The Nation Newspaper

Category: Segun Gbadegesin

  • As Madiba goes home

    As Madiba goes home

    I recall and reconfirm my tribute titled “An Exemplar of Humanity” on the 92nd birthday of Africa’s greatest son, Nelson Mandela, on July 18, 2010.

    Mandela’s life is a shining example of the actualisation of the desirable potentials of human existence; it is a testimony to the possibilities of human goodness; it is a justification of the rationality of faith in humanity; it is a vindication of God’s purposive creative endeavor.

    I plead against misunderstanding. Madiba is still human. He cannot be a saint for now, at least. But I offer a tribute to a human who towers above his peers in public life, and who as such offers us a glimpse into what we are meant to aspire to, a sample of what we also can be. Why we or at least those of us that choose public life like him fall short terribly at so many fronts is a question that screams out for answer.

    What matters in the life story of Madiba is not the royalty of his birth. Neither is it the ultimate victory of the cause he championed. It is not even the crown of honour he wore as the first president of a democratic South Africa.

    The circumstance of his birth was just a chance affair. Nothing morally substantial follows from that accident of history. If you believe in destiny, you would probably find some explanation. But you must be hard pressed to show why many of blue blood ended up as abysmal failures in life. Or when, as a result of the heritage of birth, they ascend the throne of their forebears, nothing consequential followed. And as we know, in quite a number of cases, even in our own clime, humanity fared worse.

    The victory of the cause Mandela championed is indeed a big deal, one of the most spectacular in the dying years of the last century. Yet that victory would still be a forlorn hope if he didn’t make the choices he made in the first place. And of course, the honour would be a dream if the cause had been lost.

    What matters then, from a moral point of view, which is the only point of view that really matters, are the choices that Mandela made from the onset of his adult life. And following the course of his life, every step of the way he has most assuredly been concerned about principle. Confronted with the injustice of racism and apartheid, he chose to fight it. Confronted with the natural inclination to vengeance and retaliation, he chose to reject it. Confronted with the African propensity to hang on to power, he chose the dignity of early retirement.

    At the young age of 24, Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela had his first degree and was studying to become a lawyer. His life prospects were bright, especially coming from a royal family. But two years later, he chose to join the African National Congress. When the ruling National party declared its apartheid policies, Mandela chose resistance. The rest is history. For a young man, the meaning of these choices was clear. He knew he could run into trouble. But he was undaunted, believing in the justice of the cause. This principle of resisting injustice wherever it occurred was made explicit in the Rivonia Trial:

    “During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and achieve. But if it needs be it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.”

    These are the words that shaped the path of Mandela, as a freedom fighter and as the president of South Africa. The fight against domination of any shape or kind was a moral choice for him. Nothing else, including life itself, really mattered more. He was prepared to die fighting against domination.

    How many of our so-called public servants from the lowest to the highest level of governance can truly mouth these words? Rather, do they not encourage ethnic domination, which is just as barbaric as racial domination, as a means to their own personal advancement? And when confronted with bare-faced injustice from hate-mongers and ethnic war-lords, did they not run for cover, stepping aside to enjoy their loot?

    Mandela chose to fight for the “ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony with equal opportunities.” The resistance of the apartheid regime against this ideal was self-serving. But it was also clear that it was imprudent and short-sighted since the resistance did not serve the interest of White South Africans as much as they thought. It would, perhaps if there was no resistance from its victims. But how can anyone think there wasn’t going to be such a resistance?

    Sadly, in our context, that ideal remains only a dream even without the elephant of racial domination in the room. We do not have a democratic and free society. There is no harmonious living among our people. And there are no equal opportunities. Without democracy and freedom, there is no harmony and peace. It is the law of nature. Old kingdoms and empires were crushed by the power of the people yearning for freedom. Why are so-called leaders not mindful of history?

    Mandela suffered the indignity of prison life for 27 years because he chose to fight for the ideal of freedom and equal opportunities for all, even when he could have just cared for himself and his family. When he was released, the world, including those individuals and governments that collaborated with his tormentors, jubilated over the triumph of the cause for which he suffered. He had the world at his feet. He could dictate his terms. He chose, again, the consistency of his ideal, to promote harmony in a free and democratic society, rather than pursue revenge and retaliation.

    Mandela set up the True and Reconciliation Commission with the legendary Archbishop Tutu, a fellow freedom fighter and Nobel laureate as its chairman. Despite the doubts of the effectiveness of the commission, and the fear that injustice was being rewarded, the path of forgiveness chosen by Mandela meant that South Africa could face the future a united nation. It was this approach that earned the trust of Whites inside South Africa and further established the credentials of Mandela as a statesman. The subsequent honours that came the way of South Africa, including the hosting of the FIFA’s World Cup are directly related to this display of a large and forgiving spirit.

    Finally, Madiba chose the path of honour and dignity when he voluntarily withdrew from the presidency at the end of his first term. With this choice, he sent a clear message to the Big Man syndrome in African politics. He put a stamp of approval on the idea that because one led the struggle for the liberation of a people, one doesn’t thereby acquire a natural right to lead them for life.

    Mandela’s decision to remain behind the scene and provide useful advice and direction when needed is a welcome development on the continent. But it has been a hard act to follow by so many of our sit-tight politicians. Still the choice is consistent with the foundation principle which has guided him all along: fight against domination wherever it occurs. Obviously if you dedicate yourself to such a cause, you cannot also engage in domination in whatever guise.

    Principle matters; and consistency with principles is what is meant by integrity. We owe a debt of gratitude to President Nelson Mandela for showing us the possibilities of our common humanity.

    As the Hosts of Heaven celebrate the bountiful harvest of Mandela’s return, we earthlings celebrate his triumphant ascension.

  • A more urgent summit

    A more urgent summit

    The proposal for a national summit on the future of Nigeria has generated so much political heat, thanks to the nature of our politics and the bad blood that it has created over the years, especially since the current dispensation began. One might argue that it is the nature of politics and only an idealised version that bears no resemblance to reality may have a different take on the matter. It is also true, however, that this latest iteration of the craziness of our body politic is self-inflicted by the most visible actors in the drama that it is.

    The President announced the inauguration of a committee to work out the logistics for the conference after so much vacillation. And just soon after, he introduced an unnecessary complication as if the committee’s work has not been complex enough. Apparently unperturbed by the expressed desire, indeed, demand of supporters of a national conference for one that is truly anchored in the people and birthed by the people, the President suggested that the outcome of the conference would be useful as raw material for the National Assembly’s constitutional amendment functions.

    The President’s idea of a national conference is thus ages away from the demand of the people. And there is no better evidence for this than the position of the Chairman of his Advisory Committee who insists that the Committee approaches its work as if there is no constitution, which means it expects the conference to produce a new constitution.

    Recently, however, it is becoming clear how the President and the National Assembly envision what would have been a defining feature of their domestic agenda. Deputy Senate President Ike Ekweremadu has been widely reported as claiming that “the National Assembly has the power to discuss the report of the proposed National Conference”, to quote from The Nation’s version of the reports. Since Senator Ekweremadu is not only the Deputy Senate President but also wears a second hat as the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Constitution Amendment, his comments have to be taken seriously, and they are to say the least, disturbing.

    According to the Distinguished Senator, “there is going to be a debate over the outcome of the planned dialogue at the National Assembly. It is going to be subjected to a critical debate. It has to go through legislative processes.” This is partly because, NASS has to “make sure that everything is right and Nigerians agree on it.”

    The logic of this declaration is mind-boggling. How can it ever be that Nigerians might not agree on what they endorse in a national conference where every nationality and interest group is represented? To defend an argument for subjecting the will of the people to a parliamentary debate is simply a deceptive way of trivialising the will of the people. It is to suggest that the representatives of the people are wiser (“they are experts in legislative processes”) and therefore more important than the people.

    As if that condescending attitude isn’t grave enough, the Senate’s true intention, as revealed by the Chairman, is to pull a rabbit of a seven-year single term from the hat of national dialogue. This must be the “something fundamental that can be discovered” as Ekweremadu puts it. Though Senators rejected the idea of a seven-year term for the President and Governors, the Constitution Review Committee is hoping to propose it as an amendment item. And the reason is that in the judgment of the committee, “single term tenure would resolve the crisis arising from the competition for federal power.”

    There is no doubt that there is across the board, a cut-throat competition for power and perhaps single-term tenure might help resolve that unhealthy competition. But zeroing in on this issue as if it is all there is to the national conference simply reveals the deceptive politics behind the proposal. Recall that the Senate Deputy Leader also suggests that if the amendment is passed, then the incumbent President may have two more years until 2017 and the general election postponed till then. For those who dismissed the idea of a seven year single-term as another Third Term agenda, this proposal is a non-starter. And it now appears that the opponents of the proposed national dialogue have a case.

    Since I believe that there is a lot to achieve from a well-conceived national dialogue, I wish that the proposal on national conference that was vigorously canvassed and much-awaited has been presented with an honest and sincere intention.

    There is, however, a much needed and more urgent summit.National Conference is for a determination of where the country is heading politically and economically. It is about how the various nationalities and interest groups relate to the centre. But assume that we get a handle on this important mode of governance and relationship, and we have a perfect federalism. Is anyone under the illusion that our national problem is solved and we are thereafter on the path of glory?

    There are numerous afflictions that are internal to the various nationalities that only they can resolve. And I am not here concerned so much with the issue of internal unity within the nationalities. For instance, I have never thought that there will be ever a Yoruba unity because there has never been any such thing. But in spite of the obvious concerning disunity among the Yoruba, as among other nationalities, there was a time when certain values were commonly endorsed and enforced. That is no longer the case. The fundamental concept of hard work was a prevailing ideal. Now it’s a loafer’s philosophy that is entertained. And education and training in the traditional or modern forms have always been the centre piece of our cultures. Now we are praise singers of ignorance.

    Every culture or nationality has an anomalous mode of life—kidnapping, begging, fundamentalism and fanaticism, idleness—that has emerged in the last thirty years, embraced by a significant portion of its members, especially the youth, and which have been responsible for some of the more egregious aspects of our political life, including corruption in all its aspects. And no nationality can or should be proud of its internal malaise. But what is being done? When one reads about baby factories, one wonders, where is the traditional family? Stories of young students even in rural areas skipping school and doing drugs raise concern about parental responsibility. Doing something is crucial and cannot wait till or tied up with a national dialogue or conference. There is an urgent need for every nationality group to look inwards and dialogue with itself so it does not fall into oblivion.

  • An implosion

    An implosion just occurred. The largest party in Africa has collapsed under the weight of its hubris-infested lead4ership. Before their very eyes, in the twilight of their ascendancy, the impregnable suddenly lost grip of the power to fix and it is music to the ears of the people, the true source of democratic power.

    The announcement on Tuesday, November 26, 2013, of the merger of New PDP with APC was the culmination of series of events, miscued by the leadership of the original PDP as simply a nuisance that was going to evaporate. Well, it didn’t, and that is enough evidence of an underlying ailment that continues to afflict our political class. The elite takes the people for granted, and in the process takes its kind for granted. We saw, in the case of the old PDP, a power struggle that has bedeviled the party since its inception.

    Power struggle is an intrinsic element of the political process and is not unique to the old PDP. However, there is something unique and damaging to the brand that PDP represents and portrays. As the party that controls the central government and the largest number of state governments, the old PDP sees itself as unbeatable and its will to dominate and to pervert as unbendable.

    The will to dominate is geared towards external victims and is, therefore, tolerable and indeed admirable to the internal brigade. The will to pervert is, however, an equal opportunity victimiser. It affects and impacts both external and internal victims. And that is the undoing of the brand. It was the final storm that shredded the open umbrella.

    As an organisation, the PDP considers itself unique in political party formation in Nigeria in the sense that it has no individual founder, just as the NPN before it bragged about not having a Baba, an indirect jab at the then UPN. However, this self-description is only partially true, and its partial falsity is demonstrated by fact that the collapse of the party is due to the appropriationby a few of the power of a non-existent founder. In other words, though there is no single founder with enormous powers, there are multiple innermost centres of power, which call the shot and dare those perceived as external others to leave.

    If there were no real founders, and every member came into the fold on his or her own, that is a good reason for the elected leaders to see themselves not as tin gods but as servant leaders. In the history of the PDP, that was never the case. In a party without a Baba, one was invented between 1999 and 2007. And a Mr. Fix-it has always lurked around Aso Rock to ensure that any viable competition for a position occupied by an incumbent is frustrated, even when the incumbent is a non-performer and an embarrassment to the party. On hindsight, it now appears that progressives were right back in 1998.

    Daring the unhappy folks to leave has worked well principally because of the potency of its will to pervert. With the party in the driving seat of the political economy of the country in the last fourteen years, the potency of its will to pervert the system is crystal clear: subsidy scandal, crude oil theft, Oduahgate, comatose refineries, and generalised corruption, despite EFCC. The will to pervert is consistent with the reluctance to flush out culprits of corruption from its rank. If you join the party with the motive of perverting the system to get the most for yourself, then your motive is not in conflict with the environment that the party sustains. Why would you want to leave? Even if you were outsmarted once, you would probably take the chance and wait for another day.

    Of course, overgeneralisation is an unforgiveable sin of logic. There are individuals in the rank and file and even at the leadership cadre of the old PDP who have suffered the pang of conscience silently and waited patiently over the years for a change in the direction of the party. And there comes a time when suffering and waiting is no longer an option. For some of the new PDP members, that time appears to have arrived. At least, that is my reading of their decision to escape from a sinking ship.It cannot be long before the veracity of my reading of the implosion of PDP is determined. And we just have to see.

    Meanwhile that implosion has spawned an explosion in the advance of APC. The leadership of this new party has not concealed its intentions and has in fact made it a foremost task to attract the G-7 Governors and the New PDP into its fold. Its hard work and persistence has finally paid off. There is something to be said for the strategic genius of its leadership and the feat it has accomplished in the last six months. First, it was the fight over registration, which was not going to be, precisely because of the fear in some quarters regarding what has just occurred. Then there comes this exponential increase in numbers. And if politics is in the final analysis a craft that relies on numbers, there’s good reason for excitement.

    It is also true, however, that prior to a final analysis, there is an intermediate one, and a preliminary one as well. While numbers matter in the final analysis, there are factors without which numbers don’t really count and may be counter-productive. First, there is the harmony of ideological orientation, especially among the leadership. One expects that this would have been at the top of the preliminary discussions and negotiations. For without a common agreement on the ideological focus of the party, there is no guarantee that the addition of the new numbers to the old will make a positive difference.

    Second, APC has its agenda based on its consultations with the rank and file of its members cutting across the original political parties and the various regional and local constituencies. This progressive agenda is based on certain fundament values and principles shared by all Nigerians: that all Nigerians are creatures of a good God who endows them with inherent dignity and respect; that progressive principles and practices are essential to good governance and the protection and promotion of the dignity and respect of Nigerians; and that congresses and communities of peoples with diverse backgrounds can and will embrace a common unity of purpose for the promotion of their common interests if and when an appropriate and desirable structure is put in place for the pursuit of those interests.

    Third, fidelity to those fundamental principles determines the method of approach of the party to governance, the evidence of which abounds in those states where APC has had the opportunity to govern. Education, employment and security are vital to the promotion of dignity and respect and APC governments at state level have made these three the centerpiece of their undertaking. It is the expectation of those who look up to the party that these will be its focus at the federal level.

    Fourth, it is true, however, that a true federal arrangement that devolves power adequately to the constituent units is key to good governance and prompt and excellent delivery of services to Nigerians. An APC central government must pursue with vigor and deliver a true federal structural arrangement through constitutional provisions.

    Finally, infrastructural development, including road, power generation and distribution, is an indispensable tool for the unleashing of the ingenuity and resourcefulness of Nigerians in all areas of the economy. APC must tackle with the concerted energy of all willing Nigerians the challenges of infrastructure that appear to have overwhelmed the present administration and those before it. Nigerians are resourceful people and their talents must be put to good use and they will once again command the respect of the world.

    It is hoped that these ideas and ideals are shared by the leadership and members, including the new arrivals into the fold. If so, it is time to get to work.

  • Soyinka Of Africa

    Soyinka Of Africa

    He is a pride of Africa and he wrote Of Africa, a magisterial text that has captured the imagination of young and old across the continent and the Diaspora, including my College of Arts and Sciences students at Howard University. And on penultimate Tuesday, they and the university community welcomed the Nobel Laureate to the Mecca of Africana scholarship. And it was vintage WS. Soyinka never disappoints and he didn’t disappoint his audience.

    It was not Soyinka’s first visit to Howard. But it was his first on the basis of his book being chosen as the common text of the year, and it was electric. Of course, it wasn’t difficult for anyone to identify him with his signature hair style as an identity marker. Students accosted him on the yard even before the programme, wanting photo sessions or autographs. For all the sessions, including student presentations on the book, it was standing room only. He gave his main lecture in the ballroom which seats at least 400, but it was streamed live to an auditorium that sits 1,000 more. As they say, it is in his home that the prophet has no honor.

    My college chose Of Africa as the Common Text for First Year Students this year. In recommending the text, the committee noted that “Of Africa is, at once, readily accessible to students and artistically imaginative, conceptually complex, and improvisational in ways that distinguish it from other academic texts, especially with regard to raising issues of continuity and change among populations in the African world. It is one of the most imaginative combinations of concepts from Africa and its Diaspora to appear in recent memory. Of Africa also builds on Howard’s commitment to help students assign equal status for Africa and global Africans as agents of cultural and political acts of recovery and takes this consideration one step further, calling for a consideration of what Soyinka calls the proper valuation of the “dynamic commodity” of African ways of knowing and being in the world. This conversation has the potential to trigger countless conversations on what it means to be African anywhere in the world.”

    The attraction of the book is simple. Howard University is conscious of its origin and its mission. Back in 1927,President Mordecai Wyatt Johnson pressed the point that “along with the training of the individual to render specific professional service, it is absolutely necessary that there shall go studies to fit a man (or woman) sympathetically to understand the kind of country that he (or she) is living in, the progress that the countryhas made, the direction in which it is moving, the nature of the institutions with which he (or she) has to deal, and the relations and possibilities of his own people to his (her) government and to the progress of his (her) country.The ultimate goal is to endeavor to develop a country that shall have a deep sense of community and of brotherly cooperation.”

    In the same inaugural address, while drawing attention to the subordination of Africa to European powers, Johnson raised the question whether “the United States is going to follow this European practice, or whether there is going to arise in this place a country so deeply convinced of the possibilities of humanity that it is willing to keep its self-control, while having no relations with even the weakest of peoples except such as it can justify in the light of its deepest conscience, and while committed to none but a purely open and aboveboard practice of brotherliness to all men and to all countries of the earth.”This emphasis on “the possibilities of humanity” has been the driving force of Howard as an institution of higher learning.

    In the opening paragraph of the text, Soyinka poses the question that focuses his attention throughout the book: What does the continent known as Africa possess that the rest—or a greater part—of the globe does not have already in superabundance? As a guide to an adequate answer, he suggests that we not limit ourselves to “material or inert possessions—such as mineral resources, tourist landscapes, (and) strategic locations..” For we also have “dynamic possessions—ways of perceiving, responding, adapting, or simply doing that vary from people to people, including structures of human relationships.”

    But, of course, we have not been silent over these positive attributes of motherland, and certainly our diaspora brethren have been in the forefront of proclaiming the ancient glory of Africa as well as its future potentials even in these dreadful times. If only we can get rid of the human vampires that continue to suck its blood and the political raccoons that vandalise and drain it of resources that it drastically needs for development and redemption. So, yes, we cannot ignore the negatives: the unpredictable and irrational violence that engulfs the continent every now and then, and feeds the insatiable appetite of the world media outlets for sorry stories from and of Africa.

    “Ultimately, however,” Soyinka urges, “it is its humanity, the quality and valuation of its own existence, and modes of managing its environment—both physical and intangible (which includes spiritual)—that remain the primary, incontestable assets to which any society can lay claim or offer as unique contributions to the attainments of the world.”This is the theme of the book; it is what Soyinka interrogates with copious references to African spiritual heritage.

    Africa’s original humanity has never been in doubt. It is the subject of treatises and sometimes an overblown embellishment bordering on unjustifiable romanticism. Yet it cannot be denied that there was/is a certain sense of community that serves traditional societies well with individual members having a sense of purpose and sharing a common meaning of what it was/is to be a human being in the community.

    The harmonious coexistence in such traditional and (contemporary rural) communities still strikes us as alien in our present circumstance of ego-driven and material-obsessed existence. It is therefore no surprise, but nonetheless ironic, that having identified Africa’s humanity as its asset, the symbols of the inhumanity that has plagued Africa in the last few decades, including Rwanda, Darfur, and of course, Boko Haram, feature prominently in Soyinka’s text.Indeed, Rwanda, as paradigm for a continent was the topic of his lecture. There is truly “a chameleonic” identity to Africa, to paraphrase Soyinka’s apt description.

    The transition from an original humanity to the current inhumanity must have an enabler, if not a causal agent. One of my student presenters posed the question to Soyinka: where did the rain start beating us? In other words, where did we veer off the road of humanity? How can we explain the irrational violence in the name of religion when our folks have always coexisted in multiple religion households, exchanging gifts and partaking in communal feats during different religious festivals? And how does difference about political ideas and ideals concerning the welfare of the people and development of the community end up in violence when communities have always had their process of identifying and appointing their rulers and settling issues by consensus?

    Of course, the answer is simple and Soyinka zeroed in on it: we veered off path of humanity the moment we accepted the superiority of other people’s ways of life over and above our own and we went on to become their champions. Gbee ru mii wa deleru (“We were requested to help lift a luggage off the ground; but we took over the burden of carrying it.) In the process, we abandon our values. That explains Boko Haram. It explains Darfur. And that was Rwanda, to where WS flew after his lecture.

  • Pilgrim’s purpose

    Pilgrim’s purpose

    The President is on pilgrimage to the Holy Land.”

    “Good for him”

    “As far as I know he is the first Christian President to do so while in office.”

    “Good for him.”

    “Is that all you have to say? Good for him? Whoever thought it was bad for him?”

    “You never thought it was bad for him? So what’s your problem? Why is it an issue?”

    “Whoever said it was an issue? And I didn’t say I have a problem, either.”

    “How many Christian Presidents have you had in the country, anyway?”

    “Well, we had Grandpa Nnamdi, Uncle Yakubu, and Brother Sege, and none of them made the pilgrimage while in office.”

    “Grandpa Nnamdi didn’t have enough time before he was booted out. Uncle Yakubu couldn’t afford it because he was at war. And Brother Sege didn’t need it; his enemies needed prayers and the favor of God more than he. So there you have it.

    “Just think of former President Obasanjo for a minute. Of course, he claimed to be born again and he had prayer sessions which he led at the Villa. And after his presidency, he enrolled for a Divinity diploma at the Open University. But he didn’t look to me as someone who wore religion like agbada or toga. In fact, many people questioned his claim to spirituality just based on his “up-in-your-face” approach to his political opponents. To his credit, however, he didn’t exploit religion for political purposes. Remember how he dealt with the Christian governor of Plateau State.”

    “Are you suggesting that Jonathan is politicizing religion?”

    “I am not suggesting anything. Why are you always putting words in my mouth? At any rate, it’s only a matter of perception and the beholder’s eyes may be cataract-infected. What is it about politicization that makes it obnoxious? For some, religion is itself political. And I am not talking about the politics of church governance and all its ugliness. While Islam enjoins holy pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina at least once in a lifetime, Christianity has no such injunction in relation to Jerusalem or Bethlehem. As you know from our Sunday School classes in those days, Apostle Paul was persecuted for taking Christ’s message of hope and salvation to the gentiles, meaning non-Jews. So there is some element of politics intrinsic to any social institution, including religion.

    “The challenge that a public figure, indeed, a rallying point for national identity such as the president faces is how to negotiate the personal identity of faith with the general interest of the nation. He cannot because of his position abandon his faith. On the other hand, he cannot because of his faith alienate or divide the nation.

    “Consider the case of President Obama. During his first campaign, his opponents sought to tie him up with the fiery rhetoric of his Pastor, Dr. Jeremiah Wright. On assumption of office, Obama chose to tread the field of religion softly, choosing not to identity with a particular church home in Washington DC, and only worshipping at different churches as the “spirit” directs. Of course, that also infuriates his opponents who now accuse him of being a closet Muslim. Heads they win, tails he loses!

    “Now let us go back to our good friend and leader, President Goodluck Jonathan. You asked me whether I thought that he was politicizing religion. I think what you should ask is what I thought was the purpose of his pilgrimage.”

    “Alright, thanks for the correction. So, then, my good friend Opalaba, what is the pilgrim’s purpose?”

    “Being neither an insider nor a mind-reminder, I should say that going beyond what we are told can only be an exercise in speculation, which is fine provided that we make an honest declaration as such. The President told us that he was going to seek God’s face on behalf of the country. And Lord knows that Nigeria needs His face now more than at any other time in her checkered history.Consider the many afflictions and concerns: Boko Haram; ASUU; National Dialogue imbroglio; ministerial scandals; anemic economy; nPDP; APC; and of course 2015.

    “The God of Boko Haram insurgents which is certainly rejected by the majority of Muslims, is one that feeds on the blood of innocent people, Christians, Muslims, and traditionalists. A war has been declared on Boko Haram by the government and the resolve of the people. Yet it appears that the insurgents are not retreating. Whatever God Boko Haram relies on must be a powerful entity that the combined forces of Nigerians and their Gods have not been able to overcome. In the circumstance, it makes sense for the President to seek God’s face where He can be found, and that is Jerusalem.

    “ASUU is not a violent organization. It has been in the forefront of providing education for our young men and women and feeding our industries and businesses with sound minds and creative geniuses over the years. But the president is surely tired of incessant strike by ASUU and nothing seemed to have worked. Threats have been issued; prayers have been offered; and rituals have been performed. ASUU remains intransigent. The President is out of tricks at home.

    “And can you understand how a goodwill gesture has been turned into a political nightmare? Surely constitutional conferences have been held in Nigeria since 1922. But when the military struck and declared the republican constitution invalid in 1966, a genuine crisis of legitimacy was created. And since 1990 there has been an unceasing demand for a genuine Sovereign National Constitutional Conference of the people by the people and for the people. Jonathan was reluctant but then he changed his mind and succumbed to the will of the people. But look at how it has turned out. It’s unclear what the President wanted: is it a constitutional amendment? Is it a sovereign conference? Is it a talk-shop without the power to enact its decisions? These questions are being asked and pressed when a serious crisis engulfs the Advisory Committee that he had set up to recommend an agenda for the conference. How on earth does an advisory committee on national dialogue end up with one of its own scuttling dialogue with a clear demonstration of intolerance of dialogue?

    “The economy is cash-strapped according to one of the President’s ministers. And without a robust economy, the President’s agenda is on life-support. The 2014 budget is about to be presented but it is unclear how much of the many of the proposed projects can be delivered.

    “I do not need to go into the challenges emanating from the politics of 2015. The New PDP is a thorn in the flesh, a bug in a not-to-be named part of the anatomy. Crush the bug and you crush the part. What is one supposed to do? Go to where the God that answers prayers is located. That, for Jonathan, is the rationale for slouching to Jerusalem.

    “I know what you’re thinking. We were taught in Bible class that God is everywhere, even in the tiny bedrooms of our youth.The injunction is to seek God when He can be found and to call Him when He is nearby. This is about time, not about place. So why does the President need to travel miles to seek the face of God?

    “This takes us to the heart of the politics of pilgrimage, the pilgrim’s purpose. Christians learn fast from their Muslim brothers and sisters. As mentioned earlier, pilgrimage is not an injunction of Christ. But since Christianity, like Islam had its origin in a place, Christians adopted the idea of pilgrimage as a desirable religious practice.

    “But Muslim political leaders do much more with pilgrimage than perform religious duties. They fraternize and strategize. And of course, they make deals. Consider the number and caliber of the men and women on the President’s entourage. And consider the fact that as president, he can tie his religious performance with duties of state. So he gets to chat with the President of Israel. And he gets to seek partnership on security, something that Israel has perfected beyond reproach, and interestingly, not with deep faith in the Christian God.”

  • Confab confusion

    Confab confusion

    The euphoria that greeted the President’s surprise decision to allow Nigerians to talk about the terms of their coexistence, following decades of incessant demands for a Sovereign National Conference hasn’t subsided when steely monkey wrenches were lobbed into the wheels, raising questions about the clarity of the president’s vision and the Advisory Committee’s sense of its assignment. Clarification is essential now before it is too late in the game.

    First, what is the assignment and mandate of the Advisory committee? From its terms of reference, the committee is to draw up a feasible agenda for the proposed national dialogue/conference; it is to make recommendations on structure and modalities, and on the determination of group representation; it is to advise on a timeframe, on a legal framework, and most significantly, the committee is to “advise government on legal procedures and options for integrating decisions and outcomes of the national dialogue/conference into the constitution and laws of the nation.”This last piece in the list of the committee’s terms of reference should raise concern about the ultimate outcome of the national conference, and it is unclear if the committee itself has paid adequate attention to this issue.

    The suggestion in that item of the committee’s term of reference implies that the national dialogue is another avenue in the process of amending the 1999 constitution, a task which the National Assembly has taken up without break and without end since 1999. If this is the President’s idea, then it is clearly incongruous with the proposals for a national conference that predated the 1999 constitution. The agitation for sovereign national conference has not focused on the anomalies of the 1999 constitution, plenty as these are.

    Rather, pre-1999 constitution advocates of a sovereign national conference have always focused on the structure of our federation and its inadequacies especially since 1966. The 1999 constitution, is one of the symptoms of an underlying disease caused by years of military- imposed constitutions. It follows then that the 1999 constitution is itself anomalous on dual levels: a military imposition, and a grossly outlandish one as such. It cannot therefore be a justifiable goal of the national conference to rescue the 1999 constitution by way of amendments.

    It appears that Dr. Femi Okurounmu, Chair of the Advisory Committee, shares this view about the 1999 Constitution and therefore appears to have a different understanding of the committee’s task vis-à-vis the President and the National Assembly.

    In an interview that he granted to a national newspaper, Dr. Okurounmu had the following comments in response to a question about the relationship between his committee and the National Assembly: “The National Assembly is starting from a “given”, that is, given the 1999 Constitution, what amendmentswe want to make to it? That is their starting platform. We are starting from the basis that we have no constitution at all. And depending on what the people want, what kind of constitution do the people want? We are starting from the basis that nothing is “given” and everything is subject to examination and review.”

    There is no doubt that Dr. Okurounmu speaks the mind of a super majority of Nigerians who have been persistent in their advocacy for a national conference. However, his position appears to be at odds with that of the President and members of the National Assembly. As reported widely in the media, the president used the occasion of Salah celebration to make a policy pronouncement on the national conference, stating that the recommendations of the conference are to be enshrined in the 1999 constitution.

    The President put his point thus: “So we need to come up with some bills in those areas we have agreed and we’ll push them to the National Assembly. Of course, some of those bills have not come out from the National Assembly, but we believe that even in the constitutional amendment that is going on, some will be useful.” Continuing, President Jonathan remarked: And this national dialogue is even critical and is coming at the right time because the National Assembly is thinking about how they will amend the constitution. So, the results of the discussion, of course, will be passed to the National Assembly.”

    If the National Assembly is busy compiling offending provisions of the 1999 Constitution for amendment purposes and the decisions of the National Conference are to be passed on to the National Assembly as recommendations, and these may end up jettisoned by the powerful forces in that body, then the effort would have come to naught. Is the odour here that of deception or naivety? It really doesn’t matter as long as it is a foul odour. Yet, if we go back to the item of the terms of reference underlined above, the President was clear about what he proposed.

    On its part, the National Assembly, which has been reluctant to support the convocation of a sovereign national conference on the grounds that there cannot be two sovereigns, apparently came to accept the idea of a national conference on the understanding that it would still have the last say. This is presumably the reason for the volte-face on the part of the Senate President. As far as he and his colleagues are concerned, the nation should be happy because it gets to dialogue but NASS is satisfied because it gets to decide. Is this what it comes to?

    If Senator Okurounmu is right about the starting point of the Advisory Committee (and I have no doubt that he speaks the mind of millions of Nigerians), then the assumption is that “we have no constitution at all” and the task of the national conference is to fashion out a people’s constitution, which boldly and proudly proclaims the preamble “we the people” truly and sincerely. And if the constitution thus drafted will be subjected to a referendum by the people as the Chairman also averred, then the sovereignty of the people is affirmed. The National Assembly normally has no responsibility for making a new constitution; it only has the power to amend an existing constitution.

    The confusion is a fundamental one and it seriously begs for clarification:

    First, does the President envision the national conference as a talk-shop, the purpose of which is to propose amendments to the 1999 constitution to be passed on to the National Assembly for enactment? If so, why do we need such a talk-shop when the National Assembly is already working on amending the constitution?

    Second, does the President envision the national conference as a forum for representatives of Nigerian nationalities and interest groups to discuss the fundamental issues of their national existence and experience and come up with a new constitutional framework that is subject to a referendum by the people? If so, why do we need the National Assembly to ratify what the sovereign people have approved?And even if we do place the new constitution before the National Assembly, must it be as amendment to rather than as replacement of the existing constitution?

    Are the Advisory Committee and the President really on the same page? If not, are the enthusiastic embracers of the President’s offer hopelessly condemned to Asiwaju Tinubu’s “I told you so”? It won’t be strange. He has always had the instinctive gift to smell rat.

  • Security and the national conference

    Security and the national conference

    I have dealt with the important issue of security as the foremost responsibility of government in a liberal democracy more than I really wish to. But recent events have brought it to the fore of our attention one more time. The unfortunate execution of innocent students in their sleep is the worst nightmare of any parent and of a government that cares. And it’s unclear how many more we must experience before we come to the realisation that our government has failed us in the matter of security. The second is the embarrassing face-off between the federal government and the Rivers state government and its fall-out on the security of the state.

    In view of its importance, then, security has to be a priority item on the national conference agenda. Since reasonable citizens have disagreed over the monopoly of internal security by the federal government, we have to have a rational discourse over how best to security the lives and properties of citizens and why state police should be a practical option.

    We must realize, firstly, that those opposed to the creation of state police have not taken a stand on its constitutionality. They know that doing so would beg the question whether the constitution rightly prohibits the idea. And since the debate itself is predicated on the present legislative efforts to amend the constitution, it would have been grievously out of sync to argue against it from a constitutional perspective.

    Secondly, there is a consensus on the part of citizens that the present federal police systemhas undermined the security of citizens. From its inadequacy in dealing with armed robbery, kidnapping, militancy, and other crimes that endanger citizens and undermine the development of the nation, it is crystal clear that the system is broken.

    Third, a majority, if not all of our political leaders know about the effectiveness of state and municipal police in other lands. So it would be disingenuous of anyone who has seen it work elsewhere to doubt its effectiveness here.

    Two concerns have been raised against the institutionalisation of State Police. The first is the potential for the abuse of statepolice by politicians, especially governors and the party in power. The second is the issue of financing the system. In other words, everyone appears to agree on (i) the present perilous state of internal security, (ii) the inadequacy of the federal police to deal with it, and (iii) the universally acknowledged effectiveness of state and local police in dealing with internal security in any nation. But because of the fear—imagined or real—that politicians, especially governors are likely to use it as an instrument of oppression, and uncertainty about where the funds are going to come from, reasonable and well- placed patriotsare against the institution of state police.

    Neither of these concerns appears to me unresolvable. At most, they are challenges that reasonable people can meet and overcome. Take the case of funding. If security is the foremost responsibility of government, surely state governments can be expected to source for the means of discharging this responsibility even if it requires moderating expenses in other sectors. Indeed, an effective system of internal security has the great potential for generating internal revenue that not only pays for itself but also yields substantial dividends for investment in other sectors. Certainly such a regime can expect to attract a decent amount of domestic and foreign investment into the state. With business and industrial investment, opportunities are created for youth employment which in turn creates buying power, which leads to more investment and the circle can only be a virtuous one.

    There is a second consideration about funding. Even now that the police falls under the exclusive list of the Constitution, state governors cannot be unconcerned about resources available to the police commands in their states. For, they are still responsible for securing their citizens. A good number of governors have created State Security Commissions that raise funds for the police, while some raise their own vigilante groups. It may be argued that what such Commissions source from businesses and charitable organizations are grossly inadequate to fund state police. The point, however, is that when duty calls, human creativeness always provides an unfailing response.

    How about the major concern that state governors and their party members will use State Police to harass their opponents? This is not an imaginary fear because it happened during the First Republic. But the reality of the experience of almost half a century ago, vivid as it still might be in the inner recesses of our minds, cannot be a reliable yardstick for determining how we should live our lives. Consider an analogy. Fifty years ago, we were sleeping with our doors and windows wide open, enjoyingdivinely endowed fresh air. We would be crazy fools to indulge in such fun today no matter how remote our villages are. Instead we rely on fans or air-conditioners and generating sets.

    The mark of our humanity is rationality, and endowmentwith which we are able to think through the most efficient and effective means of meeting the challenges that we face and identifying the most efficient means of satisfying our wants and needs.

    If we are wary of the experience of the past—premiers using state police to torment opponents—and we know that federal police has not worked efficiently and effectively to secure us, then we have to put on our thinking caps and device an effective means of avoiding the unacceptable experiences of the past. We might want to ensure that governors—we got rid of Premiers—do not have a monopoly of supervisory authority over the State Police. We do this by creating a police system that is civil but apolitical. Each state might have a State Police Commission that is transparently independent,with representation from major sectors of the civil society, and financially autonomous, with constitutionally guaranteed revenue.

    Secondly, if we are fearful that governors may use state police to rig elections—harassing political opponents while empowering the rigging industry of supporters—then again we need to device a means of avoiding this inauspicious outcome. Presently, state governmentsare responsible for local government elections while INEC is responsible for federal and state elections. This is in itself an anomaly in a federal system which the conference must also open to discourse. In any case, if the first proposal is acceptable and the governor has no monopoly power over the police, then the fear of using it to rig elections would have been misplaced.

    There is a final consideration. For almost 20 years now, since the elections of 1993 and its aftermath, there has been one constant refrain against proposals for changing our way of doing things, especially those that we all agree are not working. Whether it is change from dictatorship to democracy; or unitarism to federalism; the opposition has always expressed a baffling lack of confidence in our collective maturity. We were told that we were not mature for democracy; that the kind of federalism we seek is dangerous in light of our present political circumstance. And now we are told that state police is for mature societies. The people making these claims consider themselves mature. In fact it is their maturity that gives them the audacity to advise against taking steps that they believe the country is not mature to take.

    Will this country ever be sufficiently mature to take one small step toward its destiny? And when it is deemed ready, will there be a country?The President’s Committee on National Conference has its work caught out.

  • NLC v. The people

    NLC v. The people

    It is difficult not to reckon with the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) which claims to represent and protect, the interests of the toiling masses of the country. But when it appears that the NLC stands against those same interests on a fundamental issue that is at the foundation of the misery of the people, then it goes without saying that the original claim of effective and selfless representation needs a re-examination.

    It is certainly not unusual for there to be a misreading of the mood of the base by the leadership of an organisation leading to a misjudgment of the desires of the former by the latter. That scenario is the reason for the not so uncommon cases of mass revolt against the leadership. If you claim to be my leader and you don’t even understand what I want according to my best judgment of my interest, then you have no business leading me because you cannot represent my interests effectively. And what you cannot represent, you cannot protect.

    The widely reported unguarded attack by the Vice President of the NLC, Mr. Isaa Aremu against proponents of Sovereign National Conference (SNC) is not only misguided, it is misinformed. It is misguided by reason of its clear aversion to the expressed interests of the working class that Labour represents.

    Let us start with a common denominator and tease out the variations. Majority of the working class in this country have taken sides with the proponents of the convocation of a national conference, by whatever name it is called, that addresses the structural imbalances in this country because they are wise enough to know that those imbalances create serious bottlenecks in the effective delivery of the proverbial dividends of democracy.

    Consider just one item. For a long time, power has been on the exclusive list of the Federal Government. States, local governments, or private companies have no effective participation in the generation and/or distribution of power and energy. But of course, the Federal Government has been grossly incompetent in the discharge of that constitutional responsibility. Despite this, it has guarded jealously that exclusivity until recently. But we know that because of this constitutional debacle, the promise of industrial development cannot be fulfilled, leading to the misery of the toiling masses. Is it unconstitutional, as Mr. Aremu would have us believe, to seek a discussion around the kind of issues that should be the preserve of the Federal Government versus other jurisdictions? If the answer is “no”, as I am sure it is, isn’t this what the proposal for a national conference is about? And shouldn’t the NLC, as the purported representative of the working people, be in the forefront of confronting this issue?

    The media report that is available to me suggests that Mr. Aremu made his remarks when he spoke with journalists on Tuesday. I assume then that he made off-the cuff remarks. If so, one can probably excuse the incoherent nature of his declarations. What strikes me from the report that I have, however, is that there is not one reference to the interests of the working people as a reason for the position of the NLC. Mr. Aremu rested his position on several factors, not one of which touches on the misery of the people that the NLC represents. Surely, the NLC has the right to take a philosophical or ideological stand on issues, but every such philosophy or ideology must be anchored in the interest of workers.

    Now, what are the philosophical and ideological grounds of the attack of the NLC on the proponents of a national conference?

    The Labour leader put together a mixed bag of ideas in support or defence of his position. Unfortunately, it seems to me that the ideas are ill-informed. First, Mr. Aremu argues that an SNC is diversionary and unconstitutional because Nigeria has elected representatives and therefore it would be unlawful to convoke an SNC. Nobody should shortchange the system midway, he added. I dealt with this kind of argument in my comments on Senator Mark’s first position in the column titled: “Mark this logic.”

    The major issue is that this type of argument simply begs the question. Proponents of an SNC are aware that there is a constitution. They are, however, convinced that the constitution is not timeless and can be revisited to better serve the interest of the people. Constitutions are made for citizens; citizens are not made for constitutions. SNC is an attempt to remake the constitution. Therefore, the existence of a constitution cannot validly be used as an argument against SNC. And as Senate President Mark finally realised, a national conference “can find accommodation in the extant provisions of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression and association.’

    The Labour leader suggested that Nigeria is not a debating society and that Nigeria should be functional while the citizens should stop agonising. I really don’t know what this means! It is certainly not a well-considered statement even in the category of an off-the-cuff remark. If Nigeria should be functional and it is not, as even the NLC would admit, since it is not tired of leading protest rallies on a regular basis.And if there is a prospect of ending the dysfunction inherent in the system that we inherited from military unitarists and their hegemonist collaborators, what does rationality recommend?

    SNC promises to be that last hope to fix the national dysfunction. It provides an avenue for us to “organise our thoughts to make the country work” as the Labour leader recommends. And on a point of correction, nobody, not any one of the leaders or members of the various organisations proposing a national conference, has suggested that Nigeria is too big. I am not, therefore, sure what the basis is for the NLC argument that “it is wrong to say that Nigeria is too big.’

    From a globalist’s perspective, the NLC is against SNC because “SNC is no longer a global trend” and “all ethnic sentiments should be divorced from Nigeria’s national life” because “globally, the use of ethnic nationalities is no longer fashionable.” These are philosophical positions bolstered by reference to global trends. In other worlds, Nigeria should follow the trend. Of course, he is not concerned about what happened to Yugoslavia, or to the Soviet Union, or what is happening in Scotland.

    Let us assume that multinational state is the global trend. It could be a slippery slope. Do we want to suggest that whatever is the global trend is what we should follow?When it suits our self-interests we are quick to suggest that we should domesticate democracy to fit the cultures of our peoples. But those cultures are not abstract; they do not fall from the sky. They are specific to particular domains and arenothing more than an articulated mix of languages, religions and customs. We recognise them in our original national anthem. But now, if we are to follow the ideologically moderated stance of the NLC, “how can language and ethnic identity remain an issue for us?”

    This last rhetorical question posed by the Labour leaders goes to the heart of the matter and we cannot dismiss it lightly. But what is being ignored is that we had a chance to deal with this issue in the various conferences prior to Independence and we opted for a true federal system that gives recognition to the diversity of language and culture. And we know that it was the military who truncated our Republican constitution that also dealt a fatal blow to the agreements that we thought should serve us well as a nation united in diversity. An SNC would allow us to readdress the issues and take back the autonomy the military arrogated to itself.

    Genuinely frustrated that Nigerians are not embracing the global trend, and are still divided by language and ethnicity, the Labour leader made glowing reference to the United States of America where, from his perspective, the historic election of the first African American president ended all divisions and dissentions: “The day an African-African became the president of the most powerful nation in the world, the United States, colour had ceased to be an issue.” Really? Q.E.D.

  • An opening

    An opening

    “The ice is melting. The door has been opened. We are inching closer. We must seize the moment.” Thus spoke Opalaba, in his new role as the Oke-Ogun oracle.

    “What is this about?”

    “From “forget about it,”we are now hearing “maybe it’s time for a national conference,” and you still don’t get it? Just weeks ago, the Number 3 citizen ruled out even the idea of a sovereign national conference because there is no constitutional provision for it. Now he sees the light and is willing not only to entertain the idea, but to give prospective organisers his blessing. On my part, I see an opening and it must be exploited and taken advantage of.”

    “That’s wonderful, my friend,” I responded. “But since when have you been excited about anything that comes out of NASS? You have always been the Cartesian skeptic. Nothing would assure you of the sincerity of purpose of our lawmakers until they deliver. So why is this case any different? Are you so sure that our Senate President doesn’t have a joker up his babaringa?”

    “More importantly” I continued, some of the best minds who have remained for more than three decades at the forefront of this issue have expressed doubt and concern concerning the genuineness and reliability of Senator David Mark’s new position. While some kicked “against a National Conference without sovereign power”, others described it as “diversionary” according to media reports. So tell me, Opalaba, what do you know that they don’t?”

    “And before you answer, there is something that I thought you are missing. In your enthusiastic response to Senator Mark’s new insight, you didn’t quite pay close attention to what he said. He still doesn’t endorse a conference with sovereign authority; the conference he endorsed is still not going to be a sovereign national conference; for him we have to settle for a national conference.”

    “You are right”, Opalaba responded. “And I am not visually handicapped. I can read and understand. I know that Senator Mark pulled back from a full endorsement of a sovereign national conference. But can’t you and your progressive friends give the man some credit? Do you know where he had been? This man is a soldier—an officer and a gentleman. Do you think it was easy for him to admit that he was not quite right just a few weeks ago? Moving from an absolute “no” to a maybe “yes” is certainly a big deal for him and it is for me an opening. The question is whether you folks will take advantage of it.”

    “What is striking to me”, Opalaba continued, “is that this born-again approach is not just coming from NASS. I read that a few weeks ago, Oronto Douglass, the influential Special Adviser to President Jonathan observed that “a we the people agreement” must “be midwifed by all Nigerians for the good of Nigeria.” Whatever you think about that statement, it appears to me to represent a rethink on the part of the President who had also ruled out an SNC.”

    “It is important to bear in mind where we came from and how we got to where we are now. The military truncated our democratic journey in 1966. They dictated to us what the norms of governance had to be for thirteen years during which period they moved us into the wilderness of unitarism. Then in 1979 they gave us a bit of a democratic respite but ensured that the unitary system wasn’t tampered with. They took back the reins of power after four short years and remained in the saddle for another fourteen years. In the circumstance, even quite a good number of the non-military folks among us have only the vaguest ideas of what a true federal system is and they need the most gentle orientation and accommodation.”

    “Furthermore”, Opalaba continued, I am aware of the polar opposites of extreme absolutes and the havoc they wreck on a political community. My way or the high way is a prescription for chaos and terrible impasse. Against the insistence of the “absolute no to SNC” there is the “absolute yes.”Between the two, nothing gets done, except for those that derive satisfaction from indefinite struggle on the rhetorical level. But the most productive politics is the one that allows for compromise. It’s how policies get made for the benefit of the people. It’s how politicians get credit for their actions.”

    “So Mr. Wiseman, what are you suggesting?” I inquired of my friend.

    “If you would know and would not think that it is below your dignity to negotiate, I see an opening for negotiation and compromise for us to have a national conference of ethnic nationalities. If my assumption is correct, by now, the leading organisations in the advocacy for a sovereign national conference have their various position papers not only on the substance but also on the procedure. The first step then is for these organisations and groups to get together, compare notes, and come up with a consensus on how to move the agenda forward.

    “My second step would be this.Once there is an agreement on the part of all the pro-national conference organisations, then they need to approach the office of the Senate President for a dialogue on how he and his team would make good on his words. I don’t agree that Senator Mark, an officer and gentleman,just threw out lines without any intention of following through. In any case, even if that was what he did, we will not know until we make the effort to reach out to him and his team. Moreover, in view of the statement attributed to Oronto Douglass, I would not leave out the Office of the President.

    “Here is the foundation of this approach. Politics is about interests and at any point in the life of politicians and the political environment that they inhabit, there are plural interests a good number of which cross and interlock in a good number of concentric circles. The loop between the circles sometimes has strange bedfellows occupying it.It is a confirmation of the famous saying that in politics, there are no permanent friends or permanent enemies, just permanent interests. The idea of permanent interest is also suspect. An interest in getting elected into an office may bring two politicians together. Once and if they lose and the ticket is disbanded, that interest is rendered impotent. Therefore all along, it appears that it is a temporary interest.

    “Who knows what, in light of everything going on around him, the interest of the president is at the present time? If he has an interest in a lasting legacy that would place his name in the annals of Nigerian history, not just as a “me-too president” but as one who laid the foundation of a truly federal republic, then he might be willing to work with advocates of a national conference to get it done now. This is why I see this recent development as an opening and we must take the initiative, seize the opportunity and enter the room of negotiation and compromise now.”Thus sayeth Opalaba in his moment of reflection.

  • The war within

    The war within

    We live in a republic defined by its self-governing status and the constitutional principles by which it conducts its affairs. Those constitutional principles respect, among others, the fundamental rights of human beings to live their lives with minimum interference from government or any other authority. That is one difference between a monarchy and a republic.

    Republicanism is predicated on the principle that individuals have rights and those rights must be protected against the whims and caprices of any groups or individuals. One system by which a republic proceeds to respect the principle of respect for human rights is the democratic system of governance according to which citizens directly or indirectly participate in the formulation and implementation of policies. In either case, the majority principle has the edge in the practice of democracies. This has led to the denigration of democracies in contrast to republicanism.

    But while much has been made of the virtues of republicanism and while the tradition has been to applaud republican virtues over democracy, it seems to me that the bifurcation can be misleading because there can be no republican virtue without adequate attention to democratic virtues.

    In truth, democracy is the rule of the people by the people and for the people. Here the people can rule themselves directly or indirectly through their elected representatives. Either way, it is the majority voice that is heard and respected. From which it follows that the minority will always lose out. Talk about internal democracy in group and political party procedures cannot lose sight of this crucial aspect (defect?) of democracy. Yet, it cannot be overlooked that as flawed as it is, democracy is still an indispensable instrument of governance in a republic, a reason why we are quick to cast aspersion on non-democratic (self-governing) republics.

    The most important instrument of democratic governance in modern democracies is the political party. For democracy to function properly and thrive, political parties must function properly. But there is no guarantee that political parties will function properly. From which it follows that there is no guarantee that democracies will thrive. Two questions follow naturally. How must political parties function? What is the criterion for proper functioning? And why is there no guarantee that they will?

    Before we look at the possible answers to these questions, it is perhaps helpful to look at an alternative to a system of political parties in a democracy. A clear-headed argument was once made by the Ghanaian philosopher, Kwasi Wiredu, for “a no-party consensual democracy” in Africa, based on what he considers the prospects of such a system in forging harmony and protection for minority interests. Wiredu’s position is not too far-off from the position of those early nationalists who argued for one-party democracies on ground of harmony and consensus, though he differed from them in the sense that they “murdered” competing political parties in order to make their case, while he doesn’t assume the prior existence of any parties.

    I am not persuaded by the argument for a no-party system because it is unworkable in our modern complex societies with not just one but numerous groups—ethnic, religious, linguistic—with competing interests. The modern political party is clearly indispensable to the governance of modern democracies.

    But what is expected of political parties and how must they function. The assumption is that a political party brings together people of like minds, with similar interests and ideological persuasions about the place of government in the lives of citizens. The party competes for political power along with others by selling its programs and policies to the electorate. If the electorate buys its programs and policies, and there is a free and fair election, it wins the support of citizens and assumes power. This is where the practice of majority rule becomes a problem for critics of democracy and efforts have been made by theorists of democracy to suggest corrective measures that promote minority interests. I will not go into this here. Suffice it to say that the system is not that obnoxious.

    Now, the norm is what has been spelled out briefly in the last paragraph. However, the practice has not often conformed to the norm. The interest that brings people together has not always been that which they can sell with honesty to the citizens and the virtue of the political party, to articulate the foremost interests and aspirations of citizens, has not always been the motivating factor for a good number of contemporary political parties. The political party has been turned into a business organisation where the pecuniary interests of the leadership are dominant; but they are able to access political power and keep it because of their ability to manipulate the citizenry.

    In a system that is rigged against the majority of its members because of the conditions of their existence—poverty, ignorance, disease—such manipulative practices succeed and a political party in power gets to impose itself on the nation with impunity even when it doesn’t discharge the responsibilities of governance to the satisfaction of the citizens.

    Recall however that the satisfaction of the citizens is not a category that is high on the list of the party’s priorities in the first place. This is the reason that there can be no guarantee that the party will function adequately or that democracy will thrive. For in the last resort, when citizens are tired of manipulation, no matter the nature of the force levelled against them, there will be mass revolt, and it cannot be guaranteed that democracy will survive such a revolt. But even before such a time, there is bound to be war within the structure of the party itself.

    The personal interests that bring its members together cannot be reconciled through consensus because human nature is egoistic and acquisitive as Hobbes told us long ago and we still don’t believe him.

    If nothing else has demonstrated the veracity of Hobbes’ theory, the war within the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) seems to me to a veritable example of a party, whose members are governed by the principle of personal egoism. Recall an unfortunate exchange between the late Chief Afolabi and the late Chief Bola Ige when the former accursed the latter of ingratitude to the leadership of the PDP who out of their generosity extended an invitation to Chief Ige to “come and eat.” The expression was that raw.

    Consider now the grounds of the complaints of the members of the “New PDP” against the party leadership. Every bit of the complaint has to do with personal interest. Jonathan must forget contesting in 2015. Tukur must go. Amaechi must be restored as NGF Chair, etc. How does resolving any of these disputes or acceding to any of these conditions impact the fundamental interests of Nigerians? The New PDP faction has not made any case that focuses on issues of party accountability to the people. It has not faulted a governance style that has emboldened terrorists and sentenced innocent citizens to a life of perpetual insecurity. Indeed, the New PDP has not worried itself about the conditions of existence of the poorest of our fellow citizens.

    The war within, no matter how it is resolved, whether in favor of the old or the new PDP, does not seem to have any prospect of benefitting the average suffering Nigerian. Indeed, what is most likely is that a consensus will be reached by the warring parties in the crisis. Attention would be paid to the original interests that brought them together and the personal interests at stake and the settlement will have no bearing on what a party in power owes to democracy or to the people who are the ultimate beneficiaries of a democratic republic’s system of government.