not have a union of the unemployed and the homeless. Yes, these have advocates in NGOs, but these are too busy on the large issues- the root causes—to bother about the surface matters of immediate need for food and shelter.

    Talking about wages, Opalaba agreed that “labour deserves its reward.” He noted that part of the challenges that the nation must face squarely is the impact of centralisation on the ability of states and local governments, the largest employers of labour, to meet their obligations. We have a system that centrally imposes financial obligations on states without taking into consideration their differing abilities. What is more absurd, the system that imposes uniform wages throughout the country’s public system doesn’t take account of the differing cost of living between Lagos and Lokoja or between Port Harcourt and Potiskum.

    “The consequence could not have been any different from what we have or less devastating. States devote 80 per cent to 90 per cent of their revenue to workers’ salary, leaving 10 per cent to 20 per cent for developmental projects. Of course, the rest of the population have a right to complain when roads are impassable or they have no access to drinking water or they have no effective protection against kidnappers and armed robbers or violent herdsmen because of an inadequate security regime.”

    But while the foregoing are issues of immediate concern, my friend was concerned that the people are being let down by the apparent absence of willingness to deal with them head-on. As he put it, “one expects that an issue that stands in the way of a progressive administration’s effective delivery of pledged services to the people would be its foremost concern. The assumption is that upon securing power, a progressive party that presides over the executive and legislative branches of government will make government restructuring for effectiveness a priority. That this has not been an urgent concern of the new administration in its first year is unfortunate and shameful.”

    As I urged him to clear his mind and assured him of my listening ears, he fired on. “In the matter of what is preventing a robust engagement with the serious and fundamental issues of refocusing government on its real mission your guess is as good as mine.” When I retorted that I didn’t have a clue, Opalaba struggled to avoid my distraction but simply cleared his throat and continued.

    “The progressive government at the centre took off on wobbly and crippled limbs. Things fell apart from the beginning due to insatiable greed and oversized ambition. The effort that should be focused on progress for the nation was spent on scheming the political survival of individuals. And in a bizarre turn of events, the government of change is on a collision course with reason. Or is it rational for an entity that is not suicidal to create the suitable condition for its demise?”

    “From the fight over position to the unabashed declaration of solidarity with a leader in contempt of the people, to the messy handling of the budget, there is too much noxious air in the political landscape. Disenchantment with the ruling party in its first year is evident around”, my friend declared.

    But he was not done: “One year into the progressive administration, the signs are terribly ominous. As if the gods are aligned against progress, agents of retrogression are on prowl. Taking on these evil agents and fighting them to the ground will take the strong will of the Primus inter pares whose charisma and past achievement catapulted back to power.”

    “Why is this an important task? In 1999, progressives claimed the six states of the Southwest. They embarked on great progressive policy implementation based on the cardinal programmes of education, health, rural development and employment. Their party did not control the centre. They relied mostly on federal allocation. Federal might was deployed against them, especially from 2002.

    “Of course, they also got carried away by primordial instinct syndrome. Relishing the fact that the president was a son of the soil, they promoted him beyond reason and got whacked by him. Abandoning the principle that brought you to power and running after chimera does not go unnoticed by the savvy electorate and the mischievous opponents who exploit electorate apathy to rig elections. It happened in 2003. And it can happen in 2019”, Opalaba, the mystic, warned.

    “Those who must worry about such a repetition of history are irrationally cutting their nose to spite their face. They are gearing up for 2019 even when they are not perturbed about 2016. But if they are not part of the solution of the challenges of 2016, do the pseudo progressives expect their party to be taken seriously in 2019? And if it is not taken seriously by voters who loathe disappointment, what’s the expectation of these ambitious politicians and what is their prospect of doing well in the polls in 2019? Unless of course their plan is to jump party ship again in 2019 as some of them did in 2014.”

    With an air of finality and arrogance that I have always despised, Opalaba fired the parting shot. “Just know that my fellow-citizens are now in the driver’s seat of electoral politics. Get your act right or be prepared to be booted out” Ouch!!! A classic fiend, he is!