The Nation Newspaper

Category: Segun Gbadegesin

  • Still a question of structure

    Still a question of structure

    Long-distance penmanship has its strains and stresses, not the least of which is limited control over time and logistics. The piece that came out last week was the wrong one, and careful readers must have noticed its uncharacteristic incoherence. My apologies! Here’s the correct one.

    The burning question before the National Conference is “what structure?” Thus far, however, President Goodluck Jonathan’s speech has taken a chunk of attention. But there has been more of commendation than analysis or debate. It is to be expected and the President must be very pleased. I only hope that in our native hagiographic tendencies, we do not lose sight of the basics. The President wants delegates to his conference to remake Nigeria in a way that enables her to fulfill what he regards as her destiny. Time is running out already.

    While I appreciate the caliber and antecedents of a sizeable number of the delegates to this conference and have no reason to doubt the integrity of many more, I am not very optimistic about the outcome. This is because of the mixed signals coming from the groups and entities that matter. One day, we are told that the conference’s resolutions will be subject to a referendum of all citizens. The next day, we are informed that there is no enabling law and the conference resolutions must have to go before the National Assembly and be debated as amendments to the constitution. I am wondering if our privileged legislators have seriously entertained the question of whether the fundamental question of “what structure?” is fixable by way of amendments.

    Of course, fixing anything by a patchwork of amendments is not utterly inconceivable. The challenge, however, is that if such amendments are extensive enough to cover all flaws, we may end up having the semblance of a completely new constitution. Isn’t it better then to discard an ill-fitting outfit than go through a process of alterations that destroy its beauty?

    But there is, at least, one more important consideration than the aesthetics of constitutional amendment. No matter how we dress it up with the fanciful language of legitimacy, it is obvious that the 1999 Constitution was an imposition by a military clique bent on having its will after a self-inflicted indictment in the court of the people. The fact that the nation has been contemptuously made to put up with it for the last 14 years simply shows the pretentiousness of its “democratic” awakening.

    It should have been a triumph of the people’s will over the dictatorship of the gun if in 1999, elected representatives opted for a new beginning that prioritises a genuine constitution of the people by the people and for the people. It didn’t happen because those who found themselves beneficiaries of the people’s revolution from 1993 to 1998 were not representatives of the people but sympathisers of the military cabal and its civilian clique. The long and short of the matter then is that a military-imposed democratic constitution is an absurdity that has to be excised.

    What has made governance in Nigeria ineffective and thoroughly detestable in the last fourteen years? I don’t know of any reasonable analysis that focuses on just one causal factor. There is a multiplicity of factors, including bad leadership, docile followership, poor accountability regime and an inadequate constitutional arrangement. However, since it is the foundation of all other factors, the constitution has a pride of place in the constellation of factors for the explanation of bad governance.

    For instance, the immunity clause in the constitution explains why bad leaders are difficult to get rid of. The revenue allocation formula ensures that the states are beggars at the table of the federal government, meaning effectively that a greedy governor with no moral qualm only has to be a mainstreamer and all is well for him. But that doesn’t translate to a buoyant welfare scheme for his people. Witnessing the opulence that is displayed in Abuja and the developmental eye-sore that confronts them from the Creeks to the Sahel, militancy has an unusual, if deadly, appeal to the hopeless youth.

    But there are reasonable people who think that the constitution is alright and the revenue formula is sacred. Former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s so-called National Political Reform Conference in Abuja of 2005 brought to light the sharp divisions among its component parts that this country has yet to overcome after fifty years of coexistence. What the North wanted, the South was against and vice-versa. It then appeared that the unity of the country was jeopardised more after the conference than before. Of course, as it turned out, there was a hidden presidential agenda that finally nailed the coffin of the conference.

    By putting it this way, however, we do a lot of injustice to ourselves. For it appears we blame ourselves for what others before us have not been able to achieve due to no fault of theirs. Scotland and England have been together for far longer and they cannot boast of eliminating divisions. The last elections showed that the Scottish National Party won more votes in Scottish Parliament than the Labor Party and may now opt for independence from the United Kingdom at the next opportunity. So divisions in a multi-national state are not abnormal and, indeed, they should be the foundation of our constitutional arrangements. This is the merit of a genuine federal system which we do not now have.

    This time around, it appears that some consensus is gradually emerging among delegates over the centrality of the question of structure. Speaker after speaker across the regions and zones have observed that our “fake federalism” is the bane of our ideals of democratic pluralism and national unity. Northern leaders, including delegates and non-delegates, have presented reasonable ideas to move the nation forward. We have heard about northern losses under the present yoke of unitarism. We have listened to the Middle Belt delegates and the leaders of the Southsouth. I have not read of any submissions from any of the speakers thus far hailing the present structure. This is a far cry from 2005 when the Northern position was firmly against any form of restructuring and all it wanted was to strengthen and re-affirm the corporate existence of Nigeria as an indivisible, indissoluble and plural national state under a Federal System, comprising three tiers of government – Federal, 36 states and 774 local governments.

    Of course, there is still a long road ahead. And while a good number of delegates favor restructuring, it is still not clear what each means or understands by that concept. The devil of what comes next is in the details of the proposals from zonal representatives and ethnic nations.

    How, for instance, would the idea of making geo-political zones the federating units be taken by the conference? Considering how statist we have all become and how jealously each state guards its mythical autonomy, I cannot even contemplate the reaction of state delegates, including those from zones that make it their foremost proposal. Yet, it is an idea that has to be given serious consideration because the state structure is clearly not working.

    Another hot button issue is resource control. While Section 44 (1.3) of the 1999 Constitution provides that the Federal Government should “hold in trust, control and facilitate the exploration and exploitation of all mineral resources in the country”, the provision has been a source of national malaise which has to be addressed and resolved. It is what makes the central government so arrogant and out of touch. And it accounts for the attraction of the center to treasury looters and political pirates. If we want a nation that prides itself in the strength of its component parts, and through their strength is also made strong, then we need to revisit the question of fiscal federalism and resource control.

    These two issues—regionalism and resource control—are capable of turning around our national fortune and creating a nation of patriots. The ball is in the court of conference delegates. But assume that they do their part, will their resolutions become law? Will we have a new constitution? Or will this exercise end in the way of others?

  • It’s the structure, stupid!

    It’s the structure, stupid!

    It is the burning question; the snake on the rooftop; the five hundred pound gorilla in the room. It is the zillion naira question that we choose to ignore at the nation’s peril. It is the fundamental question of “what structure?”

    President Goodluck Jonathan’s speech is still being analysed. There has been more of commendation than analysis or debate. It is to be expected and the President must be very pleased. I only hope that in our native hagiographic disposition, we do not lose sight of the basics. The President wants delegates to his conference to remake Nigeria in a way that enables her to fulfill what he regards as her destiny. And time is running out already.

    While I appreciate the caliber and antecedents of a sizeable number of the delegates to this conference and have no reason to doubt the integrity of many more, I am not very optimistic about the outcome. This is because of the mixed signals coming from the groups and entities that matter. One day, we are told that the conference’s resolutions will be subject to a referendum of all citizens. On yet another day, we are informed that there is no enabling law and the conference resolutions must have to go before the National Assembly and debated as amendments to the constitution. I am wondering if our privileged legislators have seriously entertained the question of whether the fundamental question of “what structure?” is fixable by way of amendments.

    Of course, fixing anything by a patchwork of amendments is not utterly inconceivable. The challenge however is that if such amendments are extensive enough to cover all flaws, we may end up having the semblance of a completely new constitution. Isn’t it better then to discard an ill-fitting outfit than go through a process of alterations that destroy its beauty?

    But there is at least one more important consideration than the aesthetics of constitutional amendment. In the first place, no matter how we dress it up with the fanciful language of legitimacy, it is obvious that the 1999 Constitution was an imposition by a military clique bent on having its will after a self-inflicted indictment in the court of the people. The fact that the nation has been contemptuously made to put up with it for the last 14 years simply shows the pretentiousness of its “democratic” awakening.

    It should have been a triumph of the people’s will over the dictatorship of the gun if in 1999, elected representatives opted for a new beginning that prioritises a genuine constitution of the people by the people and for the people. It didn’t happen because those who found themselves beneficiaries of the people’s revolution from 1993 to 1998 were not representatives of the people but sympathisers of the military cabal and its civilian clique. The long and short of the matter then is that a military-imposed democratic constitution is an absurdity that has to be excised.

    What has made governance in Nigeria ineffective and thoroughly detestable in the last fourteen years? I don’t know of any reasonable analysis that focuses on just one causal factor. There is a multiplicity of factors, including bad leadership, docile followership, poor accountability regime and an inadequate constitutional arrangement. However, since it is the foundation of all other factors, the constitution has a pride of place in the constellation of factors for the explanation of bad governance.

    For instance, the immunity clause in the constitution explains why bad leaders are difficult to get rid of. The revenue allocation formula ensures that the states are beggars at the table of the federal government, meaning effectively that a greedy governor with no moral qualm only has to be a mainstreamer and all is well for him. But that doesn’t translate to a buoyant welfare scheme for his people. Witnessing the opulence that is displayed in Abuja and the developmental eye-sore that confronts them in the creeks, militancy has an unusual, if deadly, appeal to the hopeless youth.

    But there are reasonable people who think that the constitution is alright and the revenue formula is sacred.

    In 2005, former President Obasanjo organised the National Political Reform Conference in Abuja. It turned out, as we now know, that it was a ruse; and there was a hidden agenda in spite of his declaration of “no hidden agenda”. But that conference brought to light the sharp divisions among its component parts that this country has yet to overcome after fifty years of coexistence.

    By putting it this way, however, we do a lot of injustice to ourselves. For it appears we blame ourselves for what others before us have not been able to achieve due to no fault of theirs. Scotland and England have been together for far longer and they cannot boast of eliminating divisions. The last elections showed that the Scottish National Party won more votes in Scottish Parliament than the Labor Party and may now opt for independence from the United Kingdom at the next opportunity. So divisions in a multi-national state are not abnormal and, indeed, they should be the foundation of our constitutional arrangements. This is the merit of a genuine federal system which we do not now have.

    This time, it appears that consensus is gradually emerging over the question of structure

    I seek indulgence to refer to six fundamental proposals made by the Northern States at the 2005 conference. First, the Northern states recommended “that the Conference should endeavour to strengthen and re-affirm the corporate existence of Nigeria as an indivisible, indissoluble and plural national state under a Federal System, comprising three tiers of government, Federal, 36 states and 774 local governments.” Second, the Northern states opted to “reject in its entirety any attempt to convert the (geo-political) zones into regions and any reference to them as such should be expunged in any official document…”

    Third, the North insisted that the “concept of rotational presidency among the so-called zones should be discarded as it is subject to manipulation and abuse by unpatriotic Nigerians. It is neither in our constitution nor in our electoral laws.” But, fourth, the North went on to recommend that the “Presidency should rotate between the North and the South and this time around (2005) it is the turn of the North.”

    Fifth, the North suggested “that constitutional provision needs to be made for rotation within the states to provide opportunity to the various minority groups have (sic) access to the position of governorship within the states and to give them a sense of belonging.”

    Sixth, on resource control, the North chose to “stand by the constitutional provision that the Federal Government should hold in trust, control and facilitate the exploration and exploitation of all mineral resources in the country as enshrined in Section 44 (1.3) of the 1999 Constitution.”

    Clearly, these proposals go to the route of the challenges facing the nation. The Northern states are aware of competing positions which call into question the legitimacy of those constitutional provisions they revere; and, starting from next week, I intend to interrogate them with alternative visions. Meanwhile, I submit that the issues cannot be resolved by the National Assembly whose members have sworn to protect the very constitution that is being challenged. Furthermore, it is unrealistic to expect that constitutional amendments, which only deal with the facade, can correct the foundational problem of national existence. And this underscores the wisdom of the proposal for a Sovereign National Conference to deal with the fundamental question of structure.

  • National interest

    National interest

    The National Conference is under way. Delegates represent a variety of interest groups-ethnic nations, professional associations, trade associations, political office holders, political parties, student groups, among others. Every group, but especially the ethnic nations, has interests to protect and promote. Thus far, this has played itself out in the matter of the adoption of procedural rules. Thanks to the wisdom of the elders, it did not explode. The expectation of the president as convener is for delegates to think of and privilege the national interest in all their deliberations to the point that were there to be a conflict between the private interest and the national interest, the latter must prevail.

    The question that has not been addressed is “what is the national interest?” and how does a delegate or group of delegates know it when an issue is presented to them for deliberation and decision? Take a concrete example: Whether they are for it or against it, resource control is certainly a burning issue in the minds of many delegates and the groups that they represent and it will surely come up in the following weeks or months. What exactly is the national interest in this matter? And how might a delegate be guided by considerations of national interest in his or her contributions on the matter?

    This is an age-old issue.In the age of monarchical rule that preceded our republican constitution, the national (aka community) interest was variously interpreted depending on the balance of power in the community. With a powerful ruler, the community was the king. This was what Louis XIV of France meant with his infamous “L’ tat, c’est moi” (I am the State) declaration. He meant he was the absolute ruler who had the authority to determine what the national interest was. That was not the case in most traditional Yoruba communities where the king was surrounded by a traditional council of chiefs capable of dethroning him and requesting his demise. Our military past was not radically different from the Sun King’s idea of the state as the property of the ruler. While one single military ruler may not have been in a position to make that claim, the supreme military councils came close, if not in words, at least in practice. They determined what the national interest was. That explained why a nation that deliberately went for a federal structure at the dawn of independence was transformed into a unitary system almost overnight.

    Thankfully, we passed that stage, and I am confident that no delegate to the National Conference would wish the country go back to the era of dictatorial pronouncements on national interest in our new, even if imperfect, democratic setting. If this optimism is shared by all, the question then is “what is the national interest and how is it to be determined?

    A simple answer is that the national interest is NOT the interest of an abstract entity called the nation because there is no such abstract entity. The nation is “US”, the flesh and blood human beings that make it up. Our interests constitute the interest of the nation, that is, our interest, if you forgive the tautology. An abstract entity doesn’t have an interest simply because an interest is something that only sentient beings have.An interest is a generalised means of satisfying our wants. It is what Philosopher Rawls refers to as “primary goods.” In this sense, a foremost interest of any one citizen of this great country is security. For security is a generalised means of satisfying each citizen’s wants. And this explains why when government fails to provide adequate security, individuals find their own ways of ensuring security for themselves and their families.

    We engage in myth-making when we proffer the idea that there is some “national interest” located in some ethereal realm beyond the loci of individual interests. Surely, the interests that we have as individuals are many and may run into conflict. For a politician to win an election his opponent has to lose and the satisfaction of one interest cancels out the other. What should not be lost out of consideration in this apparent conflict of interest situation is that they both have a common interest in the system of elections.

    National interest, then, is nothing more than the common interests of the nationals. Nigeria is a nation of individuals and groups. President Jonathan invited these groups and individuals to meet to fashion out a road map for the Nigeria of their dreams. They will come, indeed must come, to the conference hall with their various interests at the top of their minds. To expect the opposite-that they will drop their individual and group interests at the entrance to the conference hall-is to expect a miracle. It will not happen.

    What we can expect, and must demand of the delegate, is to be prepared to negotiate in good faith, focusing more on their common interests than on the divergent wants and desires. For it is the nature of interests that each is capable of serving as the means of satisfying many divergent wants and desires.

    Let us take the extreme example of resource control. The question is how has the policy of federalising or centralising the control of resources served individuals, states, and communities well in the almost fifty years since it has been adopted as national policy in the “national interest?” We know that prior to 1966 every state was almost, if not totally, financially solvent. Each was doing well educationally and industrially. We adopted resource control as a means to uniting the country and we ended up with resentment and visible division along ethnic nationality lines. None, except those closest to power at the center, can claim to have benefitted from the policy of nationalising resources. The dictate of our common interest as national interest appears clear in this regard.

    How about security? I must assume also that there was good intention behind the centralisation of security. Fractious political climate in the First Republic was a serious concern for the military leaders that took over. Of course, it was under their watch that hell broke loose and a civil war ensued. Their prescription for unity and peace was for the central government to take charge of security because the states were “politicising” police functions. We continue to hear this same charge even when it seems clear that the federal government cannot conscientiously absolve itself of culpability in the matter of politicising the police. Since we all have a common interest in adequate security of life and property, delegates must set aside their political affiliations and come to an agreement on the decentralisation of the police with effective antidotes against politicisation.

    Education is another area of interest and it should be clear that every group and family have an interest in good education for their children. But it is an understatement that our educational system has crumbled completely under the weight of over-centralisation. The president recently expressed his frustration with state governors for not doing much about primary and secondary education while expressing satisfaction with the federal government’s handling of tertiary education. We know, however, that the number of universities established by the federal government is just one aspect of the story. Another aspect deals with how these institutions are faring. What types of students are they producing? Do they have the resources they need to do their job well? Delegates to the national conference have a responsibility to rub minds on this important issue of how best to educate our children and prepare them for the 21st century economy.

    Finally, it all boils down to national (common) interests in the issue of restructuring the country.If we ask the question: which individual, group, ethnic nation, religious group or denomination, gender is benefitting from the present centralisation of resources and administration of the country since 1966, I am sure only a few citizens can answer in the affirmative. The North has clearly stated that it has suffered more than other regions with the present arrangement. It is time then to let our common interests, rather than our fear of the unknown, chart the course of the future. This is national interest.

  • President Jonathan’s parallel messages

    President Jonathan’s parallel messages

    My intention in the next few weeks, other things being equal, is to follow the schedule of the National Conference. Last week, before its adjournment for logistic reasons, Conference leaders alerted the public to its agenda. It would start the conference with a discussion of President Jonathan’s address at the inauguration of the conference on Monday, March 17, 2014. This is commendable. It is Mr. President’s conference and there is no doubt that his vision for the conference and his hopes for a good outcome could be an invigorating starting point for delegates. This is why I also choose to take a look at the president’s address to the conference in this piece.

    I see two parallel messages in the president’s approach to the conference and both are implicated in his address. First, the president recognizes and does not shy away from the diversity of the country. Indeed, some would say that he endorses and encourages that diversity with his extension of invitation to groups, including nationality groups, professional organizations, and civil society groups. “You come to the (National) Conference as nominees and representatives of different interest groups,” President Jonathan observed.

    Second, however, as the Number One Citizen, the president is mindful of his responsibility to protect and promote the national interest. He must therefore not be seen as encouraging division. Hence, his message to the conference delegates: “I call upon you to put the best interest of Nigeria before all other sectional or group interests.” Indeed, a very close look at Jonathan’s address shows this message as the dominant one. Thus he finds it “regrettable that there are persons who believe that we cannot undertake any collective task in our country without the hindrance of ethnic rivalry even after 100 years of nationhood.”

    The combination of the two messages above appears innocent and indeed, many would argue, statesmanlike. The president recognizes the reality of diversity, but he also prioritizes national interest and admonishes delegates to embrace his vision. That is what presidents do, even if the reality that they face and acknowledge is starker with dire consequences.

    It is not only presidents that are forced to confront the dilemma of reconciling the obviousness of diverse interests with the urgency of promoting national interest. Philosophical reflections have focused on the dilemma as well, and this is to be expected since philosophy is second order reflection on reality. While idealists see a national interest that is over and above any individual interests, liberals conceive of national interest as nothing more than the summation of individual interests. Collective interest, for liberals, is at best a myth, and at worst, a deceptive parade of private interests as collective interest.

    Liberals are more realistic and down-to-earth honest in their approach to political discourse and practice than idealists. A standard conception of politics is that it is the institution that determines “who gets what, where, and when?” Another way of putting this is that it is the forum for sharing goods and services and deciding whose interests are favored. If this is true, and I am almost sure that no delegate to the national conference will honestly deny that a good outcome for them and for their involvement in this conference is that their group, if not individual interests, are favored. Voting, here, as in the larger political context, is the registration of interests, whether as individuals or as groups. I register mine; you register yours. Depending on the procedure we adopt, you may win or I do. This being the case, it is unrealistic, and may indeed amount to demanding the impossible, to ask delegates, as representatives of particular group interests, to jettison such interests in favor of an undefined national interest.

    Of course, that it is unrealistic does not stop one from trying. We just saw Jonathan try. And before our very eyes, delegates did not allow him to completely step out the door before group interests seeking recognition and advancement flooded the floor of the conference. As of the second full day of deliberations, they had not agreed on modalities for making decisions in the absence of unanimity.

    Idealism thrives on mythic thinking and Rousseau was the 18th century champion of political mythmaking. Seeing the state of nature as morally depraved, he welcomes the political association formed by social contractors as the best thing that can happen to members. The state of nature is the state in which there is no political authority and where anarchy makes moral norms impossible. Human beings in such a state would want to quit it and voluntarily form a political association. Once they succeed, they have traded their private interests for the general interest, that is, their interest as members of the political association. They will rationally do so because to do otherwise would risk going back to the state of nature which no one wants to do.

    The practical consequence of this, for Rousseau, is that when these individual members of the new political community meet to discuss issues pertaining to the community, they must come without any attention to their private interests and each of them must vote on the basis of what is good for the community. Rousseau goes on to assume that since everyone will abide by this injunction, decisions could be reached unanimously and whatever decision is so taken must be considered as the general interest. But, of course, there may be outliers whose votes are not in consonance with those of the others. Well, that is too bad because it follows that those outliers have not purged themselves of their private interests. They must therefore be forced to comply with the decision of the super majority. But, for Rousseau, that is actually not forcing them at all because it is really freeing them from the shackles of private interest-forcing them to be free, an oxymoron of the highest order.

    Surely, our President is no Rousseau, and he is certainly not in the business of forcing citizens to be free. But his charge to make national interest a priority in the deliberations of the conferees comes close to an idealist proposition. In fact, I would argue that Rousseau has a more valid basis for making that charge than the president. In the context of Rousseau’s charge, those citizens that just emerged from the state of nature have a greater interest in keeping their new political community from falling apart than they have in going back to the state of nature. In the case of Nigeria, citizens did not emerge from state of nature. They had their pre-colonial communities. They had their pre-amalgamation provinces. Lastly, they had their pre-military regions. Rightly or wrongly, the majority of the conferees still see themselves in the light of these entities from which they evolved. They can happily go back if the Nigerian project failed and their interest in this alternative reality has been variously expressed.

    What is even more relevant is that the president himself acknowledges this reality and endorses it by inviting delegates to the conference as representatives of various group interests. But you cannot eat your cake of national interest and still have it. You cannot invite delegates to represent primordial interests only to rail against those interests: “Indeed, I am quite worried when I hear people say that some participants in this National Conversation are coming here to defend and promote ethnic or clannish agenda,” says President Jonathan. Really? How can Mr. President be worried? The Presidential Advisory Committee went around the country soliciting inputs from those “clannish” interest groups. The committee presented its recommendation advising the President on which groups to invite. The President accepted the recommendations. Is he now seriously worried that those interests represented by real people are threats to the national interest? What is the national interest anyway? This question will be dealt with next week.

  • A decade of glory

    A decade of glory

    It has been only a few weeks since my temporary but unavoidable absence from this page. But as some earthshaking local and international occurrences during that period demonstrate, a twinkle of an eye could screen a hundred years of comment-deserving news.

    One of the hard-hitting international events was the Putinisque thumbing of the West with his in-your-face embrace of realpolitik as the new world order. When we thought that the cold war was over, Putin’s Russia decided to assert its interest against moral considerations.

    A second event was the mysterious disappearance of a Malaysian jet above the Indian Ocean. If reasonable people can disagree on the rightness or wrongness of Putin’s annexation of Ukraine, there is no argument about the tragedy of 239 souls missing without a trace.

    Beside the international events, there have been some newsworthy local events, tragic and comical. Boko Haram no longer has the capacity to surprise anyone except those irredeemable optimists who fail to acknowledge the sad reality of our national weakness in the face of determined psychopaths butchering innocent children in their sleep. Isn’t it a national embarrassment that every time someone makes a declaration of intention to root out Boko Haram from the nation, the sect responds with a more ferocious lethal force?

    And there is the tragic paradox of a nation that challenges her children to go to school, work hard, and get a diploma, only to turn around and get them killed. I do not know of a universe in which it makes sense for a government branch to invite half a million candidates to 20 centers for job test and interview. Assume even that there are 50 centers and the candidates are evenly distributed so that there are 10,000 in each center. What was the plan for their supervision? There was no adequate security. Only a few gates were opened at each stadium for more than 10,000 candidates seeking jobs to file in. And the agency was surprised about the outcome. Indeed, some officers were quoted as suggesting that no one was to blame because the deaths were natural. This too must not shock us because we heard it before in the case of murdered corps members.

    While I care about the world and the prospects of the cosmopolitan ideal, the local has a special appeal for its urgency and impact. If Boko Haram is not effectively contained now, none of us is safe. Consider the prospect of the sect’s infiltration of the southwest with millions of youths facing daily conditions of hopelessness and helplessness. Can anyone really afford to sleep with their eyes closed? It is stressful having to constantly reflect on these avoidable tragic national stories and I want to discipline myself to resist it. Life is short, as my friend keeps dinning into my ears.

    Of course, the national news is not all bleak. The arguments for and against the timing of the National Conference have not prevented the conferees from sitting even though logistical issues have forced an adjournment barely 24 hours after its inauguration. We must anticipate and pray for a good outcome because therein lies the future prospects of the country. If we get it right, we may have a new security regime that privileges local and state governments. We may have a new attitude to education and job creation if the center is effectively trimmed. This is therefore a potential good story. But there is plenty of time and since the leadership of the conference has promised to make it open with a website which will hopefully update the public on the deliberations, I promise to follow its work with rapt attention in the weeks to come.

    Today, however, I have some good, heart-warming, indeed joyous, local news to share with my readers. As many of my friends know, I am fond of tradition because it is empowering if we harness it effectively. We are all products of tradition because we are the offspring of our progenitors and we bear the mark of their imprint in language, customs and mores, and yes, in education. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, known for his insistence on the virtue of traditional education and nationalistic upbringing of children, remains one of my favorite philosophers. As Rousseau was fond of his native Geneva, so I am tied to the apron string of Okeho, where my umbilical cord remains buried in the family compound.

    This weekend, sons and daughters of Okeho have a good reason to celebrate the life and reign of HRH Oba RafiuOsuolale Mustapha, Adeitan II affectionately referred to as Ilufemiloye (my people want me on the throne). The unanimous choice of Okeho ten years ago, Kabiyesi has reigned with wisdom and fairness; and he is loved and admired by all and sundry. He has been a rallying point for intellectuals and the business class, youths and elders, and men and women. A Muslim by faith, Kabiyesi has embraced all faith traditions. He and his Olori and the family attend major Christian events, rotating among churches for such observances. Most importantly, he has championed the development of the town by encouraging natives and outsiders to establish businesses in town.

    Okeho has a fascinating history which could be of interest to our current national discourse. The town derived its name from its geographical setting of hills and holes (Oke-Iho) characterised by a site chosen because of the refuge it provided against foreign invasion.

    Onjo is the title of the traditional ruler. The first Onjo of Okeho was Ojo Oronna from OjoKosiwon ruling house in Ilaro Egbado of Ogun State. A crown prince, OjoKosiwon was not allowed to ascend the throne of OluIlaro and he therefore relocated to the area that became Okeho around 1750. This is relevant to our contemporary fascination with the boundary between indigenes and settlers.

    A short distance from the first settlement that Oronna created there was another settler named Olofin with his family. The two met and started living as neighbours. Other settlers soon joined the two and formed what is known as Okeho. Settlers from the other ten towns with their Chiefs who had lived at a considerable distance from one another were forced to consolidate their defence against the Dahomeans, and powerful Oba ArilesireArojojoye who reigned between 1800 and 1820 AD allocated lands to the settlers from the ten different towns.

    The settling of Okeho is thus a perfect real-life illustration of the theoretical position of Chief Obafemi Awolowo in The People’s Republic. As Awolowo observed, “Where different families lived as peaceable neighbours, they sooner or later discovered that some advantages of division of labour which were otherwise lacking might accrue to them if they united or co-operated with one another for purposes of production and exchange.” The eleven towns,made up of eleven extended families that constituted the quarters or wards of Old Okeho, included Ijo, Isia, Ogan, Bode, IsaleAlubo, Gbonje, Olele, Imoba, Isemi, Oke-Ogun, and Pamo. These still maintain some element of independence on various issues and each is still interestingly referred to as “ilu” (town) as in Ilu Isia. This is true federalism at work.

    The settlers accepted the authority of Onjo because of his royal origin and sense of administration. This led to the installation of the first Onjo and subsequently twelve Onjos at Old Okeho. It is instructive to note that Old Okeho was the only town that did not fall to the conquest of the Fulani Jihadists and Dahomean invaders while all other towns situated south of Old Okeho up to River Opara were scattered by the invaders.

    This weekend, as Okeho sons and daughters celebrate their loving Kabiyesi and his amiable Olori Taibat Omotola Mustapha, they are surrounded by the seven mountains and hills Eti-igun, Olofin, Akasube, Biayin, Okofori, Meseole, and Obaapa that protected their forebears from Dahomean invaders and have since been sources of pleasure and serenity away from the stress of urbanity.

    Ogoyii, Oluwa, yeeogoyii! Mase je kobaje! Mase je kodaru! Mase je kobaje o! Oluwa, yee, ogoyii. May Kabiyesi’s reign be long, happy, and prosperous.

  • Politics or statesmanship?

    Politics or statesmanship?

    Politics can be noble; it can be morally uplifting. But the community must be ready to defend its nobility and demand that those who go into politics do so for the good of the community

    I is public knowledge that where two or three Nigerians gather especially outside of their native land, discussion quickly turns on the Nigerian condition: the terror of Boko Haram insurgency andthe cancer of corruption, the exploding international fame of Nollywood and the exploits of Super Eagles. Since 1999, however, politics has come alive and has been a dominant aspect of these spirited discussions.

    Two generalisations in particular dominate the discussion of politics in general and Nigerian politics in particular. Politics is rotten and debased. Politicians are unethical, unreliable and unpredictable. Both are summed up in the dismissive jab: it’s all politics. This raises two questions: If politics is so demonstrably debased, why is it at the centre of our lives? And if politicians are so incurably unreliable and unpredictable, why our societies so organised that politicians are in control?

    Add to the foregoing the peculiarity of the Nigerian condition where ethnicity and religion make demands on the political, complicating an already complex institution and you have a triple jeopardy. And a third question pops up for an answer: if politics and politicians must be in the driving seat of our national life, can we ever make them accountable to us?

    We cannot make them accountable to us because there are multiples of “us”. While the pardon of a convicted corrupt politician elicited condemnation among one group, it was praised by another as the height of statesmanship. And while a religious organisation received the gift of a sanctuary without any compunction of conscience, secular organisations berated the gesture as a bribe.

    Is the accusation fair? Are politicians unethical, unreliable and unpredictable?Is politics rotten and debased?

    If politics is rotten and debased, the reason cannot be unconnected with the character and/or action of politicians. After all, politics differs significantly from an apple or tomato that can rot without human agency. We may conceive of politics as an institution, a formal system of rules and regulations that society designs to advance its interests, or as an art of governance, or as a device for sharing scarce resources in a population. From none of these conceptions can we necessarily deduce a cynical view of politics if no human agency is involved. But, of course, human hands are implicated, and those can be dreadful, wicked, and rather unclean.

    Society cannot do without politics as a system of rules and regulations; society must seeks ways of advancing its interests; where four or five are gathered, there must be a device for governance; and in the face of scarce resources, principles for sharing must be devised, accepted and implemented. We cannot avoid politics; but we can do without debased politics. We can have politics without bitterness, apology to one of the oldies of the game.

    I once argued that the debased notion of politics doesn’t do justice to what politics is all about, and that there is a much more noble character to politics. It is what we now identify as statesmanship. And this makes sense to the extent that we also mark a clear distinction between the politician and the statesman. As John Rawls once put it in his characteristic elegance, the politician looks to the next election, the statesman looks to the next generation. Of course, being a philosopher, he cannot help adding that the philosopher looks to the indefinite future, echoing Aristotle. Let us discountenance the self-serving posturing of Rawls and Aristotle with respect to the role of philosophy. But isn’t it true that the politician only looks to the next election?

    What is sad about this is that a political community such as ours needs direction that only statesmen can give but if all we have are politicians whose concern is election, their focus is always going to be taking undue advantage of the cyclical returns of elections. And they will approach these without regard for ethics or morals. Recall the infamous position attributed to a late political leader in the southwest. Approached by a young aspirant, the old man was quoted as asking the young aspirant: “so you want to be a politician? Have you ever lied? Can you kill?” Thinking that these were disqualifying attributes, the young man responded negatively. But to his surprise, he was discouraged from pursuing his ambition because he “was not ready for the world of politics.”

    I don’t believe that this was a true story. But it makes the point that nothing noble or communally rewarding can come out of a debased politics such as the one we have embraced since the inception of the republic. And we don’t appear to be eager for a change because even when the old soldiers of raw politics pass on, they pass on the tradition to their successors. And those individuals who genuinely feel the urge to serve and can do a great job at it are scared away.

    The First Republic witnessed the abuse of political power with the use of regional police to harass the opposition. Subsequent military administrations thought that the way to correct the odious practice was to abolish regional police. However, since the Second Republic, we have witnessed the increasing politicisation of the federal police that has always seen itself as the security wing of the ruling party. If we had true statesmen and not politicians in the saddle, we would have devised a means of assuring everyone, including members of the opposing political parties who have not thereby renounced their citizenship that they all count and would be protected by the police. Meanwhile, concern for the next elections has driven the approach of politicians to security matters, including sensitive appointments, even when lives are being mowed down indiscriminately by terror agents.

    Africa in general and Nigeria in particular, can still learn from the Mandela legacy of statesmanship. For a human being to make such an enormous sacrifice for his country and to walk away from the allure of power when the ovation was loudest is not what we have come to associate with our clime. But it is what made Madiba a hero of the human race. Politics can be noble; it can be morally uplifting. But the community must be ready to defend its nobility and demand that those who go into politics do so for the good of the community.

    Signing off……for now

    I was rounding off this piece for submission when Opalaba called. “You need a break”, my friend announced. “Excuse me?” I intoned. “You are not getting younger,” he continued, “and I am scared of losing you. Who is listening anyway?” I knew he was serious. So I tried to cheer him up with one of our common favorites from the King of Juju: “Emi o ba won wa, emi o ni ba won lo….”It worked! My friend joined me and I could hear his dancing steps. However, he refused to stop before he got to where his emphasis was: Ara ma n fe simi… I got the message.
    I answered the call right from the beginning of this paper. Even with increasing demands on my time as I took on additional responsibilities at my job, I did not waver. Now I must take Opalaba’s advice. But I’ll be back.

  • Conference believers, unbelievers and agnostics

    Conference believers, unbelievers and agnostics

    An insightful discussion of the increasingly polarising tactic of the Jonathan presidency on anational dialogue could benefit from concepts of religion and spirituality. For one thing, Jonathan and the nation need all the help from above to wade through the chaos that will most certainly ensue if this does not turn out well. For another, however, at least as I will argue in what follows, just as we have believers, unbelievers and agnostics in the religious domain, so we have them in Mr. President’s national dialogue. But while the class of unbelievers has remained unchanging and unchangeable, the class of believers appears to be dwindling while the class of agnostics seems to be fast becoming unbelievers. But assume that the President himself is a firm believer; he needs more believers for his pet project to succeed and for his legacy to last. It’s up to him how he reshapes this.

    A bit of clarification is in order. Nigerians have been clamouring for a Sovereign National Conference (SNC) since the early 80s, and since then there have been believers, unbelievers, and agnostics. The reasons adduced by the various categories for or against the original conference idea vary according to the interests of the various constituents. Thus it was to be expected that members of the military and their hangers-on flatly rejected the idea of a SNC not for any patriotic reason but because, well, they had no good reason to upset the applecart of the status quo which favoured them and their constituency. On the other hand, the majority of the population across the country openly canvassed for a restructuring of the polity via the SNC. In the 1990s, following the annulment of the June 12, 1993 elections, virtually every progressive, sickened by the impunity that characterised the handling of national affairs by our military officers, joined the demand for a SNC. In the struggle against Abacha’s junta, three demands featured prominently: release Abiola, return his mandate, and convoke a SNC.

    Today’s unbelievers in Jonathan’s national dialogue were firm believers in and proponents of a sovereign national conference. If they don’t now believe in Jonathan’s national dialogue, there must be a good reason so they are not guilty of inconsistency.

    As there were believers turn unbelievers, so there were unbelievers turn believers and, as many commentators have pointed out, Jonathan himself belongs to this category. So was Senate President David Mark. Even the NLC, through its Vice President, was against the national conference before it was for it. Senator Mark’s objection, based on the idea of sovereignty of the people vested in the National Assembly, was later recounted without a bit of explanation. And in short order, a presidential endorsement rolled in, followed by a flurry of activities that brought us a report on the agenda and procedure. If unbelievers thus become believers, original believers understandably have questions bothering on their genuine fear about getting it right and avoiding gimmicky posturing that is calculated to attract political support without the intent of effecting any real change. Hence their rejection of what they consider a Greek gift.

    Agnostics are of a double mind arising from what they perceive as an insufficiency of evidence to sway them one way or the other. Therefore, they consider withholding judgment as the rational course of action. There were original agnostics who never felt that they were presented good reasons to support the call for a sovereign national conference but who also felt that there was sufficient reason to worry about the future of the country. And now, there are those who still worry about the future of the country but are also worried that the president’s national dialogue may not be the panacea it needs.

    Unbelievers and agnostics about Jonathan’s dialogue must not be dismissed as a selfish or an unpatriotic bunch. They need convincing with serious evidence that the president is serious and that the dialogue is the answer to the nation’s structural challenges. Thus far, unfortunately, there have been only negative signals that even believers are now getting worried that they are being sold a dummy.

    There are three areas of needless contention if the President really desires a successful outcome. First is the matter of people’s representation versus special interest selection. Second, there is the issue of citizen referendum versus National Assembly imposition. Third, there is the question of a new constitution versus an amended constitution.

    On the first matter, there is a deep confusion about what is recommended by the Conference Advisory Committee and what is ratified by the government on how conference participants are to be chosen. Is it by direct election by the people or by selection by organisations? If media reports are correct, the Federal Government may have opted for nominations of participants by ethnic and cultural organisations instead of direct election using federal constituencies. This is perhaps to avoid moneybags hijacking the process. But this only sets up a different kind of challenge: which of the many nationality-wide organisations in Yorubaland, for instance, gets to choose Yoruba nationality delegates? By what approach? Would the Yoruba nationality need its own national dialogue to adopt a method of delegate selection? The same is true of other nationalities, especially in the south with its plethora of organizations.

    On the second issue, it is clear from the beginning, including the belated transformation of Senate President Mark that there is a meeting of minds between him and President Jonathan on the ultimate authority over the outcome of the national dialogue. Thus even when Senator Okurounmu appeared to distance himself from the idea of a national assembly imposition, suggesting in an interview that the president’s mandate to them was clear, what is clear now is that the National Assembly has the final word. The people are not going to have the right to determine what their nation looks like. For once, there is an opportunity after 100 years of forced relationship, for the people to collectively express a general will to forge a new relationship and pursue a commonly determined goal, and they are being denied that opportunity! Whereas we are so craftily creative in matters sordid and mundane, and we rationalize such move on the need for home-grown approaches, in a matter of immense importance such as affording our people the right to say yes to the nation of their choice, we plead impotence.

    The second and third issues are joined at the umbilical cord. Recourse to legality is the rationale for denyingthe people the right to a referendum. It is the same legality that is cited as the rationale for the rejection of a new constitution. We knew this was coming when the Deputy Senate President gave a hint about the activities of the Senate Constitutional Amendment Committee. We should therefore expect that after all the jamboree, and a humungous outlay of resources, we will only have an amendment to the 1999 constitution that favours the National Assembly at the expense of the people and we will again have a country, a mere geographical expression, rather than a nation. Why, then, do we need a national dialogue, if this is the predetermined outcome?

    At least as far back as the beginning of the struggle against militarism in the wake of the Abacha dictatorship, along with others, I have argued for, protested in favour of, and rallied in support of a sovereign national conference. I have written about it over the years and I have been consistent in its advocacy. The idea, as I have always understood it, is that the people are sovereign and they have the ultimate right to self-determination. At the inception of the new debate that led to this seeming breakthrough, I contributed to the debate against the first position of Senator Mark and the NLC. And when Mark rethought his objection, I encouraged proponents to seize the moment. Now, I am beginning to fear that we are being fooled again. But we cannot afford to relent. There is too much at stake.

  • The centennial of greed (2)

    The centennial of greed (2)

    I ended last week’s column with the following paragraph from which I intend to pursue my next line of thought on this topic:

    “The greed that motivated the invention of this artifice has continued to motivate its operation even in the hands of indigenes that ought to be motivated by the good of the country. Even if we assume that the amalgamation of the country was an act of God, the question remains if the actions of leaders have been consistent with that assumption.”

    Surely, Lugard was responsible for whatever is our verdict on the amalgamation of the North and the South, whether it is considered an act of God or a heinous deed from the gate of hell.

    Indeed, I see three possible approaches to the evaluation of the act of amalgamation. First, it is not self- contradictory for one person to hold both verdicts. One may renounce the act of colonisation and amalgamation as a morally reprehensible deed because it violates the principle of self-determination of peoples, itself a component of the principle of justice. On the other hand, one may look at the outcome of the amalgamation in terms of the overall good it supposedly produces, from a utilitarian perspective, and consider it an act of God.

    Second, one may see amalgamation as well as its outcome as an act of God. From a fatalistic point of view (what will be will be), if God did not want it, Lugard and his British constabulary would not overpower the forces of resistance in the north and south. Whatever God allows to happen is good, no matter our human understanding. Therefore the amalgamation was not only an act of God, it was also good. This is the spirit of theodicy. But it may also be argued that the outcome of the amalgamation was good for the peoples of the north and the south. And since God is the author of whatever is good, it was an act of God.

    Third, one may see first, the amalgamation in itself as a morally heinous deed for the reason stated above, and second, its consequences for the people of the north and the south as terribly bad. In this case, the motivation for and the outcome of amalgamation is morally obnoxious, whatever small mercies proceed therefrom.

    As the opening chapter of his book makes clear, Lugard did not hide his contempt for the people that he conquered and joined together in the economic self-interest of his country. He thought that African peoples “have left no monuments and no records other than rude drawings on rocks like those of Neolithic man.” Yet, since the 1480s, the Portuguese and other European travellers have been known to come in contact with the most impressive works of art of traditional Africa. If one had such a misconception born out of sheer contempt for a people, then it stands to reason that if one had the power to subjugate, one wouldn’t have a second thought. Might is right. It was this principle that the British took to other lands, including Africa.

    On further reflection, however, the adoption of the principle of “might is right” was not unique to the British. After all, prior to their arrival, there were wars of expansion and conquest of other lands by natives and foreigners. Internal colonisation is no different from external colonisation if we bracket off the colour factor. It is also true that every such act of conquest was in furtherance of the interests of the aggressors. And if the principle is wrong in one case, it must be judged wrong in the others. But aggression happened; the original sin of colonisation was committed, and it is not something that we can now undo. So we must get on with it.

    Getting on with it means moving forward by addressing the matters arising from the act. Amalgamation proceeded from colonization. If the latter was motivated by self-interest, so was the former. If the latter was driven by the principle that might is right, so was the former. The self-declared motivation for the wedding of the north and south was the consolidation of administration and finances in favour of the British. Of course, unlike colonisation, an historical event which cannot be undone because it had happened and ended, amalgamation could arguably be undone, and some have advocated openly for this. I do not think it is a desirable option.

    Let us agree that, with their differential treatment of the component parts, and the deliberate creation of an unbalanced and lopsided political structure for the country, the British did a lot of damage to the concept of a nation of diverse peoples which they sought to establish in Nigeria. The legacy of bitterness and rancour and strife is still very much with us.

    Yet de-amalgamation is not a desirable option for obvious reasons. Assume that we do not now have a perfect unity; there is no good reason to suggest that each part would experience the proverbial paradise of unity on earth after a breakup. South Sudan provides an excellent resource. Second, the various peoples have made significant contributions to the material and cultural matrix of the country that it is inconceivable to tell a complete story of one part without reference to the other parts. The story of Kaduna or Zaria is incomplete without an adequate credit to the residents of the Sabongari. Neither can the story of Lagos be completely narrated without the contributions of the Fulani and Igbo who have penetrated the nooks and crannies of Yorubaland. Like Siamese twins conjoined at the heart, an attempt at separation can be fatal for all. In our case as a nation of multiple nationalities, it is the loss of the true identity of each part that is at stake.

    But no one can deny that we have a flawed structure. And if de-amalgamation is not a desirable option, we have to give serious thought to reinventing ourselves in a way that shames the coloniser and his original ulterior motive, which we have suicidally promoted to the detriment of our full potentials. We all know that our federal system is only that in name. What we practice is a semi-unitary system which stymies innovation, encourages corruption, and promotes cronyism.

    The merit of a true federal structure is the competition for greatness that it generates among the federating units. Take the case of education. The colonial government established the University College, Ibadan in 1948. Each regional government followed with the establishment of its own university. And each institution set its sight on being the best until the federal military government took over all higher institutions ostensibly to promote national unity. What it did was to destroy standard. Establishing or owning educational institutions shouldn’t have been the priority of the federal government because state governments and private agencies are best suited to managing such institutions. At best, the federal government should be responsible for a common national policy on education and the allocation of resources to states for the execution of the policy according to the dictates of their local conditions.The same applies to agriculture, health, and internal security and crime prevention.

    Enough has been written about the ridiculousness of the arguments against state police. But new evidence is presented on a daily basis to give the lie to the hypocritical posturing of the proponents of federal responsibility in the business of securing local communities. Can any reasonable observer deny that the Amaechi-Wike face off in Rivers State is just an instance of how the federal police has been thoroughly politicised? There are other odious examples throughout the nation.

    In his famous essay, “What is a nation?” Ernest Renan suggested that a nation is based on a daily plebiscite, on the desire of a people to continue together, having done great things together in the past. That desire has been frustrated in our case by the reluctance of political leaders to take the bold actions necessary to remove the obstacles in the path of our greatness.It is still not too late to act NOW.

  • The centennial of greed (1)

    The centennial of greed (1)

    On January 1st, Opalaba called to wish me a Happy New Year and threw in a riddle for me to solve. Mimicking the Jeopardy game, which he adores because it is a veritable workout for the brain, my friend’s riddle goes thus: “Category: Being. This being was created by greed; it was nurtured in greed; it matured in greed; and at hundred, it is being consumed and paralysed by greed.” When I feigned ignorance, Opalaba was furious. “What else do you know?” he asked. This is just such a simple puzzle.

    My friend went on to provide an answer to his invented puzzle. It was imperial greed that created the country named Nigeria. It was imperial greed that nurtured it and ensured that it had a political structure that was consistent with imperial interest. The transfer of power to indigenes didn’t change the motivation of greed; it cemented it. For indigenous greed was as potent as imperial greed. And indigenes appeared more masterful than foreigners in the matter of greed. So it was that greed determined the fate of the first republic before the soldiers tasted the forbidden fruit and had their eyes open to the immense possibilities of individual appropriation of the riches of the nation. And now it is the same greed that has consumed the nation and threatens its demise.

    Though Opalaba can be dramatic, he surely knows how to hit the proverbial nail on the head. Not given to the language of diplomacy, my friend does not always appear courteous. And so, he went on to invite “a plague on all their houses”, finding none worthy of national accolade for exemplary statesmanship. “You may have something to gain with your soft and sweet talk. I don’t; and so I can say it as I see it. You must stop this self-deception. No one is in the business of politics for the sake of the good of the nation. If not, this country would be different after a hundred years of forced marriage and fifty plus years of flag independence. Or why is it that the whole idea of restructuring the polity for the purpose of effective functioning has been so controversial? Does it mean that the political class doesn’t see that what we have isn’t working?”

    “Go back to the origin, the beginning of the being of this artifice. I have read over the five hundred plus pages of The Dual Mandate of Sir Frederick Lugard. And in my humble opinion, it’s only the most simplistic reading of that sickening material that would consider the creation of this country as due to anything but imperial greed. An act of God? Oh, please! I am reminded of the little poem that we were taught back in the elementary school in those days. The lines that stuck with me are the most relevant for my purpose here:

    Bi omode ba ku, won a ni amuwa Olorun ni. Bi agbalagba fo sanle ti o reyin eku; won a ni amuwa Olorun ni. O wa dabi enipe Olorun naa ko ni ohun ti yoo se mo. A fi ki o maa sebi kanu aye kiri!

    Translation: When a baby dies, people say that it is the will of God. When an adult passes on, they also say that it is the will of God. It is as if God has nothing else that He does beside going about the world and pursuing evil acts!

    My early exposure to this powerful denunciation of the idea of attributing every occurrence—whether explicable in other ways or inexplicable—to God has been a liberating force. I am therefore suspicious of fatalistic reasoning because it paralyses thought and practice.

    As Lugard made clearin his Dual Mandate, the British captured different nations, amalgamated them and held on to the country so created, “because it is the genius of our race to colonise, to trade, and to govern. The task in which England is engaged in the tropics—alike in Africa and in the East—has become part of her tradition, and she has ever given of her best in the cause of liberty and civilisation.” But it is not just fidelity to tradition. It also had to do with prudence and profit. “Europe benefitted by the wonderful increase in the amenities of life for the mass of her people which followed the opening up of Africa at the end of the nineteenth century. Africa benefited by the influx of manufactured goods, and the substitution of law and order for the methods of barbarism.” That, in short, was the dual mandate.

    We can raise the question whether the dual mandate has been fulfilled. We can ask whether equal benefits accrued to Britain and Nigeria. We can ask whether the interest of each of the entities that were forced to become one country was equally served. As important as these questions are, however, they are not my focus. For one thing, they are of tangential interest to the question that we must address, which is “what is the way forward now? In response to critics in his own time, Lugard insisted that the colonies benefitted as much as Britain because they were introduced to the art of good governance and the practice of liberty. Did Britain leave Nigeria with the art of good governance? Did she leave a political structure that was meant to withstand the test of time?

    In an important piece on the amalgamation of Nigeria, Chief Richard Akinjide, a Minister in the Balewa administration during the First Republic, made two important observations. First is what we all know, that Lugard came and operated in the business interest of his country and the amalgamation of the North and South of Nigeria was crucial for that interest. Chief Akinjide then made an important point, which can be glossed over but is worthy of our attention especially at this point in time. Lugard did not amalgamate the people of Nigeria. He only amalgamated the administrations of the North and South. His focus was to streamline the administration for effectiveness. He indeed ensured that the Southerners did not have access to the North. Hence the seclusion of the North until independence. We have managed to continue this tradition of segregation until today.

    The second point that Chief Akinjide made was that Lugard ensured that he fashioned a political structure for his invented country that conformed to the British model. “In the British structure, England has permanent majority in the House of Commons. There was no way Wales can ever dominate England neither can Scotland dominate Britain….They would allow a Scottish to become Prime Minster. They would allow a Welsh man to become Prime Minister in London but the fact remains that the actual power is rested in England…That was what Lugard created in Nigeria, a permanent majority for the North.”

    The clamour for restructuring must be seen in the context of the obvious malfunctioning of the structure that was created and the fact that the numerous conferences that have been initiated hardly addressed this question. The greed that motivated the invention of this artifice has continued to motivate its operation even in the hands of indigenes that ought to be motivated by the good of the country. Even if we assume that the amalgamation of the country was an act of God, the question remains if the actions of leaders have been consistent with that assumption.

  • Reflections on life

    Life is beautiful. It could also be ugly. Life is exciting. It could also be boring. Life is meaningful. It could also be meaningless. And if nothing else does, this all goes to show that while life is simple, it could also be complicated. In the context of these possible modes of life, I am interested in raising the question “What kind of life?” However, as interesting as these possibilities are, they are not necessarily my focus in what follows.

    I am interested in the question “what kind of life?” for what it means for personal as well as communal existence. Therefore to the extent that the aforementioned possibilities are relevant to my purpose, it must be because they provide some clue to the question of the kind of life that is well suited to personal and communal existence. A good starting point, of course, is a deconstruction of the question in terms of its significance. Why is it a good question to raise and address?

    What kind of life we live as an individual makes us the kind of person we are. It is an identity marker. And while we don’t usually give a serious thought to the question except in the context of our religious observances, and that, only superficially, we practically provide various answers with our daily activities, intentional or otherwise. Those activities –reasonable or unreasonable, egoistic or altruistic, mean-spirited or compassionate, greedy or moderate, hustling or dignified, shameless or respectable—define the character of a person. But there is more. They also define our community: the preponderance of a character-type makes a community of people what it is.

    I should point out that my primary interest here is not politics, though I concede that there is a sense in which everything revolves around the institution of politics as the architecture of communal life. But politics derives its texture from the fabric of communal life which in turn is woven with the thread of individual lives. At best, it is a chicken and egg relationship. The political community in which we live plays a great role in the kind of individuals we are. And since individuals make up the political community, the character of the former defines the nature of the latter. And because communities are cognizant of this connection, they pay a great deal of attention to the upbringing and character development of their members. It is the stuff of civic education, whether in its conservative platonic or liberal Lockean modes.

    In our clime, we are the children of our forebears and we have them to thank for who we are and what we have become. But you may ask: who are we and what have we become? It is hard to engage in a holistic national self-glorification under the circumstance of our depressed socio-political life. But again, this is not my focus today. However, it is my hope that every mother’s son and every father’s daughter has something cheerful about a parentage that God used to bring them to life and make the necessary sacrifice for their upbringing and character development. I know I do; and I am eternally grateful.

    Despite Hobbes, we know that individuals are not atoms in the void; they access this terrestrial ball through preexisting family units. And while parents are only instruments of God’s plan, they are an important causative agent of a meaningful life.

    Let us assume that a life is meaningful when it is successful. We must then go further and define what a successful life is; and this is subject to different interpretations derived from our various worldviews and outlooks. And since our worldviews and outlooks are culture-dependent, the idea of a meaningful life is also culture-dependent, where culture is broadly defined.

    The traditional Yoruba worldview defines a meaningful life, that is, a successful life, as the life of an Omoluabi, literally, an offspring of the chief of character, the logic of which is that, all things being equal, the offspring will take after the parent. Character, then, is the defining mark of a meaningful life. Not beauty; not wealth; not power; not education; not honor; just simply character.

    This approach to life is fascinating to me, not just for what it rules in, but also for what it rules out. Typically, the Yoruba have no respect for power or honour that is not accompanied by good character. But more importantly, religiosity or spirituality without character is also an anathema. Indeed, to underscore this point and the secular import of the Yoruba worldview, the most telling aspect of the story of Iwa is the moral deficiency of Orunmila, the god of wisdom. Orunmila had married Iwa who decided to leave because she was being maltreated by her husband. But Iwa’s departure had an adverse effect on Orunmila’s fortune and he decided to search for her. The lesson here is that, for the Yoruba, Iwa (character) is so important that even the gods have to be judged by how much they measure up to her standard. In their perspective, all there is to religion is character: iwa lesin.

    The community relies on every family with the responsibility for the character education and development of their offspring and traditional families take this responsibility seriously. For, how children behave and relate to others outside of the family circle is understood to be a good evidence of the success or otherwise of their upbringing. Families laboriously and diligently commit to raising their members as responsible members of the larger community. And this is all that can be expected of any family. In the best of circumstances, where the traditional setting provides sufficient buffer, the in-built standard of iwa is a challenge for anyone to meet. In contemporary setting, however, a variety of other negative influences compete for the heart of soul of an average human being. This is where society comes in.

    Just as there are no atomised individuals, so there are no solitary families. When families combine their forces for security and welfare purposes, the society they so form assumes the collective responsibility of educating and socialising its members into its values and ideals, which cannot be at variance with those of its family units. And to do this effectively, society makes rules and regulations which it backs up with the threat of punishment in case of violation. When society fails its members in the discharge of this responsibility, and the family unit has been rendered impotent, there is character deficiency, leading to moral anarchy and brutish modes of life.

    If there are still rational individuals and family units, they would be bothered by the reversal of their moral fortune. They would raise questions about the kind of life they have been transformed into from their various family units. They would know that it is dangerous for their well-being to continue that kind of existence, and they would question the kind of social and political formations that led them there in the first place. In short, they would want to revisit the terms of their social contract. It’s Locke in reverse! As the Psalmist prays, may those who are wise think about these things.

    A self-reflection

    Fifty-six years ago, a special song was brought to my youthful consciousness. It was chosen for my classmates and me as our sixth grade graduation song but it has since become my own family anthem. Here is its second stanza:

    All the way my saviour leads me//Cheers each winding path I tread//Gives me grace for every trial//Feeds me with the living bread//Though my weary steps may falter//And my soul athirst may be/ /Gushing from the Rock before me//Lo! A spring of joy I see// Gushing from the Rock before me/ /Lo! A spring of joy I see.

    Happy Holidays!