The Nation Newspaper

Category: Segun Gbadegesin

  • Mark this logic

    Mark this logic

    The Senate is a hallowed chamber, the “Upper House” of the National Assembly where wise men and women, distinguished and accomplished, with an uncommon dedication,deliberate and legislate for the good of the country. They risk everything, including their lives for the cause of Nigerian unity, peace, and progress. Beside this dedication, of which some compatriots may mischievously feign ignorance, no one can doubt the significance of the responsibility that is bestowed on the Senate and its leadership for the good governance of the country. And as we know, the fruit of good governance is good and contented citizenry while bad governance yields bad and unhappy citizenry. If only for this reason, then, we must pay careful attention to the words and deeds coming out of this sacred space.

    Since its christening as a country almost one hundred years ago, Nigeria has weathered all kinds of political storms and survived, surely with deep and ugly scars, but still standing. Sometimes, this luck that has come our way tends to create a false sense of security and invincibility. We are not and cannot be Yugoslavia or Somalia, we tell ourselves. And certainly, we cannot experience the fate of the former Soviet Union. This is the logic of political hubris.

    While a section of the political class has internalised this logic and has been vocal in expressing it and recommending it, I am aware that there are wiser counsels across the board urging caution and open-mindedness in dealing with the fundamental issues that the country must resolve to ensure it doesn’t become another statistics. We have also been inundated with predictions of an ultimate disintegration. We do not avoid such outcomes with assertions of confidence or prayers of the faithful alone. We have to work arduously for a different and desirable outcome.

    A major challenge to good governance is the major instrument of governance, the foundation of all instruments, the groundnorm, the document that certifies the union and the shakiness of the ground on which it rests. And it was to the controversy surrounding this fundamental issue that the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria recently decided to contribute its authoritative voice through its President, Senator David Mark.

    According to media reports, Senator Mark gave an address at the 53rd Annual General Conference of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) in Calabar where he “urged proponents of sovereign national conference to forget it.” His primary reason was that such a conference was not possible “until the section on Constitutional amendment is reviewed.”

    Now it is important to note that the issue of convoking a (sovereign) national conference” has assumed a life of its own as if it were the end and not a means to the further end of restructuring the polity for the purpose of good governance. I don’t know of any in the legions of advocates for a (sovereign) national conference that have thought of it as an end in itself. The question has always been whether or not there is a more efficient and effective way of getting to the end other than through a (sovereign) national conference.

    Notice that in the above, I placed “sovereign” in parenthesis. It was deliberate to suggest that the issue of the sovereign nature of such a conference should also not be a hindrance. The purpose is simply to underscore the fact that, as the Senate president acknowledges, sovereignty belongs to the people and they may choose to delegate it the way they deem fit, through an elected representative or through a national conference, or yet through a constituent assembly. And they have the right to make this determination especially in the most important duty they assume as autonomous beings: the duty to make laws that they will be governed by. That is what we do when we create a constitution.

    In his Calabar address, Senator Mark provided an argument for his position, an argument that I have taken the liberty to reconstruct as follows:

    1. The 1999 Constitution may be imperfect but it is our groundnorm and the supreme law which expresses our sovereignty and creates all powers, institutions, and authorities of the state.

    2. From 1. it follows that the “sovereign national conference” doesn’t have a source of authority. (This is presumably because the constitution doesn’t recognise such a conference.)

    3. The people are sovereign but “how do we get the people to confer sovereignty on such a conference?” (It would appear that this is the heart of the matter for Senator Mark.)

    4. Therefore, from the foregoing, there has to be an amendment to the 1999 Constitution to provide for the making of a new Constitution.

    I read the media report of Senator Mark’s address without the benefit of the full address. So I hope that the report is a correct summary of his address. If so, I confess that I am optimistic that the Distinguished Senator means well and that in the interest of the nation and with due recognition for his revered position, he has given serious thought to what appears to be a difficult subject. It is in light of this understanding that I want to take him up on the matter.

    First, we share agreement about the fundamental nature of the constitution of a nation as its groundnorm. That is the assumption, the reality of which depends on the seriousness with which the task is taken in specific situations and circumstances. In our case, it was clear to everyone that in 1999 the haste with which the constitution was adopted, and the secrecy under which it was incubated ran contrary to its pretention as the groundnorm.

    Senator Mark acknowledges the imperfections and the debatable origins of the document. But he seems to insist that despite these foundational flaws, the document remains a reality. It is indeed a reality but the task of the Senate as the representative of the people is to reject a reality that (a) contemptuously ignores the people and (2) stands in the way of good governance for their welfare. Consider an analogy. Anopheles mosquito and the malaria disease that it causes are realities of our clime. Do we accept it as such and not deal with it?

    Second, if the constitution doesn’t have its source in the people who are acknowledged as sovereign, then its reality cannot be an impediment to the aspiration of the people to be the source of the laws that govern them. If a thief sneaks into a house and with the power of his gun forces the occupants to obey its commands, they may prudently obey because they have no choice. But they will do whatever is humanly possible under the circumstance to free themselves from the intruder. Should they have access to a superior weapon, they will take advantage in a jiffy.

    This was what the Icelanders did in 2008. Assisted by a financial disaster that wiped out the entire domestic equity market, the “Pots-and-pans revolution” demanded a new constitutional framework. The Iceland Parliament set up a Constitutional Council which then solicited inputs from the people through social media on the basis of which it produced a draft constitution submitted to parliament which in turn put the new constitution to the people in a referendum that won by 2-1 margin in October last year. As of March the final approval was pending in parliament.If Iceland can do it with a sitting Parliament and a 1944 constitution that had no provision for replacement, surely Nigeria can.

    Third, all we need is to truthfully acknowledge the sovereignty of the people. They can decide to confer or refrain from conferring sovereignty on a conference. But first, the question must be put to them.What we must not do is assume the impossibility of conducting a referendum on what the people want. The most disingenuous approach to my mind is to propose “an amendment to the 1999 Constitution to provide for the making of a new Constitution.” For that is making a fetish of a document that we all agree has numerous imperfections (consider the number of amendments proposed thus far) and a debatable origin.

  • From plurality to what?

    From plurality to what?

    Plurality defines the Nigerian state. It is a state endowed with plural nationalities, plural languages and dialects, plural religions, including plurality of intra-religious sects, and plural sensibilities. Since plurality and diversity are synonyms, we might as well say that diversity is the reality of the Nigerian state. But this is no news to anyone. Indeed, we acknowledge it in many ways including in the lyrics of our first National Anthem: though tribe and tongue may differ, in brotherhood we stand. The question that we have yet to settle is how we should deal with the plurality that defines us. Do we simply wish it would go away? Do we actively suppress it? Do we celebrate it? Or do we actively engage it in a productive way and make it a blessing rather than a curse?

    Last week, I agonised over the most dreadful disease of problem-denial that ails the country. Today I deal with the specifics and offer a way out of the dilemma of an eagle that is incapacitated by the weight of its wings.

    Back in 1960, we acknowledged our plurality and actively engaged it, ensuring that each region managed its human and natural resources in ways that were beneficial for its peoples and the entire country. If one determined that it needed to invest in the development of the human talents of its entire people, we let it be. If another focused on benefitting the elite cadre and sustaining the hierarchical ordering of the society, we didn’t stand in the way. We acknowledged the fundamental right of each to manage its resources with the recognition of derivation as an important principle of revenue allocation. The country was on the right side of the discourse on the management of plurality. But then something wasn’t right and things fell apart.

    In a genuine effort to deal with the ringworm that afflicted the political system, we applied a medication suited for leprosy. We chose to kill an irritant ant with a sledge hammer, and in so doing we killed the dream of unity-in-diversity by denying diversity and embracing uniformity.

    The reality of the menace of political ringworm was not in question. It had to do with the tone of political debate and the intolerance of the players in the political arena. But we failed to treat that ailment talk less cure it as is evidenced by the nature and tenor of current political debates. Political leaders still take pleasure in hypocritically heating up the polity with diatribes concerning the other.

    The leprosy medication ended up destroying the nerve of our nation-space, causing debilitating pain that has impacted our drive and militated against our flight into the space of giants which we are supposed to be.

    Centralisation and unitarisation is the Achilles Heel of this republic, and like every weak spot, it can spell its downfall. We may pray as we want, but even the scriptures attest to the need to combine faith with work and wonders aloud if we could multiply grace while we dwell in sin. The singular sin of a political structure is the deliberate distortion of the relationship between its component parts and this is what we have managed to do in the last forty-seven years.

    Consider the following. We have centralised all security services including the police, but we have not seen any improvement in our security situation. One rationale for centralisation of security is that states executives may use the police for political purposes. It’s unclear how that rationale squares up with what’s going on in Rivers State now. And assume that the tendency to politicise state police is real. Are we so out of ideas for dealing with such scenario? Are there no constitutional means of ensuring that the management of state police is kept out of politics?

    There have been proposals for the centralisation of all elections, including state and local government elections. The assumption here must be that states cannot be trusted to conduct free and fair elections into their local governments. But we have witnessed cases of election fraud, rigging, and manipulation with elections conducted by INEC. And now the new idea is for local governments to come under the federal authority through direct funding. For, if state governments have no budgetary relationship with their local governments, the reality is that they will have no political relationship with them. Yet local governments are units within particular states.

    Recent events show clearly that some options are not available to the Nigerian state in the matter of dealing with the plurality of its component parts. The reality of geography ensures that nationality groups cannot be assimilated one into another. That reality seals our fate as a plural state. Political leaders and actors affirm it in various ways when they are sincere and honest. They embrace their kith and kin especially when they thrive no matter where they may reside in and outside the country. Of course, they can be hypocritical if and when they are sure of its political benefit.

    There is another way we show that nationalities and ethnicities rule our space. Residency rights should normally come with responsibilities. But we claim the rights in various ways and then renege on the responsibilities. Census times and election times see the most inter-sate and inter-zonal movements of people across the nation. Yet both of these are politically essential and sensitive activities in a republic. Consider the case of Lagos. If many of its residents go back to their home states for census only to come back after, Lagos is shortchanged and placed in a position of disadvantage in the allocation of resources that are essential for residents. What has been the response of political leaders to such a reality?

    It is also not an option to exclude, excise, or alienate one nationality or another from the assembly of nationalities that make up the republic. Every nationality has a unique contribution to make to the upliftment of the nation’sprofile and deserves an adequate space to do so as well as the respect of all. To do this, however, we must recognise the uniqueness of each, what it brings to the table, and what it needs to make its contributions. For far too long, we have fallen prey to the political manipulation by the elite who exploit national sentiments for political advantage. But that doesn’t mean that nationality is unreal. It means that it needs to be actively and productively engaged for the good of the nation.

    If neither assimilation nor excision is an option in our engagement with our diversity and plurality, what is? From the foregoing, it seems clear that our option is to acknowledge the reality, embrace it, welcome it, and make it work for the good of the nation. This is sometimes referred to as the pluralist approach to nation-building. Pluralism recognises, affirms, and respects plurality. What holds together members of diverse cultural, linguistic, and religious nationalities that comprise the Nigerian state is the right and privilege of citizenship. Since none can assimilate another or be assimilated, and since none canexcise another or be excised, we must devise an ingenious way of inclusion and recognition of all in the varieties that each brings to the fold. The political arrangement that best deals with this is federalism in its purest form. That, in all seriousness, is the task that we have to perform successfully.

  • What ails Nigeria?

    What ails Nigeria?

    Opalaba once said that the most dreadful disease that an individual may be afflicted with is shamelessness, the inability to experience shame. I think he is right because while there is medication for dealing with, if not curing most other dreadful diseases, there is none for shamelessness.

    A nation is a collection of individuals and multi-nations are collections of nations. But while there is a common denominator of individuals, the nation is more than the collection of individuals that makes it up and therefore the most dreadful disease that ails an individual isn’t necessarily the same as that which ails the nation or multi-nation.

    I hate to do it, but let’s ignore the sage for a moment, put all semantics aside, and assume for the purpose of this dialogue that Nigeria is a nation. Sure, it is a nation of nations, a multi-nation. All that we need to establish from this is that Nigeria is not Opalaba—not an individual entity. Therefore the disease that ails Nigeria is not the same as that which ails Opalaba. And even if the disease of shamelessness ails some or many its members and their leaders, it cannot be validly inferred that shamelessness ails Nigeria as a nation.

    What then is the most dreadful disease that ails Nigeria as a nation? Let us consider some notoriously famous candidates: leadership, followership, poverty, inequality, sinfulness (godlessness), and diversity. This is by no means exhaustive; but they suffice for my purpose which is to show that none of them qualifies as the most dreadful ailment that afflicts Nigeria.

    Leadership is important and I have also argued in several column entries that in the life of a nation, “leadership matters.” A visionless leadership ruins a nation while a visionary one builds it up. It was Chief Awolowo’s leadership that gave the Southwest a head start. And because we have not been blessed with that kind of leadership at the centre since the beginning of the republic, we are where we are. Still inefficient and ineffective leadership is not the most dreadful disease because there is a cure for it, especially in a democracy. If a republic suffers from bad leadership it has the means of correcting it and effecting a change that it needs. This is where followership comes in.

    It has been suggested that Nigeria doesn’t have a problem of leadership; rather its problem is that of followership. The proposition makes a lot of sense. As I have just argued in the last paragraph a republic has options with citizen participation in the choice of leaders. That is what elections are for. But a nation that is afflicted with the disease of followership cannot get its act together to secure an effective cure for the disease of leadership. And it ends up replicating and multiplying delinquents as leaders. We have had this demonstrated incontrovertibly at many levels in the short history of Nigeria. Still followership is not the most dreadful disease.

    The disease of followership is attributable to certain curable causes which include poverty and ignorance both of which facilitate the onset of the disease of inequality. It follows that if we eliminate the cause, we may effectively eliminate the disease. We cannot here avoid reference to the sage again, for he had the foresight to know what the country needed to make progress. He zeroed in on investment in public education to cure the disease of poverty and ignorance, and improve the condition of followership.

    If we followed the sage’s prescription, we would not now have 69% of Nigerians living below poverty line as reported by the African Development Bank, or over 40 million citizens unemployed according to the information volunteered by Dr. Christopher Kolade, the Chairman of Subsidy Reinvestment Programme (SURE-P). Of course, without a good educational programme, mass ignorance is assured, and a nation denies itself the availability of human talents for the initiation of development projects and without a critical mass of those projects, there can be no employment opportunities. But mass ignorance does more than make development impossible. It also makes impossible the critical reflections on one’s condition, which is the first step towards seeking change and improvement.

    Many of our social ills have been attributed to the trio of ignorance, poverty, and inequality. Thus, religious or ethnic militancy has been considered as having a direct causal relationship with these three ailments. This is in keeping with the common belief that a hungry man is an angry man, and it is true that the devil finds work for the idle hand. So sinfulness or godlessness is a direct result of poverty even in the case of those committing atrocities in the name of God. But as I have argued above, with the right remedies in place, these are curable diseases and the most proven of those remedies is a good educational system combined with an employment strategy that guarantees good livelihood that promotes human dignity.

    In Nigeria today, all the various ailments discussed above can be cured if we didn’t have a more serious ailment. Our sister nations succeeded where we failed. Brazil is one of the most recent success stories. I listened to a Morning Edition radio program on my way to work this week on how Brazilians moved from a mostly poverty-ridden country to a nation of middle and upper classes. Brazilians used to wait five months to secure interviews for visa to the United States of America. Now they wait for two days and the interviews last only a few minutes. This is because the Consulate knows that Brazilians have the money to spend in the US.

    Diversity is the last on my list. And though it moves us closer to the most dreadful ailment, diversity itself is not our disease. The United State of America is a country that makes its diversity its strength.

    The most dreadful disease that afflicts Nigeria as a nation is a genetic one; it is a birth disorder. But that is not the worse part. Birth disorders can be corrected with genetic modification. The most serious of our ailment is denial. We are in self-denial about our ailment. And a nation in denial will continue to suffer under the burden of self-deception and a failure to acknowledge that it is on the road to self-annihilation.

    Now, let me come back to the assumption I made at the inception of this discussion. I suggested that we ignore the sage and assume that Nigeria is a nation. I now want to say that we do so at our peril. But that is what we have done in the last forty years. We even abused him when he dared to suggest that Nigeria is a geographical expression, andbrought it up over and over again to scuttle his political ambition. Yet the truth is that our actions and attitude have never proved him wrong.

    Indeed, the individuals and groups that deny Awolowo’s conscientious declaration in public, urge it in the privacy of their ethnic conclaves. We are a nation of hypocrites and charlatans. We have managed to deceive ourselves about the authenticity of our claim to nationhood status. However, if we sincerely bring our private sentiments to bear on the dialogue about what the country needs to move forward, we would zero in on our denial and we would make the necessary constitutional arrangements to bring us into a more perfect union. Until then, we are only day-dreamers and shadow chasers.

  • Ethnicising politics

    Ethnicising politics

    “The president is right. Nigerian leaders should stop playing ethnic politics. Yes, we started as a nation of nations. But we accepted even if reluctantly the imposition of one-nation status and we have lived together as such for almost a hundred years. Damn it, we are celebrating our centennial next year. So what’s wrong with our people? When will they stop speaking in tongues and embrace WAZOBIA?”

    “Welcome, Mr. WAZOBIA and Mr. President’s comrade-in-arms. But I have two questions for you. First, are you aware of the philosophical jargon “Ought implies can?” You must, since you are a philosopher. Second, and this is for you as a surrogate of the president in this matter: Did Mr. President look in the mirror?”

    Opalaba will never stop shocking me. Even when I was certain that I knew my good friend and would vouch for him, he had always surprised me. This time, I had simply presented a case for President Jonathan’s latest insight thinking that it was something Opalaba shared in view of his claim to a cosmopolitan lifestyle.

    “Ought implies can? Yes, of course; but what has it got to do with this matter? I asked my friend. To suggest that I ought to do something implies or presupposes or assumes that I can do it. So you may not insist on an ethical obligation for me to jump over a 12ft fence because I simply cannot. How is that related to the presidential injunction to fellow Nigerians to stop playing ethnic politics? Do you imply that Nigerians cannot but play ethnic politics?”

    “Yes, and I stand by that claim, obviously to your disappointment because you and Mr. President are idealists. But I don’t trust you. Indeed, I see a tongue-in-cheek scenario when anyone makes that kind of claim, knowing fully well in my mind that behind every such claim there is an agenda.Surely, the President and his aides have always come up with his image as father of the nation. And a father has to bring all of his children together. But the same aides don’t shy away from throwing jingoistic bombshell when it suits them. Hence my second question: Does the President look in the mirror? Does he realize that the pest that assails the vegetable of unity is inside?” Opalaba concludes.

    “Prove it!” I challenged my friend.

    “Of course, you would feign ignorance as if you don’t follow the news. When Ijaw militants vowed to end Nigeria as we know it unless Mr. President is allowed a second term, where were you? When elder statesman Edwin Clark claimed Goodluck as his son and challenged the North, where were you? And for the sake of everything that is decent and honorable, where was the Presidency? Did you hear a rebuke?

    “Sure, I followed those exchanges,” I answered Opalaba.” But as you also know, there is no smoke without fire. And Ijaw militants or elder statesmen didn’t start the raucous atmosphere that ensued. They were reacting to the demeaning nature of contemporary Nigerian politics, one that appears to favor majority. And you are also aware that as it is in national politics, so it is in state and local politics. Minorities feel marginalized. In the case of the south-south, they are asserting their right to have one of their own at the center in recognition of their status as stakeholders in the Nigerian project. Is there something wrong with that? I asked my friend.

    “Nothing is wrong. Indeed, you just made my point because as I would go on to show, it is also natural.

    “There are two important elements of ethnic identity, especially in the context of post-colonial African states. First is the natural tendency for language, especially mother tongue, to unite and divide. We had an opportunity at the dawn of independence to use our mother tongues to unite through the auspices of a language policy that would have ensured that from elementary to secondary school, Nigerian languages were compulsory. We chose not to. We not only embraced English as our national language, we also encourage the study of other foreign languages. Yet mother tongues remain the only mode of communication in our local communities and states, uniting speakers and separating them from non-speakers. We cannot avoid ethnic politics as long as we embrace linguistic diversity.

    “Second, while we embraced the so-called world religions and abandoned traditional religions for good, we have also managed in our own ways to ethnicize Islam and Christianity. So we speak falsely of Christian South and Islamic North and this is what has entered our political attitude. A national candidate from the North is expected to be a Muslim while his or her counterpart from the South is expected to be a Christian. This stereotypical attitude to politics has been with us for as long as the beginning of the republic and we deem it natural. Where then is the urge to jettison ethnic politics?”

    Opalaba went on.

    “What is particularly troubling to me in the case of President Jonathan is how he failed to exploit the national goodwill that he enjoyed at the beginning of his term. First, it was the will of the nation that he assumed office as Acting President. Those that are now vilified as ethnic jingoists were the fighters that rallied on his behalf. They were nationalists at that time. There was a national outrage when it appeared that he was not going to get the nomination of his party on account of a zoning formula. And when he finally got the ticket, he appeared to have a nationwide mandate, though rigging took place in a number of states. What this showed was that in spite of the tendency to ethnicize, Nigerians were willing to look, not at the sound of the tongue, but at the content of the character. And the question is, how has that victory been managed?

    “When the same voters complained of leadership vacuum in the matter of dealing with insecurity and unemployment, what has been the response? Now that there is palpable dissatisfaction with the state of the nation, our people are accused of playing ethnic politics. And you want me to go along with that judgment?”

    “Minority parties in the National Assembly showed tremendous courage and sound judgment when they voted for House Officers on the basis, not of their ethnic origin, but of their conscience prompted by their judgment about who can better do the job. The Nigerian Governors’ Forum voted to reelect their Chairman on the basis of their judgment of his performance and the fact that they did not appreciate external influence on the affairs of the forum. Where was ethnic politics in that event? It would appear that those external forces that expected the Northern Governors to vote as a block deserved the accusation of ethnic politics, and there were good indications that they were acting on behalf of the Presidency. So can the kettle really justifiably demean the blackness of the pot?”

    “I would go further,” Opalaba continued. I am tired of being preached to about national unity. Politics is about interests. John Locke got it right better than your favorite political philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau. We come to the political table with our various interests. Those interests don’t get left behind as we enter the doors of the state or national assembly. Otherwise, we would not be treated to rancorous debates about “what my people deserve.” Birds of the same political feather flock together in pursuit of their interests. Against our idealistic tendency to castigate and criminalize ethnicity, we must be aware of its behind-the-scene appeal as it colors deliberations which are supposedly in the national interest. Ethnic politics is not the enemy; deceptive embrace of national politics is.”

    Thus Opalaba ended his unsolicited lecture. And as God Old Cicero would say: Oro pesi je.”

  • A big deal

    A big deal

    It’s a small step for a party, but a big step for democracy.”

    “Let me go further. It’s a small step for a man, but a big step for a nation.”

    “Progressives finally have a fighting chance; they are moving from the margin of political existence to the centre of legislative and executive decision-making. In the twinkle of an eye, with the courage of an agency of government, progressivism has gotten rid of scaremongers. It’s a good day for progressives.”

    Opalaba went on and on as I feigned complete ignorance of what he was talking about.

    Of course, earlier in the day I had received a call from an excited Sunday Dare: “Good morning, Sir” and before I could answer, Sunday went on, as if he had borrowed a leaf from Opalaba’s playbook:

    “Oga is very excited, Sir. APC has been registered!”

    “Wow” I answered. That’s great. But isn’t the meeting supposed to be on Thursday? I asked, wondering if someone was trying to play a trick on us and make a fool of us.”

    “Yes, Sir” Sunday responded, “but for reasons best known to INEC, the meeting had been held earlier today (Wednesday) and Asiwaju has been on the phone with the leadership.”

    “Wonderful; Excellent; Oh, that’s so great. Now democracy is on course, I went on in my own excitement, forgetting for a moment that I was in my office.”

    Later in the night, we gathered together in my living room, with the Jagaban himself, who in fifteen years, has evolved and transformed himself, with palpable acts of courage and foresight to become the most acknowledged political strategist that Nigeria has ever produced. Bola Tinubu’s political enemies are still in political wilderness, and are not likely to vacate that space of irrelevance because they have failed to acknowledge his political wizardry. Simply put, the fact that Asiwaju has been able to pull this merger through, even if nothing more comes out of it, is a testament to his political skills.

    Fifteen years earlier in August 1998 in the same living room that we gathered to celebrate this merger on Wednesday night, we had agonised over the prospects of the participation of progressives in the Abdulsalami transition programme. It was a post-Egbe Omo Yoruba Convention reception in my house. With Baba Adesanya leading the discussion, the pros and cons were laid down and hotly debated. One view was that we needed to demand a national conference to discuss the way forward for the country and we must insist on constitutional provisions for a true federal system prior to any elections. Another view was that we must secure a territorial space from which we can advance our proposals for a true federal system. The meeting decided to give participation a chance so as not to cede our political space to the military backed politicians whose motives we knew.

    Progressives have always been purists, and that has been the nemesis of mainstreaming a progressive political agenda. After that decision and participation was endorsed, we moved from one political group to another because we didn’t want to have anything to do with some individuals who had collaborated with the military in one shape or form. I must confess that I have been one of the purists. But that is why I am not a politician. Bill Clinton, the American counterpart of Asiwaju Tinubu in the important task of political strategising once famously pronounced that politics is arithmetic. It’s a game of numbers. For a long time, we have failed the test of numbers largely because of our puritan tendencies.

    I was in deep thought about all these when Opalaba’s call came in and I pretended as if I knew nothing. He went on.

    “Why are you so quiet?” I expect some excitement from your end. This is why I am always worried about you egg-heads. When there is cause for jubilation, you turn inwards as if you have no emotion. Is it all about mind? Is reflection all there is to life? Get a life, my friend. Break the Champagne, right now and I’d propose the toast to the birth of a new baby: Ayo abara tintin!”

    “Wait a minute, my friend. Since when have you become so enthralled about politics? I am beginning to fear that old age is having its toll.”

    “You are right about that. This is probably my “Nunc Dimittis” moment. I have waited so long for progressives to have a real shot at the centre. Despite his genuine efforts and outstanding service to the masses, and his truthfulness to a progressive agenda, Chief Obafemi Awolowo wasn’t able to form a credible alternative to the reactionary clique that controlled the center in the first and second republics. Perception has always been the superior of reality in our political history. Now change is coming. Old alliances are broken and new ones taking effect because of the political sensitivity of one man and his ability to persuade like-minded folks. Progressives must doff their hats to Asiwaju Tinubu,” Opalaba concluded his beatitudes.

    “So you are actually ready to go now?” I asked my friend. “Remember now that shortly after he sang the song, Simeon, the author of Nunc Dimittis simply gave up the ghost! He just passed on because he had seen the glory of the Lord. Now that you have seen the glory of progressive politics, are you done? Should we start the arrangements?”

    “Of course, I knew that you would pounce on that. That’s the kind of friend you are. But it’s just the beginning, and the end is most definitely important. My only hope is that this beginning is not thwarted; that the leadership of the new party learns from experience; that internal democracy is their watchword; that they are sensitive to the presentation of a uniquely democratic alternative to the electorate because in the final analysis, it is what matters most. It’s a game of numbers.”

    “Surely, my friend, and I am one with you on these observations. What is particularly important is that All Progressives Congress (APC) is seen by all as a party of progressives with a progressive agenda focusing on the welfare of the people and a true federal arrangement. “

    When a former southwest governor queried the authenticity of the progressive label, I marveled at the misrepresentation of issues. On the part of that governor, the tie that binds the disparate entities of Nigeria together is oil. If wealth from oil gone, he suggests, Nigeria is no more. Yet it is true that oil wealth has not always been there and in those days of agricultural wealth, we observed how Nigeria held together through investment in human talents.

    The seat that that former governor occupied was the seat that Chief Obafemi Awolowo governed from. It is public record that Chief Obafemi Awolowo once defied the central government when he was given an unacceptable condition for the acceptance of federal subsidy. Awolowo told the central government to keep its funds because he could not sacrifice the educational agenda he had for the people on the altar of a federal promise that would scuttle that agenda. He successfully sourced internal revenue for his programme. That is what progressivism is about.

    It is not a coincidence that Asiwaju Tinubu famously resisted Obasanjo’s Federal Government intrusion into the affairs of Lagos State between 2003 and 2007 leading to the withholding of the states’ funds. And Lagos State did not collapse. That is what progressivism is about. There is a record for APC to emulate. Let’s get on with it.

  • Youth rights, elder rights, and generational integration•

    Youth rights, elder rights, and generational integration•

    The language of rights makes an interesting if not incongruous rendering of the relationship that the individual has or is expected to have to the community in typical African climes. The language of responsibility would appear to capture that relationship more appropriately. Still, we cannot pretend that the contemporary practice of rights has no bearing on the traditional expectation of responsibility. Indeed, it is now not uncommon for the most sacred of traditional institutions—the monarchy—to be embroiled in disputes that only get resolved by appeal to the language of rights—in the court of law.

    With an acknowledgement of the force of rights in contemporary societies then, we may address a few issues of significance to the social relations that subsist the African world,

    To focus the discussion, I would like to make an arbitrary distinction between tradition and contemporary iterations of some of the conditions that afflict the African world, including the social, political, economic, and cultural situations.

    Traditionally, the social condition of Africa cannot be described in paradisical terms. But it was also not as hellish as some may want us to believe. It was simple and rustic, orderly and peaceful before the era of greed and ego-driven ambitions set in. Individuals had a sense of place and a sense of their responsibilities within the community of interrelated persons.

    Everywhere now, the ideal of community is being rediscovered; but it was Africa that gave the idea to the world and it is to Africa that the world is looking for clues concerning the meaning and requirements of community. Unfortunately, Africa has moved on to other not-so-flattering ideals of life, including those that prioritise the good of individual accumulation and acquisition over the good of communal life. From “ajooje o dun benikan o ni, we moved to bamu bamu ni mo yo, emi o mo pebi n pomo enikookan. From the sweetness of cooperative living, we move to the worshipping of the self and contempt for the other.

    We have not been able to deal with this disastrous move effectively because the sanctions are no longer there.

    Contemporary political conditions ensure that traditional sanctions against egoistic acquisition are rendered illegal and illegitimate. And we keep getting better at institutionalizing corruption even when we make insincere noise about its unacceptability. Family name and community integrity used to be guided zealously. Thus a father would disown a son who brought shame to the family name through corrupt practices. And a whole community would distance itself from a member that brought it into disrepute. Today, a father would pressure a son to bring as much “dividends of democracy” to the family even if it means stealing billions and trillions of public funds. And there are traditional rulers who not only aid and abet “sons of the soil” known to be neck deep in corruption, but who themselves are active participants in the rush for contracts that are not to be executed because deals had been made.

    We now acquire political power with a distinct purpose of enriching the self as opposed to benefitting the people and the community. Yet we do it in the name of the people—my people need my service—and my service is to benefit no one but myself and my family.

    On account of our political conditions, our economy is matching forward in one step and backwards in four. I do not need to bore you with what you know. Indeed, young men and women are the major victims with unemployment as high as 40%. If four out of 10 youth members in a community are unable to get a decent job even after they do what we ask them to do—get a good education—the elders have shacked their responsibility and cannot be accorded respect. Traditionally, we know that “agba ti o lajeku yoo ru gba e doko. What is happening to our youths is a reflection of the poverty of the elderly efforts to provide for them.

    This may be why we are also not in a position to preach the gospel of culture. What culture? Orisa boo le gbe mi, fi mi sile boo ti ba mi. If our culture has been so bankrupted by the elders that the youth see no value in their immersion into it, we are doomed as a people. For culture identifies and while the phenomenon of cultural borrowing is still real, without our own identity, we are just going to become beggars in the land of other cultures. We are seeing this already. 70% of our elites don’t allow their children to speak Yoruba language in the house. This is even when both parents are Yoruba. The vogue is to have kids speak English as their mother tongue. Yet there is a large amount of good research on the benefits of the mother tongue for learning. Not only this, there is also plenty of good evidence that children are capable of learning and speaking multiple languages at very tender ages.

    An effective response to the conditions that militate against the progressive development of the African world is not just one that focuses on the youth. Indeed, from my submission above, the elders need a reorientation away from practices and institutions that damage the sense and spirit of community that has always been the strength of Africa and its Diaspora. It is for instance a thing of shame that the spiritual realm of contemporary Africa cannot be guaranteed as a solution to the challenge of crass materialism because the spiritual realm itself has become a theater of the absurd with cut-throat competition for sinful souls not because they need salvation but because it is their kind that the preacher needs for a fat bank account.

    There is a need to integrate spirit and matter. Surely the youth need a spiritual anchor that enables them to start firm and rooted in the face of the winds of change blowing across the African world. I submit however, that for that foundation to be strong, it has to be built on a solid material formation. We must prioritise institutions that cater to the material needs of the youth so as to give them the strength for spiritual renewal. It is not a coincidence that our people say that ebi kii wo nu ki oran mii woo. A hungry person is a potential prey or victim of spiritual swindlers. The community needs to guard its own from the vultures of religious zealotry. The poor are being promised virgins upon successful suicide mission and they easily buy it because of their condition. Assume that the nation has invested in the education of those young ones and has ensured that they had gainful employment upon completion of their studies; can anyone imagine that they would fall prey to the sugar-coated mouths of wicked mullahs?

    African peoples need a break from poverty, violence, political instability, and generalised social malaise. Africa has made some substantial contributions to the world culturally and spiritually. Now Africa and its people need to focus attention on building economic institutions that serve the purpose of cultural and spiritual renewal—institutions that prioritise the good of the community which ultimately translates into the good of individuals. If we bring together the collective efforts of the people to harness the collective resources of the people, there has to be bountiful results. Cooperatives and collectives have featured in our traditions with good results. We need to revive that spirit for the sake of the young ones who are fast losing hope in our collective humanity.

  • I see; therefore I know

    I see; therefore I know

    Opalaba has not been known to be effusive in his praise of any individual, talk less a politician. My friend cannot stand their kind. For in his view, they all thrive on deception, without vision and without an eye toward a lasting legacy. “How else do you describe a person who has a singular opportunity to do the most good for the most people and instead choose to line his pockets and those of his immediate families?” he asked. To which I would always ask why he chose not to throw his do-gooder hat in the ring if he was so moved to benefit the masses. And he has never had to pause for a second before he came up with a response: “apparently you are in a hurry to do your job as the executor of my estate,” he would charge. “Then desist from your boring complaint,” I would fire back.

    Given my friend’s aversion to politics and disdain for the political class, I was shocked to the marrow when Opalaba called with excitement to report what he considered to be the transformation going on in Oyo State. No, he wasn’t prepared to change his mind about politicians; he just thought that the feat that he was witnessing came from non-political minds; not from career politicians. “If you think about it” he observed, “it takes the discipline of the intellect to have vision and it takes the courage of the mind to bring it to fruition. Not all dreamers have the intellect or the courage to realise their dreams.”

    Not too long ago, I wrote about the mess that Oyo State in general and Ibadan in particular had become. In “Anikura as political hero”, I raised the question why a city that was once the headquarters of the most amazing developmental programmes in the entire continent can be so messed up and its people so traumatised that they couldn’t find the strength to extricate themselves from the deadly grip of a cabal. That is, until the cabal, blinded by the appearance of its invisibility, and choked by its insatiable greed did itself in and it didn’t need much strength for the people to liberate themselves. They voted for change and real transformation. It appears that, at last, they’re having their prayers answered.

    Opalaba’s excitement was infectious but no one was going to play any prank on me. I wasn’t going to be fooled again, even by a honey-coated tongue as my friend’s. He told me about the new network of roads, drainage systems, the aesthetics of the medians, the neighbourhood markets. “What is more”, my friend added, “it is not just Ibadan that is being transformed; it is a state-wide approach”, he remarked.

    “Good for them. But I don’t trust you and I have to see to believe.”

    “You are a philosopher, aren’t you? You don’t have to believe anything, including your own existence. I am surprised that seeing will make you believe.”

    “I wish you don’t dabble into what you don’t understand and just stick to your stethoscope. For in that space, you are the king. At any rate, seeing does not only make me a believer, it makes me a knower. What my koro koro eyes perceive, I do not doubt.”

    And so, I headed for the pace-setter state to see for myself.

    Though I had thought that narratives of the developmental efforts going on in Oyo state can be exaggerated, what I saw in Ibadan was simply unbelievable. From Elizabeth Road to Mokola junction, I encountered no traffic jam! From Challenge to Yemetu, it was a smooth ride. Iwo road used to be a driver’s nightmare. With less than 20 km stretch, you could be held up for hours. My friends related their nightmare scenarios on the road. With only 5 km to their house, they once spent three hours before they managed to turn around to seek a longer route. Now the same road takes less than 20 minutes.

    That the road network has made life easier for the people is an understatement. But there are two other issues, one I confirm for myself and the other was brought to my attention by common eye witnesses. First, the aesthetic dimension of the project is commendable. Functionality may come at the expense of beauty. But in the case of what is going on in Ibadan, it is clear that the steady eyes on a lasting legacy have ensured that beauty must not be sacrificed for the practical. Second is the dimension of quality. I was informed by ordinary folks who observed the contractors as they toiled on the projects, ensuring that the drainage system was built to last, the median was solid and the space under the fly- overs were beautifully fenced in against miscreants and vandals. I am told that similar projects are picking up across the state from Oyo to Ogbomosho and Iseyin.

    When I first saw the demolition of stalls and shops in December, I worried what would happen if the government wasn’t able to speed up the project and complete the roads in good time. Now, I know what it means to have the will to utilise the resources at one’s disposal. I also worried about the displaced petty traders albeit with unauthorised stalls. Now I know what it means to be a sound planner and compassionate administrator. I drove to the new neighbourhood market in Challenge and I saw traders and marketers happy with their new lease on life. I understand that there are more such markets springing up in neighbourhoods throughout the city and across the state.

    The Yoruba people are talented with words and witty sayings for any occasion. Proverbs are for them the search engine for hidden treasures in conversation. They say, for instance, that an enemy never succeeds in capturing a well-endowed bush-rat. No matter how big an enemy’s catch looks, it is always going to be derided as a bony little lizard. I thought about this when I read an interview granted by a former governor of the state. Among other things, he was asked about his perception of the impressive transformation going on in the state. To which he gave a politician’s response: a facelift has to have a human face, he said. A facelift must be gradual, he added. In other words, if you have the means to transform the state in one full bloom, why do it? Why not stretch it out? Here’s the question that didn’t come up in the interview: “For how long would the former governor have stretched out an infrastructure transformation agenda? Another four years? And then wait for an additional four to be able to attract investors who now seem to be coming in droves already?

    In a sense, I concede that what Governor Ajimobi is doing is what good governance is all about. It is what is expected of anyone who presents himself or herself for public office. It is also true however, that in this clime, we have not always been fortunate to have governors who take seriously their pledge to serve the people and promote the people’s interests. When we see one, we are naturally pleasantly surprised. That was how the phenomenon of Babatunde Fashola and the transformation of Lagos, including the Atlantic City project, stunned us and impressed us. That the Southwest is going currently through a genuine transformation should be a thing of joy. Sustaining the current efforts and preventing the return of the anikuras is a task in everyone’s interest.

    On my part, now that I see with my eyes, and I know of the efforts made and the outcomes achieved, I bow my hat to the vision of Governor Ajimobi and his team. Of course, it is not finished and there’s more to do. O tun ku nibon n dun. And as long as the spirit of the last two years still sustains the team, we can expect more wonders.

    I kept my promise to report my findings back to Opalaba and I commended him for his truthful account of the ongoing-projects in the state. “It’s because you see that you believe. Blessed are those that didn’t see but still believe” my friend responded.” Even the devil is capable of quoting the scripture!

  • Transformational Leadership Revisited

    Transformational Leadership Revisited

    The following is an updated version of a piece that appeared on this page three years ago. There is good reason for an update. Three years ago, with the emergence of the Jonathan presidency following the demise of former President Yar’Adua and the leadership struggle within the ruling party, a good number of citizens concerned about the need for a new beginning through the instrumentality of a transformational leader, invested their hope in Jonathan’s ability to provide such a leadership. Even those who didn’t see a messiah in Jonathan had hoped that his background placed him in a better position to provide the leadership for change in policy and attitude that the country sorely needed. Three years after, the question is: what has changed?

    While developmental projects matter and leadership is rightly judged on the basis of its success or failure in promoting the welfare of the people, what is even more important is the ability of the leader to steer citizens on the path of moral rectitude and attitudinal change. The challenge of leadership is leading by example, and on this, the scorecard of President Jonathan has been far less than exemplary.

    Three years ago, when I wrote about transformational times with the challenge to the President to lead the charge, a commentator wondered whether it was a realistic challenge when a section of the country was already deploying the “s” word.

    I surmised at that time that the revival of the “s” word, where “s” stands for secession, had a lot to do with public cynicism about the real motives of political actors; and we all knew that it wasn’t the first time that provocative word was deployed, having featured periodically in the checkered political history of this country beginning in 1953, then 1966 and 1993.

    Indeed, in 1967, it was not just a word that was deployed; an act was performed with devastating consequences. Since the tasting of that forbidding fruit, however, it seems to me that we have all been forced to accept the reality of our common fate. We are in this lifeboat together, and we either float or sink together. It is this reality that trumps cynicism for me.

    On the assumption that none of us as individuals, zones, or nationalities is suicidal, the question is “how do we float together?” This question faced us in 1970 at the end of the civil war. It was not properly addressed. It faced us in 1993 after the debacle of the annulment. It was not properly answered. On those occasions, leadership hubris intruded the zone of rationality, and rationality retreated. We are faced with exactly the same question now, and it will not go away unless we address it satisfactorily.

    The life boat analogy is apt for my purpose. The various scenarios that can sink a lifeboat are present in the case of this country at this time. Imagine some of the occupants deliberately puncturing a part of the lifeboat. Or imagine more occupants brought into the boat without expanding the boat. Or imagine some of the occupants of the boat being disproportionately tasked with paddling while others are forever napping. Surely with these kinds of issues, only a miracle can save the boat and its occupants. And no doubt, many Nigerians now believe that with our present situation only a miracle can save the country. I think it serves us better to actively work for our miracle to happen.

    In the last few months, we have seen the deliberate and sustained effort to spread fear concerning the 2015 elections. Again, there is nothing new about this. We once heard a former president declare that an election in which he was not going to be a candidate was a do-or-die affair. And we saw an investment of raw power and intrigue of the meanest kind in the federal elections of 2007. We also saw the house of cards built by that investment crumble before our very eyes. Shouldn’t that have sent a signal that Nigerians wanted a different direction in the matter of electoral integrity? And now there is nauseating chatter over the airwaves about the hell to expect should Jonathan fail to get a second term. Shouldn’t this President have read from the pages of history—even our own limited history—that citizens reward leaders who truly lead and they revile those who rely on raw power with no moral compunction? But where is the presidential rebuke of the loose talk going on?

    Just to pick on the very recent incidents, the President failed to show true leadership in the matter of the Nigerian Governors’ Forum elections even after the unsolicited revelations from members of the Northern Governors Forum. Instead he intensified the vain rhetoric about party discipline. Must party discipline be prioritised over conscience?

    Now we are witnessing a further escalation of the same crisis as the Rivers State Assembly is engaged in a macabre dance, the calculated outcome of which may be a declaration of a state of emergency. Should this be the ultimate goal of the brains behind the crisis, the question is what does the President expect to gain? How a president benefit from a politically engineered crisis that is aimed at removing the institutions of governance of a state, including the governor? What legacy does the President expect?

    Of the very important issues that the Jonathan presidency was expected to tackle and resolve for a lasting legacy, none is more important than that of keeping this lifeboat afloat. For this to succeed, we have to pay careful attention to its need for restructuring to avoid leakage and provide for its expansion in the light of new occupants being brought in in waves. A transformational leadership passionate for the survival and prosperity of the country and imbued with integrity is needed for this purpose.

    Only incurable and irrational egoists believe that this country rests on a solid foundation and therefore is not in need of a fundamental restructuring. But to argue with an irrational egoist is not only to endorse irrationality but to become a partner in irrationality. I am not willing to do that.

    The founding fathers of this country were patriots to the core. They held conferences in which they deliberated passionately on a fitting constitution for the country. They zeroed in on a federal structure as the best in the light of diverse nature of its peoples. Each region was to have its own constitution, its own coat of arms and flag. Each region was to keep up to 50% of the resources coming out of its land and the sweat of its people. Each country was to be responsible for some vital aspects of the lives of its people, including their internal security, their health and their education. The system they agreed upon worked; it generated healthy competition among the regions. It was not the structure that faltered; it was human nature that led to its collapse.

    What will save this lifeboat at this transformational time is a genuine effort on the part of the President engaging those transformational leaders who in their various stations have paid their dues and made enormous sacrifices for the survival of the country thus far to come together once more in one accord. Even politicians who may be thinking only in terms of political or sectional interests should get it right this time that the possibility of satisfying such interests is minimal in the light of the imminent and present danger of collapse the country is facing.

    No one doubts the poverty of values this country is experiencing now. From the horror of armed robbers to Boko Haram insurgents beheading innocent victims, and kidnappers making daily living uncertain in cities, we are inching closer to a failed state. The President must now resolve to actively engage all stakeholders to save this lifeboat through fundamental restructuring and thus preserve his legacy. President Jonathan must now choose the noble art of statesmanship over the odious craft of politicking. This is what transformational leadership is about.

  • Tradition endures

    Tradition endures

    IT has not always been well with tradition. There have been serious philosophical objections to the idea of tradition and its sacredness. Utilitarian thinkers, for instance, tell us that traditions are not self-justifying, or that moral traditions can frustrate the moral progress of societies and individuals. In the wake of our own struggle for independence, traditional authorities were denounced by nationalists and progressives. Recently, however, both in intellectual and political circles, there have been a renewed respect for tradition and its values. And while the requirements of democracy have generally been pitted against tradition, a number of philosophers from Alasdair McIntyre to Alain Locke and David Gauthier have raised questions about the narrow-mindedness and absence of self-examination that inform ordinary thinking about democracy as well as the lack of self-examination that limits the diffusion of democratic ideals.

    Tradition is a customary way of doing things that is unique to a group. It is what is handed down from generation to generation. To borrow a religious language, it is the acceptance of the faith of our fathers. As renowned sociologist Shils puts it, the “decisive criterion (of its traditionalism) is that having been created through human actions, through thought and imagination, it is handed down from one generation to the next.” Of course, being handed down does not entail being accepted. A tradition is a tradition only because it is accepted by the next generation that also passes it on. The continued acceptance of a tradition is the basis of its endurance.

    It is important to note that the acceptance of a traditional idea, belief, or practice is subject to what the people it serves make of it in terms of their well-being. The notion that a tradition has a suffocating grip on a people is, therefore, misleading. It depends on the moral weight that the people accord it. This is what Kwame Gyekye has in mind when he notes that “the continuity or survival of a tradition depends on the normative weight it can carry with (a) generation” that accepts it and “much of the authority of an inherited tradition is said to have derived from the evaluative activities of a recipient generation.”

    What goes into the evaluative activities of a recipient generation? How do individuals and communities come to the conclusion that a way of life that they inherited from their forebears have meaning for them and is good for their well-being? These questions assume that we really have a choice in the matter. And to some extent, we do. After all, we can choose to ignore or even eradicate those traditions that we find unacceptable for various reasons. The limitation has to do with the fact that a recipient generation is not completely isolated from the giving generation. Unless a whole generation of potential receivers collectively commits patricide, they will have their parents for the better part of their lives. So did those parents have their own parents. There is therefore an interlocking and intersecting relationship of givers and receivers with givers interested in and monitoring the receivers’ attitude to the tradition of their parents and grandparents. In general, we are obedient and loyal offspring of the community that seers us.

    The foregoing thoughts came to mind as I gleefully watched the excitement, love, affection, and respect with which the Okeho community in the United States of America and their friends welcomed the traditional ruler of Okeho, HRH Oba Rafiu Osuolale Mustapha Adeitan II and his amiable Olori Taibat Omotola Mustapha during their recent visit to Washington. From the time they landed at the Baltimore-Washington International Airport to their departure three weeks later, the admiration of the people was palpable. And their royal couple did not disappoint expectation. They comported themselves with utmost dignity, and an apparently natural penchant for decorum that distinguishes the royalty, including gentle reminders from Kabiyesi about proper dress code and dignified outing.

    As appropriate to his status as the father of all, Kabiyesi was comfortable in the mosque as well as in the church and endeared himself to both the Jumaat and the Congregation. Thus, the royal couple participated in the worship service of Alafia Baptist Church in Maryland, and Kabiyesi’s address to the Congregation on the theme of unity felt very much like a sermon, a point that the Pastor noted with appreciation.

    At the civic reception in their honor, Oba Mustapha Adeitan II reminded his audience, mainly Yoruba in the diaspora of their origin with the observation that “a river that forgets its fountain will soon dry up” and “eniti o sole nu, o sapo iya ko” (the loss of one’s origin is tantamount to the recovery of a load of suffering). He also noted with satisfaction the laudable programs and projects that a good number of folks had embarked upon in the homeland all of which had impacted the lives of people positively.

    Okeho is a small community with concerned individuals with very big heart who are committed and dedicated to its progress and development. And, consistent with his emphasis on the theme of origin, Kabiyesi did not forget to place on record his heart of gratitude to all Okeho indigenes including those in the diaspora, especially those that are resident in the United States for finding time to visit Okeho from time to time. For this helps to ensure that they are aware of not only the condition of their people but also of their needs and aspirations for which the privileged ones can be of assistance to the community.

    Among those individuals who have been of tremendous help to the progress of the community are Mr. Jacob Moyo Ajekigbe, the former Managing Director of First Bank Plc and Kabiyesi did not forget to appreciate him as he had done at every occasion in the last several years. Another is Alhaji Moshood Raji Bomodeoku who after an illustrious career in the Federal Civil Service relocated to his community and set up businesses, including a tourist centre, Moshra Gardens.

    What is the relevance of all this to national discourse?

    I started out as an integrationist, one that believes in the idea of a one indivisible nation. I still do, but I now firmly believe that all conditions for integration must be satisfied. One such condition is that this belief must be shared by all and no one part is made to bear the burden of unity while others loaf around. With this is the moral need for equitable distribution of resources and amenities. It used to be the case that some were regarded as drawers of water and hewers of wood. Do we serious still want to believe this? I hope not. It is therefore incumbent on the political leaders nationally and locally to approach their mission with the fear of God, with the understanding that even the backwoods of the nation are endowed with living humanity that deserves justice.

    Finally, for me it is important for us to understand that the building blocks of a united nation are the communities that make up the nation. It is for a good reason that the Yoruba suggest that if the living room is not healthy, the entire city is nothing more than a slum. Therefore, we have to ensure that our hometown is healthy. All politics is local is the famous axiom attributed to late U.S. Speaker O’Neil. Therefore, if you have not already been actively engaged in your community, even if you are not a politician, it is important to assume that responsibility of community involvement. It is the least that you can do as a human being.

  • Echoes of Babel

    Echoes of Babel

    The nation’s narrative, unambiguously disseminated to the whole world, in the last fourteen years, through the medium of the central administration that has been under the control of the largest party in Africa, has been nothing but depressing for the masses. Unemployment has shot through the roofs. Security is an unrealisable dream. Missed targets of set goals for power generation have been as predictable as the daily occurrence of incessant power failure itself. Poverty is on the rise just as a few continues to swim in undeserved opulence, no thanks to the unjust system of fraudulent reward.

    In the face of all the tales of woe that our people have had to deal with in the last decade and a half, the party in power has continued to claim victory in national elections, no thanks to the coalition of forces and the solidarity of agencies, including INEC, that have been responsible for those “victories.” We also know that the egoistic tendencies in human nature have kept even some of the more conscience-minded individuals in the fold. They have moved out and gone back in because of the belief that the PDP is the only party through which their ambitions can be realised.

    Times have changed. No, we still have a depressed society in material and spiritual terms, and then some more. In 1999, we didn’t have to deal with Boko Haram terrorist network. Now, the fear of Boko Haram is the beginning of wisdom across the North.

    Times have changed for the supposed supremacy of the largest party in Africa. The chickens of greed and crass egoism bereft of self-discipline are coming home to roost and there are loud echoes of Babel in the house of cards that has endured quite a bunch of self-created political storms. These times remind us that a house of cards does not last long.

    A political party that is built solely on individual member’s interests in self-promotion and individual success, and is not bound by a common interest in a political ideal that places the interest of the nation above self-interests, is one that is built on sand. It is a house of cards. The reason is simple. Without a common interest is something that is bigger than the self, what is left are conflicting interests. The interest of each individual to make as much as possible for him or herself must run into conflict with that of his fellow member. There has to be a third-party interest—that is what a common ideal is, and that is what is lacking in the PDP. They pay lip service to the party as supreme. But it is gibberish; each individual knows that the reason the party was established was to serve as a means to the satisfaction of individual interests. For its members, there is no moral in politics.

    For the exponent of politics without morals, the idea that it is for the purpose of managing the affairs of the state for the benefit of its citizens does not make much sense because they either do not acknowledge that there are other citizens whose interests are worthy of promotion, or because they see themselves are best suited to identify the interests that need to be promoted and how. In both cases, politicians with this mindset put themselves above all other citizens, and justify to themselves any action or policy even if it makes no sense to the other citizens.

    Recent happenings within the ruling party demonstrate the mentality of its membership. The national leadership of the party is completely determined to return President Jonathan to power in 2015. As far as it is concerned, other political parties don’t have the means to challenge its dominance at the centre, not even the emerging APC. Therefore its calculation is to secure the President’s nomination by the PDP. And anything that obstructs the movement of the elephant in the forest is sure to be vigorously attacked and cleared off the path.

    So Amaechi has to go, and so in the new mathematics approved by the PDP, 19 is less than 16. Of course, they knew this all along. But they insisted that if 19 of their governors endorsed Governor Jang for the position, they all were expected to vote for him. Therefore, even if they did not vote for him, the earlier endorsement subsists. It is an argument that makes sense with the psychology of egoism where there is no recognised neutral arbitrator to resolve conflicts of interests.

    Sometimes, however, conscience manages to prevail and individuals are lifted above and beyond considerations of self-interest. So Governor Lamido can no longer keep silent and he felt the need to let the struggling cat out the bag of moral pollution. Nine PDP governors voted for Amaechi, he pronounced. The house of cards is collapsing fast and echoes of Babel can be heard loud and clear. What has been the motivation for Lamido’s coming out with such a revelation? Not a mind-reader myself, I can only speculate. It could be conscience, as I surmised above. But it could also be self-interest, and from just one act of whistleblowing, one cannot conclude that our politicians are redeemed or redeemable.

    There is more. Governor Wamakko of Sokoto State was suspended from the party. It was clear from the beginning that this was one action that Tukur’s NWC would regret as the Northern governors were up in arms against the decision. Tukur caved in and Wamakko’s suspension was lifted. Has Wamakko suddenly showed remorse and has he become loyal to the party hierarchy? Don’t count on it, given human nature. The mass resignation of NWC members and the impending sack of the National Chairman is ominous for the party.

    And there is more. In the Southwest, the fortune of the party at the polls has been sealed by two factors. First is the outstanding performance of the ACN governors in the five states they control. Even the worst critics of these governors attest to the incredible development projects in education, road construction and health and welfare interventions. And this is a region where voters reward achievement and are not asking for anything more.

    Second, and more to the point of my topic today, is that the PDP house of cards is also collapsing in the region even faster than in the nation at large. For one thing, the access to the promise of patronage is now disastrously limited and those whose idea of party membership and political activism is influenced by such considerations have no real motivation. For another, the generalissimo of Southwest PDP, former President Obasanjo is himself no longer in reckoning in the national leadership of the party. That was after he has effectively contributed to the collapse of the party in Ogun and Oyo states.

    And now in Oyo State, strange fellows and coming to share a bed with the rumoured romance between former Governor Alao Akala and his former boss and nemesis, former Governor Ladoja. What this romance means for the PDP in Oyo state is unpredictable for now. But something significant caught my attention from a recent interview granted by Chief Alao-Akala on the relationship between the two and his own ambitions. In reference to Oke-Ogun state and the question whether he would present himself as a Senate candidate against the incumbent Senator Hosea Agboola, who was his former Commissioner for Local Government, Akala not only dismissed his former commissioner’s credentials, but he was also dismissive of the entire Oke-Ogun electorate. In his political calculation of electoral politics, he only needed Ibadan and Ogbomosho, which influences his idea of partnership with Ladoja.

    Politicians calculate all the time. But it is usually done discretely and with some finesse. If you boastfully discount a swath of land and its population, you have alienated them and cannot therefore count on their support. What this would mean for the PDP in Oke-Ogun in particular, and Oyo State in general, is anybody’s guess. It is true, however, that a divided house cannot withstand the united competition of its opponents. These echoes of Babel are truly instructive.