Category: Segun Gbadegesin

Today, I share a Special Guest’s speech I gave recently at the public presentation of two books by an amazing man. Blind at 6, PhD at 53! The inspiring story of David Oyebamiji Akanji, Ph.D., lucidly told in his From Grass to Grace, is one of perseverance and persistence against odds and a complete trust in his creator. It is a story with great lessons to teach us all.

Becoming blind at age 6 in Nigeria, the odds were pretty strong against him. But for a strong determination and the grace of God, he would probably have been long forgotten. Many able-bodied children of his age ended up on the farm helping their parents with no thought given to schooling. He also had a stint on the farm. Thankfully, he had an opportunity to be enrolled in school at age 8. That was after a two-year training at the Ogbomoso Blind Training Center from 1961 to 1963. Going forward, nothing would hold him back.

With many physical, financial, and psychological obstacles on their path, schooling in Nigeria is a hassle for able-bodied and sighted children. Majority of the parents aren’t well-to-do. Putting food on the family table is a chore. Where are they supposed to get funds for books, clothes, and other supplies? The government of Western Region under the leadership of Chief Obafemi Awolowo had these challenges in mind in 1955 when it introduced the Universal Free Primary Education program. It was a God-sent for many parents and children.

David Akanji was one of the program’s beneficiaries eight years after its inception. As mentioned above, he had also benefitted from the foresight of the founders of the Ogbomoso Blind Training Center which enabled him to learn practical skills. He knew, however, that without further education, his future was going to be mediocre. One of the lessons from his amazing story is that at such an early age, our author had a good understanding of the future that he sought for himself.

Dr. Akanji never allowed himself to be disabled despite his apparent physical condition. He never considered his lack of sight as a lack of vision. This unsighted man has forever been a visionary. And his vision has culminated in his achieving the highest academic qualification. This is another lesson from his inspiring story. No matter our physical condition, we can only be handicapped or disabled if we choose to be.

There is ample evidence that in his journey through life, David never took “No” for an answer. Stunned about the withholding of his GCE result for unknown reasons, he didn’t resign himself to fate. Convinced that something was wrong, he decided to make it right. He traveled to WAEC office in Lagos from Ibadan, a dreadful journey for even a sighted person. But this unsighted man made the trip by himself. His lost paper was fetched out by the authorities and graded. And he passed.

Fast forward to David’s journey to the United States which first landed him in Arkansas. He fought his way through in that southern state with all its drama of racial politics. However, the most astounding feat was when he got admitted to Howard University and traveled by himself by train to Washington DC from Arkansas, not knowing anybody, and not having arranged any accommodation. He just took his destiny in his hands, put his faith in his God, and jumped on the train. Without funds beside the train ticket!

At the Union Station in DC, David got off the train, found a seat in the waiting room, waiting for God to start doing his part. And God delivered, as he always does for those who put their trust in him. “Ask and you shall receive. Knock, and the door shall be opened unto you.” Out of the blue, funding blessings rained on him, and he took a cab to Howard University Campus. With God’s hands upon him, he was provided campus accommodation and the next year saw him completing the Master’s program.

Achieving the Masters’ degree would be a hit of immense proportion. But for this goal-getter, the best was yet to come, and it was in search of the best that he successfully sought admission to Gallaudet University for the doctoral program. Of course, if we have learnt anything from his experience thus far, we would conclude that his Gallaudet encounter was neither a bed of roses nor a cakewalk. But the one who would enjoy the sweetness of the honey hidden under the rock must not pay attention to the blunting of the edge of his axe. Focusing on his ultimate goal, David persevered through all challenges and in the end, he prevailed with the Ph.D. in hand.

David’s story is amazing. It is also a story that should get us thinking about the population that he represents as he himself suggests in his second book that is also being launched today. This book, The Management of Blind Education and Visually Impaired Students in Nigeria’s State Capitals of Kwara, Lagos and Plateau, is the subject of his doctoral dissertation and it X-rays the challenges of the handicapped, especially blind people, in Nigeria.

David’s study of the management of the education of the handicap in Nigeria shows that it’s a depressing case. That after 60 years of independence, Nigeria is still at the Neanderthal age of the development of education in general and the education of the handicap in particular, is a great embarrassment.  Dr. Akanji’s study, with its findings on the problems and his recommendations for resolving them, provides a well of information for politicians and policy makers and policy executioners. Hopefully, they will rise to the challenge.

However, as citizens and observers, we all have roles to play. The matter of education as well as the future of our youths has become an urgent issue in Nigeria and other African countries that we must do more in sounding the alarm. Our youths are going through hell on earth. With the squandering of educational resources, our youths are half-baked and, thus, unemployable. They end up roaming the streets and becoming involved in cultism and Cyber Crimes, banditry and kidnapping for ransom. Nigeria is fast approaching the cliff of existence. In our various ways, with our different voices, we need to sound the clarion call before it tips over.

We have a huge role to play, not only by speaking out but also by doing our part in raising the standard of education even as private citizens. Obviously, Dr. Akanji has also placed himself in the vanguard of this effort, putting his resources where his mouth is, by founding the Akanji International Foundation for the Blind and Visually Impaired Students, Inc. (AIF) as a non-profit entity to “promote the education of the blind and visually impaired in Nigeria and throughout Africa.” The goal is to improve the education of the blind and visually impaired by “developing a centralized educational and training campus” which would provide opportunities at all levels of education. Thus, the visionary impulse is still very much at work. It is up to us as individuals and as groups to lend our support to the realization of this noble vision.

I had the fortune of meeting and knowing Dr. Akanji during the struggle of the middle 1990s for the democratization of Nigeria. As a founding member of Egbe Isokan Yoruba, Dr. Akanji never saw his condition as an excuse to stand by. Fittingly, Isokan Yoruba members, including former President Adeniran Adeboye, Dauda Jolaoso, Abiodun Adepoju, Leke Adekoya, and Yeye Adetoun Gbadegesin were on hand to rejoice with him. It was well-deserved.

Of course, people may genuinely ask now, in view of our experience with the power-brokers since 1999, whether it was all worth the struggle and deprivation. I say to such cynics, we have done our part and we cannot and must not regret doing what we knew was right. It only means that we must continue to persist and raise our voices. Dr. Akanji has taught us that important lesson of life: where there is a will, there is a way.

Sunday November 28 was the 113th Birthday of Chief Adekunle Ajasin. On his passing to glory in 1997, Egbe Omo Yoruba, North America (EOYNA) organized a memorial in his honor on November 29, 1997 at Howard University, Washington, DC. It is a blessing to share the following edited version of my tribute at the event:

In the New Republic magazine, Leon Wieseltier, writing in memory of Sir Isaiah Berlin, the Oxford University professor … made reference to a verse in the Talmud, according to which “when a sage dies, all are his kin”, and everyone must mourn.  Indeed! A sage, as an icon of humanity, is a benefactor to all; his passing is a loss to all, and those who suffer loss, will mourn.

For Chief Adekunle Ajasin, we must add that, by virtue of his impact on our lives, everyone was his kin, even before his transition to the glorious beyond. And his passing has demonstrated the veracity of the Talmud. For in his death, we all suffer a tremendous loss, and so, we all mourn, including those who never met him.

As beneficiaries of the Western Region’s Universal Free Primary Education Program of which he was a founding pillar, we must mourn the passing of a true champion of our future successes.

On January 17, 1980, on the occasion of the 25th Anniversary of the Universal Free Primary Education Program, Chief Ajasin reminisced on the formative stage of the program, and his own personal involvement, which was based on the regional leadership’s belief that “a human being is not in any proper sense a human being until he is educated; and that it is on the sound education of the people that the security and destiny of every nation mainly rest.” This belief has continued to sustain the commitment of the people of the old Western Region till today.

It was Chief Ajasin’s personal belief and of his administration in Ondo State (1979-83) that “a nation depends for its greatness on the knowledge and understanding of its people because the sure foundations of a state are laid in knowledge and never in ignorance.” Chief Ajasin and his colleagues in the old Action Group, including the foremost leader, Chief Obafemi Awolowo and his lieutenants knew that education promotes “freedom, individual dignity and self-reliance.” And they were not bothered that the deliberate effort to educate their people might lead them to demand for more freedoms and opportunities. Those of us who are the direct beneficiaries of their large heart and clear foresight must mourn the passing of Chief Ajasin.

So must fellow Nigerians from outside the first home of free education, and whose regional governments were not ashamed to copy what was good for the benefit of their citizens. We know, for instance that efforts were made by other regional governments to follow the footsteps of the West; and that delegations were actually sent to the region to study the operation of its free primary education program. It is clear to us, therefore, that the success of the scheme in these other parts of the country was owed to the pioneering efforts of Chief Ajasin, its architect and builder in the West.

Those who believe in the principles of “freedom for all, life more abundant”, which served as the core values of the Action Group, and in the four cardinal principles of the Unity Party of Nigeria-Education, Health, Integrated Rural Development and Full Employment- will mourn Chief Ajasin’s passing. For these principles have served us well.

Traditionally, our people have always valued their freedom. Our traditional political institutions had their checks and balances. We never endorsed nor legitimized tyrants as rulers. Recall the end of Basorun Gaa, Alafin Awole, and Kakanfo Afonja. Our ancestors prided themselves in their principled position on freedom and justice. This is why it is easy for us to champion the cause of justice and human rights across the land, even when we are not directly affected.

Chief Ajasin taught us that we could each play our part, based on our own assessment of our mission as individuals and as groups, in light of our understanding of the enormity of the task facing us as a people. We could choose to be non-committal as far as the redressing of political ills of the country is concerned. We could decide to focus on culture and hope that through the propagation of whatever remains of our culture to a world that has made up its mind that it is political power that counts, we would achieve greatness for our nation. That would be a decision that each of us will have to live with, once it is freely chosen.

But if we choose, as Chief Ajasin did throughout his life, to struggle for justice and democratic norms, with a view to bringing the much deserved dignity to a nation that was destined to be great, then we cannot be closet pro-democrats, and we cannot be arm-chair ideologues.

Chief Ajasin taught us that there is honor in taking a principled position; that it is not always appreciated; that it opens one to insults and back-biting. But that in his own words, “No road is too long for the man who advances deliberately and with determination and no honors are too distant for the man who prepares himself for them with patience and determination. I believe that the only failure a man ought to fear is failure in cleaving to the goal which he has chosen to be the best.” For teaching us this great lesson of life, and of organizational integrity, we must mourn the passing of Chief Ajasin.

A word on integrity, a virtue that each of us as individuals and as organizations must seek to cultivate, even as we struggle against powerful forces of evil. Integrity is holding on tenaciously to well-considered principles and refusing to be blackmailed into abandoning one’s position. Integrity commits us to being steadfast in our avowed devotion to the restoration of democracy and struggle for human rights. Chief Ajasin led the way and refused to bulge even when he was being harassed and humiliated by the agents of the most brutal dictatorship that our country has experienced. For teaching us by example to stay away from agents of the junta, in all their guises, we are Chief Ajasin’s kin, and we must mourn him.

Finally, those who understand the need for the restructuring of Nigeria to restore internal autonomy to its component parts must mourn the passing of Chief Ajasin. For he, along with his colleagues in the Action Group, and later in the UPN, had taught us that Nigeria is a multi-national state; that in such a state, the principles of true federalism require that the component parts have true autonomy.

The period between 1955 and 1966 was the golden age of Western Region, because the regional government had the autonomy to develop its resources and adopt policies for its people. But with the unitarization of the country since 1966, component nationalities have suffered deprivation. This is why EOYNA has been in the forefront of the struggle for internal autonomy. For we believe, as Chief Ajasin did, that “Nigeria belongs to all of us, and we as a component part of it will play our own part creditably as we expect all the other parts of the country to do, thereby bringing peace and stability to the affairs of the country.” (Governorship Swearing-In Ceremony, 1979). For this important message that uplifts the spirit of advocates of true federalism, we must mourn the passing of Chief Ajasin.

But let our mourning be celebratory, joyfully memorializing the life of a sage who taught us so much, and gave us so much to ponder about life and its meaning. We must celebrate a life that was spent in the service of the community. We must extol the virtues of modesty, integrity, honesty and service, which he symbolized. We must then rededicate ourselves to the cause for which he lived, and the struggle for which he died.

An unforgettable hero of our struggle for justice, Baba’s memory is blessed.

I had planned for a discussion of the debate over primaries today, revisiting my 2018 piece on “Primary palaver”. But then, Afenifere sneezed and it came down like thunder, causing the political earth to quake. What’s primary palaver in the face of an imminent threat to survival? What to worry about national election when the nation’s tomorrow is less than certain?

Chief Ayo Adebanjo spoke from, in his own telling, the “departure lounge” of life. A fighter for freedom and social justice all his life, at 93, he has demonstrated that his is a consistent voice in the battle for the soul of the nation. Before he moves from the departure lounge to the boarding gate, we better pay attention to his plea for sanity.

Afenifere’s press conference brought back a multitude of memories rushing for attention in the hippocampus. I am reminded of Chief Obafemi Awolowo’s targeted and focused interventions in national affairs with unassailable facts and figures only for his political opponents to start scampering for appropriate response. In 1982, in a letter to President Shagari, he predicted, with lucid analysis, a looming economic recession about to hit the nation. Rattled about what they considered to be a political attack, the NPN put its Chairman, Chief A.M.A. Akinloye, on a plane to London to offer its response, littered with name-calling and red herrings. A few months later, recession hit the nation. Truth out!

Chief Adebanjo’s press conference is a reminder of that truth-telling tradition. And in fairness to him, he has been worried about the future of the nation for quite a long time, but especially more desperately in the last six years, probably because he sensed that his time is spent. In March 2016, I met Chief Adebanjo at the Birthday Celebration of Chief Awolowo in Ikenne where The Awolowo Foundation had kindly invited me to participate in the program. Among other formidable participants were Governor Nasir El-Rufai, Governor Ibikunle Amosun, Professor Ladipo Adamolekun, and Mrs. Oby Ezekweseli.

At the post-lecture reception, Chief Adebanjo pulled me aside. He was worried about where the nation was headed. He wanted to have a talk with Asiwaju Bola Tinubu along with his friend and colleague, the later Chief Olanihun Ajayi. His message was that they would meet Tinubu at his place or wherever he chose. I delivered the message and Asiwaju insisted that he would go to meet them rather than them coming to him. I thought that was an Omoluabi response. I delivered his response back to Baba through the late Yinka Odumakin because I was on my way back to base. They eventually met and I was told it was a good discussion. Apparently, however, nothing has changed for the nation; the lice invading the national attire are stubborn and the blood on our finger nails therefore persists too. Hence this latest intervention from the Afenifere Leader.

Yet another memory that came rushing back to me from Afenifere’s press conference was the brouhaha over the so-called Third Term Agenda, a self-inflicted political crisis that rocked the nation at the tail end of the Obasanjo administration. Despite Obasanjo’s identity, Afenifere was in the forefront of the resistance against that self-regarding proposition. The title of our discussion today is a throwback to that period when I also titled one of my interventions “Those Who Must Speak NOW”. Today, however, what we need is more than speech. We need action and we need it NOW.

We need action because inaction is tantamount to giving up on the future of the country. Afenifere is not alone in reading the tea leaves of the current national trauma. Surely, we have an infrastructure revolution going on. Certainly, our roads and bridges are receiving attention, thanks to President Buhari’s focus and the unalloyed loyalty and dedication of his ministerial team to his vision. Many parts of the country, including mine, are benefitting from it. Sadly, however, a nation without a consensus on their identity and what binds them together cannot enjoy the fruits of infrastructural development for long. I was struck by a high profile reaction to the series that I started a few weeks ago focusing on the survival of democracy. A known quantity in the corporate world who has never shown any interest in partisan politics sent me a one-liner: ‘Shouldn’t the question be “Will Nigeria Survive?”‘ We deceive ourselves if we fail to see this as a pervasive sentiment across the country.

So, who are those that must act now before the Titanic of state hits the iceberg as feared in Chief Adebanjo’s timely warning?

Top on my list is Afenifere itself. I will explain. As mentioned above, over the years, even before independence, the group has proved itself an organization with patriotic zeal. In the struggle for independence, its political wing, the Action Group, advanced the cause of federalism and good governance more than any other political party in the history of Nigeria. Its leaders, from Obafemi Awolowo to Adekunle Ajasin, Abraham Adesanya, Ruben Fasoranti, and now Ayo Adebanjo, have demonstrated courage and consistency in their outlook about what this country needs to make progress. But it takes more than one to tango. And who’s better placed to advance the cause and mobilize others than the one who sees what others may fail to see?

Borrowing the sagacious reasoning of a thoroughbred Yoruba, Aare Egbe Omo Yoruba, Dr. Durojaiye Akindutire, “eniti o gbe aro wa naa ni o gbe e pada”. Meaning: Whoever initiates a brilliant idea must be in the forefront of the struggle for its execution. Therefore, bringing up the proposal to move the nation forward in the right direction obligates Afenifere to champion the discourse that is required to make it happen. How might that go?

Everything that Afenifere identifies as requirement for moving forward is reasonable. But as far as I know, majority, if not all zonal groups also subscribe to some fashion of it or another. Afenifere is against secession. So is Arewa Consultative Forum. So is Ohaneze Ndigbo. So is Middle Belt Forum. So is Niger Delta Congress. This means that the major organizations claiming to represent major nationality groups are for a United Nigeria. Of course, every such group also has its resisters from IPOB to Odudua Republic. But if Afenifere is right, the resisters are simply frustrated by the paralysis that has stalled restructuring efforts.

If my reading of the situation is right, Afenifere has a task to perform. Leave out politicians in the legislature or executive for now. But reach out to all parallel organizations across the zones. Do not assume that one group or another is against your thoughtful proposals. Initiate discussions with sister organizations on the way forward. Be ready for compromises. The legislature and the executive represent the various zones and nationalities. They will be hard pressed to ignore an agreement that comes from a meeting of minds by the various zonal and nationality groups.

For an even more effective jaw-jawing, do not leave out religious groups. CAN does not want the break-up of the country. It has membership across the zones. Neither does the SCIA under His Eminence Sultan of Sokoto. Or the Inter-religious Council which he also leads. Traditional Rulers are also stakeholders with an abiding interest in the sovereignty of the country. In other words, these non-partisan, non-political interest groups that cut across our default lines are potential partners in the progressive stabilization of the country. They all must act now before it is too late. Afenifere must see them as partners.

Why am I persuaded this approach will work? Because we have tried every other approach except this. I stand to be corrected. But beside the arrows and bullets of words and insults flying across the zones, I have not seen a move towards a constructive approach that takes advantage of our common humanity and moral and spiritual investment in Project Nigeria. It is high time we tried. And if at first you don’t succeed, try again. Then, Baba Adebanjo can go in peace but certainly not before his appointed time.

Elders are our national insurance against self-destruction.

Unlike other systems, liberal democracy presents itself as the champion of freedom (liberal) and equality (democracy). As such, it takes seriously the welfare of the people, treating them as equals, with representatives just being servant-leaders. Dictatorships are on the polar end. Talk about politics in dictatorships is just a waste of time because everything must serve the interest of the dictator. So, we are not here worried about dictatorships and their politics.

What then is the enigma? First, in liberal democracy, politics is the art of service to people. In the ideal world, this is why politics exists and why people take it as a vocation. In the real world, however, politics is often, if not always, the closet of self-service. Squaring these two worlds and making sense of their intersection is a major challenge for thoughtful observers. Why is the ideal world so terribly contradicted by the real world? And if politicians had been honest about their real world calculations, would they have any followers? So, deception is the name of the game.

Second, in liberal democracies, some issues appear so commonsensical. But in the uncommon sense of politicians, they are not a priority. Consider the issue of voting in elections and the right of every citizen to participate in this seasonal ritual that makes democracies what they are. A democracy that denies this right to citizens cannot still bear that appellation. But in the real world, self-serving politicians would do anything to curtail the right of citizens and suppress their votes.

Politicians in liberal democracy calculate the impact of their actions on electability while voters calculate the impact of their votes on policy outcomes. Yet politicians often ignore voters’ interests even when polls are clear. In the United States, lowering the price of prescription drugs is a winning political formula with overwhelming support regardless of political affiliation. But politicians have dilly-dallied over the issue for twenty years, betraying their constituencies, even when doing so can potentially cost them votes.

Nothing is new about any of the above observations. What baffles understanding is that among the few decent politicians who appear focused on their responsibility to their constituencies, some are so obsessed with independent mindset that they end up hurting the people they vow to help. What motivates such approach to politics that appears to be self-destructive? This is the question that I would like to address.

Let me start with some concrete examples from recent and ongoing events. As candidate for President of the United States (POTUS), Joseph R. Biden Jr. campaigned vigorously for some policy initiatives. He would present policy proposals to support the Middle Class, combat the pandemic, offer relief to families, and build back the economy better. He would combat climate change with new ideas, including clean energy initiative, negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical companies, and raise taxes on the wealthy and big corporations to fund his programs so they won’t add to the deficit, etc.

Biden won the election and became president. Voters also gave his party, the Democratic Party, the mandate to control the two Houses of Congress-Senate and the House of Representatives- though with narrow margins. But a win is a win. And voters expect the party in power, controlling Congress and the Presidency, to deliver on its promises. And they are alarmed that it is not happening! Why is it not happening?

First, while there is a narrow Democratic majority in the House, the majority can deliver its policy agenda with a simple majority vote. And it has been able to do this for the most part. However, the Senate has to concur and Senate Rule requires at least 60 votes for any major legislation. With a 50-50 split between Republicans and Democrats, at least 10 Republicans must be willing to join their Democratic colleagues for such legislations to pass. This is a huge hurdle to overcome in the current political climate where extremists appear to have taken over both parties.

But there is a way out for Democrats. They can pass their legislations through a process called Reconciliation which requires only 51 votes out of the 100-member Senate. Though Democrats are only 50, they can count on the Vice President, a Democrat, to cast the deciding vote. This is the procedure they have decided to use to pass Biden’s domestic agenda which includes child tax credit, free universal preschool, paid family leave, clean energy initiative, and lower prescription drugs, among others.

However, a second unanticipated hurdle surfaced among Democratic Senators who cannot afford to lose any of their members’ votes on the legislation. Two so-called moderate Senators object vehemently to key aspects of the legislation. They won’t support expanding Medicare to cover dental and vision or higher tax on the wealthy and big corporations. They would support neither provisions for battling climate change nor paid family leave. What explains the opposition of these Democratic lawmakers to the initiatives sponsored by their President, supported by the vast majority of their party leaders and members as well as the larger population?

Several reasons have been suggested and at least one of the two Senators has also offered his reasons. Putting together the various suggested and verbally expressed reasons, we may begin to understand the enigmatic nature of liberal politics.

First, it is suggested that these Senators are in an unholy alliance with lobbyists who fund their campaigns. While we can never be sure that receipt of campaign contributions from lobbyists is directly related to the position of a lawmaker on particular legislations, if there are circumstantial evidences, they cannot be ruled out. As the deliberations were going on, there were reports that one of the Senators had a fundraising dinner with lobbyists on the opposing side of the legislation. Talk about quacking like a duck!

Second, one of the Senators comes from a Red state, where former Republican President won in 2020 by more than 40 points. Therefore, in his calculation, to maintain his seat, the Senator must not rankle the majority of his state voters. This is politically prudent. But there is something else to consider. The legislation he is opposing will benefit the majority of the voters in his state which has some of the worst outcomes in the social welfare index–school systems, health, income etc. If they were more concerned about their welfare and less about party orthodoxy, they would support the Senator voting for the legislation.

Third, the two Senators are fiercely independent and they cherish their maverick approach to politics. But being a maverick must be purposeful. Senator McCain was such. He famously thumbed down his party legislation which would have withdrawn health insurance from millions. But a would-be maverick recently infamously thumbed down her party’s $15 minimum wage legislation, thus hurting millions of people.

Fellow Democrats and Independents in Congress and activists have been frustrated with the gridlock on good legislation meant to improve the lives of citizens. As Senator Sanders lamented, it is not right for 2 Senators to take 48 Senators hostage. And while President Biden has expressed confidence that the two Senators will come round to support his legislative agenda, the fact that this gridlock has played out so ugly in the public domain is a demonstration of the enigmatic nature of liberal democracy.

The result of this gridlock is already showing in the reaction of voters who are rightly disappointed about what many have condemned as a clown show. On Tuesday, voters in Virginia and New Jersey went to the polls to elect their governors and representatives. Virginia has been turning blue recently with democrats winning governorship races in succession. But on Tuesday, voters rebuked Democrats by voting a Republican as governor and electing a new House of Delegates under Republican control.

Now, the foregoing is typical of liberal democracies. The legislative process is comparable to the making of sausage. It is messy. But it is worth it if the outcome is good for the people. Ours is also a liberal democracy. But our politics has its own uniqueness which stands it apart. This uniqueness is the subject of our attention next week.

The discourse over the state of the country has recently, and alarmingly, turned on the (un)negotiability of its unity. On the one hand, for President Buhari, his predecessors and fellow unitarists, the unity of Nigeria is non-negotiable. On the other hand, for many citizens, including millions of federalists and self-determination groups, nothing is sacrosanct about Nigerian unity which prevents its being negotiated. Negotiable or non-negotiable? This has been the disjunction in focus in the discourse. But what exactly is the meaning of this discourse?

Let us examine the first side of the disjunction: the unity of Nigeria is not negotiable. What does this mean? That the unity of Nigeria cannot be negotiated? Which could mean that it is an impossibility? But surely, it’s not a physical impossibility, is it? Nothing physically prevents the negotiation of the unity of Nigeria. The founding fathers did exactly that over the course of many years before independence. It was attempted but failed at Aburi before the civil war. And right now, I cannot envisage a physical barrier against a repetition of Lancaster House or Aburi.

If there is no physical barrier and therefore “cannot be negotiated” doesn’t mean physical impossibility, could it be a moral barrier we are talking about? If so, what is that moral consideration that prevents the negotiation of the unity of any country, including fatherland Nigeria?

To answer this question, we should first have a clear idea of what the term “negotiation” implies. When leaders say the unity of Nigeria is not negotiable and followers demand the negotiation of the unity of Nigeria, what does each group have in mind? I presume that this is where the challenge is. We are talking pass each other. For leaders, the demand that the unity of Nigeria be negotiated implies a dismemberment or a weakening of the unity of the country. This, of course, is not necessarily the presumption of those demanding the negotiation of the unity of Nigeria.

As mentioned above, the Lancaster House constitutional conferences were about negotiating the unity of Nigeria. The terms of the agreement constituted the basis of the unity of Nigeria. Now, it remains true, epistemologically and morally, that no one has the monopoly of wisdom. And God knows that the founding fathers would be the first to acknowledge that they were neither angels nor gods. They were also not the incarnation of Satan. But they had their limitations, as Chief Enahoro attested to. With their mind focused firmly on independence, they left many things out, including the very important matter of the fair and just balancing of nationality interests. That was set for further negotiations after independence. It never got done.

Now, because of the limitations of human knowledge and human wisdom, such negotiations must be a work in progress. It was the expectation of the founding fathers too. And it is what the current proponents of a negotiated unity champion. If they wanted dismemberment, they would not call for negotiation in the form of restructuring.

One more point on this. The proponents of a negotiated unity in the form of restructuring also have the upper hand in the moral argument. The agreement following negotiation for the unity of Nigeria by the founding fathers concluded that the country must be a federation with specific functions for regional and central governments. But the country has veered off dramatically from the original agreement to the disadvantage of the federating units. This is the warrant for negotiation if some sections are not to be permanently disadvantaged in the scheme of things. Is this too much to ask from a moral point of view?

If we understand “negotiation” in the foregoing manner, what moral argument can there be against it in the context of Nigeria as it is presently constituted? Indeed, the moral case against a domineering federal government which has assumed the weight of a leviathan trampling and crushing the federating units has never been clearer. Acting like St. Nicholas in dishing out favors to the latter doesn’t minimize the moral atrocity of the arrangement. Hence the moral urgency of negotiation.

Now, there is another meaning of “not negotiable” which cannot be discounted from this analysis. Indeed, it would seem to me to be the crux of the matter. “Not negotiable” could mean “negotiation will not be tolerated.” In other words, “we don’t care if negotiating the unity of Nigeria makes moral or political sense. We don’t even care that it is physically possible or morally just. We will simply not tolerate it.”

Let us try hard not to dismiss the foregoing as the mind of a dictator. As is explained above, it depends on what they understand by “negotiation.” If they think that negotiation is dismemberment, it is understandable why national leaders would reject it. It is a blow to their ego. But as we have seen, this is a warped understanding of negotiation of unity.

All the foregoing leads me to what I believe has been missing from the discourse thus far. In the current political climate, it appears to me the height of wishful thinking to believe that we have a unity, talk less of its being non-negotiable. Can anyone really observe what is going on across the country and still talk about any flickering of embers of national unity? The southeast is a cauldron of fratricidal violence because it wants out. The southwest is not farther away. The north central is a victim of land grabbing marauders and ethnic cleansers. So where is the unity? What we have now is more of a statist effort to impose and enforce unity at all cost.

Yet, some are still under the illusion that we have unity which cannot be negotiated when all we have is a broken unity which needs to be mended. For what does one do when a pot of unity is broken? Mend it. And in this case, while reasonable people can disagree about the best approach to the mending work, it is contrary to reason to pretend that nothing is amiss. Unless, of course, one sees the brokenness as normal as long as one’s interests- personal or sectional- are protected and advanced.

With discontentment fueling dissent leading to glaring disunity in the land, the idea of a non-negotiable unity is a misnomer. Where disunity is the default position of the nation, our focus should be on what we need to mend disunity.

It reminds me of the story of the lion and the tiger, two skilled hunters who forged an agreement for cooperative hunting. In the arrangement, the lion is the keeper of the spoils with a promise to ensure a fair distribution between the two. The tiger agreed and the game was on. The reward of their united approach to hunting was immediately apparent. No other animal can beat them as they hunted and captured big and small games. But the lion didn’t keep his own side of the bargain. He fed his cubs the choicest of the spoils as he himself enjoyed the best meat, leaving bones for tiger, his team mate.

Eventually, it occurred to Mr. Tiger that he was being cheated and his reaction was swift. “Game over”, he thundered. “I can no longer be a part of an arrangement that openly cheats me.” This is the genesis of the Yoruba idiom: Kaka ki kiniun se akapo ekun, kaluku a sode e lototo. (Rather than the lion serving as the keeper of spoils for the tiger, each would hunt separately). I am aware of a different cultural interpretation of this idiom. I proffer this alternative interpretation as more fitting for our present situation.

Advocates of restructuring are the tiger. But they are not averse to mending the disunity that pervades the nation as a result of their perception of irregularities. They patriotically want to make it right. But some tigers, who perceive the lion as irredeemable, have given up. They want out. If advocates of restructuring successfully mend the disunity, these angry tigers may be persuaded to lay down their arms. That “if” is all there is to the future of the nation.

In the market place of politics, political parties are the sellers or marketers of ideas and policies. It is a competitive market, and they could be so obsessed with the competition that they see it as an end in itself.  Winning at all cost becomes a mindset, with rigging as its weapon of choice. This is ruinous to the system because it undermines voter confidence, and it is happening even in major democracies now. To the extent that politicians cannot depend on the attractiveness of their ideas to potential voters, but must manipulate the system to favor them at any cost, including by suppressing the vote and changing the rules of the game in the middle of competition, democracy cannot survive.

Extreme partisanship is bad for democracy because it doesn’t see any good in the other party and therefore doesn’t appreciate the need for cooperation when it matters. When leaders of one party see fellow citizens who are members of a different party as the evil enemies of the country, the prospect of inter-party cooperation on important national issues is zero. Gridlock is the result. When leaders of one party, out of a sense of party solidarity, compromise on shared democratic principles, by embracing or neglecting to sanction bad behavior on the part of their members, the cause of a stable democracy is not well-served.

Perhaps the most serious threat to democracy across the globe today is the tendency toward authoritarianism by leaders elected through the democratic process. And it takes its source in human nature. A demagogue in leadership position is a potential arsonist in the household of democracy. He or she can burn down the entire edifice. Hitler was democratically elected. And we have numerous Hitler mini-mes in borrowed democratic garbs. They appeal to the worst instincts in fellow citizens to claim power and once they get it, they do whatever it takes to trash democratic institutions and dismantle the guardrails.

The above observations are of universal significance. We see the gradual erosion of democratic norms in some of the major democracies, including the United States of America. The experience of the last five to six years has been particularly troubling. The loss of an election in a democratic competition between two contestants should be a foregone conclusion unless it is possible for the two to win. But if a contestant should enter the race with a mindset that he alone must win, that is no longer a democratic competition. Why not just ask to be enthroned the king by divine right to the presidency? But if one individual had the mindset and everyone, including leaders of his party, would assume the mantle of patriotism and reject his antics, it would ensure that democracy is protected. Where they enable him instead of discouraging him, there is a serious threat to democracy.

In our own corner of the world, if this democratic experiment is to succeed, genuine efforts must be made by leaders and followers alike in every aspect of the requirements of democracy touched on above, including a conscious and deliberate effort to protect its guardrails. Participants must know that elections are not a do-or-die matter. Winning at all cost is an anathema to the democratic spirit. And there must be a level playing field for the competition to be fair and just.

In a multi-nationality polity, however, democracy cannot just satisfy only a one-person, one-vote condition. We are not an individual-based polity. We are community-based. As such, we have to be mindful of both community and individual interests. It is the rationale for the principle of federal character that is enshrined in the 1999 Constitution. The argument favoring merit against zoning or rotational presidency ignores this important fact of our national character. Does it make sense to respect federal character in admission and civil service employment but not in the access to the highest offices in the land? If a sense of belonging is the warrant for federal character in appointments and admissions, is it any less important in the matter of elective offices, especially the highest office?

Other polities which share our demographics and are conscious of the need to have stable democracies go into thoughtful deliberations on the best means to achieve that objective. Some adopt rotational presidency among major nationalities. Others adopt a system of presidential council in which representatives of each nationality in the council take the leadership responsibility for one or two years, as in Switzerland.

Chief Anthony Enahoro (of blessed memory) had a thoughtful perspective on Nigerian democracy and it is reminds us of the great founders and their passion for the success of our democratic experiment. Unfortunately, we have become numb to great ideas by virtue of our condemnation to shallow thinking on behalf of sectional interests. Yet a democracy of diverse peoples like ours must, if it is to succeed, carry every section along. You cannot expect to rule as if on behalf of your section and do it so openly and expect that others will just take it quietly without protest. It is not possible. Therefore, the earlier we recognized the fact that the common good or common interest of a multi-nationality polity is not the preserve of one section but must be a product of the consensus of all, the better it is for the cause of political stability.

Unity is an essential value to be encouraged in a nation of multiple nationalities, tribes, and tongue. But it doesn’t jumped in out of the thin air. Indeed, unity is more like the fruit of a tree whose seed was deliberately sown and nursed with close attention to the nature of the soil and the weather and climatic conditions. It takes thoughtfulness, hard work, patience, persistence, and a leadership mindset that is fair and balanced. Coming to this with the mindset of a realpolitik conqueror who must bend every section to his will is a nonstarter.  The question “do we want to live in a united, peaceful, and democratic nation?” cannot be adequately answered by the threat of violence against dissenters.

This was what Chief Enahoro had in mind when he addressed Egbe Omo Yoruba Houston Convention in April, 1997. Titled “Nigerian Federalism in the 21st Century”, the speech challenged our unwillingness to lay the ghost of the disunity caused by our cowardly acceptance of the colonizers’ desire for the failure of the country they reluctantly granted independence. For while the struggle for independence was relatively successful, we have struggled without much success to democratize and to modernize. For him, the reason for this failure can be traced to our failure to be true to who we are: a nation of nations with distinctive cultures, languages, and traditions which the colonizers ignored. While they got away with that because they had no stake in it, we have since realized that our failure to pay attention and course-correct is the real source of disunity and will continue to be. What is required then?

Take seriously the peculiarities of language, religion, culture, economics, and politics. To borrow Chief Enahoro’s fitting metaphor, we must resist “the strict application of the principle that in order to make a Nigerian omelet which is acceptable to alien palates, we must break our indigenous nation eggs.” Rather, for “Nigeria to survive and fulfill our collective destination, we must work for a true, federal system—a federation of nationalities…” This is the basis for a true democratic system.

Over the last 22 years, we have enjoyed democracy dividends, from freedom of thought and expression to freedom of association. To be sure, it is not yet Uhuru in many respects. We are still at the mercy of unruly and unprofessional security agents. Corrupt officials still make life a hell for us. And with unemployment and extreme poverty still our lot, we are yet to smell the promised aroma of material dividends. Yet, we are not where we were in 1999. And if we keep hope alive, we will reach the Promised Land. For this to happen and for democracy to survive, leaders and followers alike must respect and protect its guardrails.

”…..that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth”–Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address, November 19, 1863.

That democracy shall not perish from the face of the earth was Abraham Lincoln’s prayer. It was a view of the world that he envisioned and which he strove to help create. It contrasted sharply with the world of slavery. It was not a world of racial inequality or racial prejudice.

For Lincoln, the American civil war was worth the sacrifice only if a genuinely democratic society was its final outcome. But while he achieved the goal of ending slavery, crowning it with the signing of the Emancipation Declaration, Lincoln could not advance democracy as he wished before an assassin on revenge mission silenced him.

Lincoln went to his grave not knowing whether the government of the people, by the people, and for the people would endure or perish from the earth. But he appeared to have had a premonition of things to come from some of the disturbing events of his time.

In “The Political Religion of the Nation”, an address that he delivered to the Young Men’s Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois in January, 1838, Lincoln worried about “the increasing disregard for law, which pervades the country; the growing disposition to substitute the wild and furious passions, in lieu of the sober judgment of the Courts, and the worse than savage mobs, for the executive ministers of justice.” That observation anticipated the January 6 insurrection by almost 200 years. And now it is no longer an empty threat. There is a real danger that democracy may not survive even among its most passionate and consistent global advocates.

But what is great about democracy that we should want it survive? Not many of the classical thinkers thought it was a good system. Plato derided it as the rule of the ignorant. His preference was for the wise and knowledgeable to rule. While Aristotle viewed democracy as the rule of the poor on behalf of themselves, he preferred “polity”, seeing it as an ideal governing system for promoting common interests.

Yet there was a reason Cleisthenes, generally acknowledged as the Father of Democracy, introduced demokratia or rule by the people as a governing system in 5th century BCE. It respects the dignity of persons and recognizes that everyone is equal before the law, which Herodotus described as the most splendid of virtues. This recognition of individuals rules out tyrannical regimes whether with men of war, money bags, or religious priests, at the helm.

However, it is worth noting that the world didn’t start out recognizing this essential normative aspect of our common humanity, namely that everyone has a dignity that must be respected and everyone in turn must live by the tenets of human dignity. From the conjuring of the Divine Right of Kings to the aristocracy of wealth, and the tyranny of military dictatorship, every human race or nation went through some era of oppression in the hands of fellow human beings. Even the Athenian experiment by Cleisthenes had a prelude in dictatorship and a postscript of dictatorship. And his democratic initiative lasted only for two centuries.

The world has seen all and tried all forms of government and the verdict appears to favor democracy as the best. Winston Churchill, the war general and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom famously declared that “democracy is the worst form of government-except for all the others that have been tried.” He should know. He was voted out of power as Prime Minister just months after leading his country to victory in World War II. Only in a democracy can that sharp turn of events occur. Remember President George W. H. Bush and his 90% approval rating after the first Gulf War of 1991? Less than a year later, he lost reelection to Bill Clinton, a war-evading governor. Only in a democracy!

This almost universal affirmation of democracy as the best form of government has facilitated its attraction to many societies and leaders, especially since the late 1950s when more colonized nations gained independence. Democracy became synonymous with all forms of governance structures. Thus we had African democracy, Socialist Democracy, Latin American democracy, Asian democracy etc., as the late C. B. Macpherson magisterially captured the trend in The Real World of Democracy. On his part, the late President Julius Nyerere of Tanzania, in a “teacher don’t teach me nonsense” moment, famously attacked Western Democracy as a fake. In view of what’s going on in many of these Western democracies now, one wonders whether Nyerere wasn’t right after all.

An overriding assumption of democracy is that individuals know what is best for them and, given the chance, they will choose what is best for them, whether it be choice of the best among candidates for office, or choice of the best policy in a referendum. This assumption presupposes adequate information and knowledge of the issues as well as the absence of constraining factors, whether in the form of external pressure or the coercion of material poverty, intimidation of wealth, or the temptation of greed.

Knowing the limitations of human nature, democracy also establishes guardrails on its highway. These guardrails are designed to prevent avoidable fender benders. These include institutions or rules and practices which groups and individuals are expected to follow for the success of democracy. They are, among others, a constitution that is congruent with the nature and character of the polity, an embrace of the supremacy of the rule of law and an impartial system of justice, political parties, periodic elections, equity in the distribution of rights and responsibilities, elimination of extreme poverty, effective preventive and punitive measures against corruption, free press, etc.

The hope and expectation is that with all the foregoing in place, a polity can experience a stable democratic governance structure for the benefit of everyone. But hope and expectation is hardly sufficient as the experience of at least several decades has shown. What are the threats?

Human nature is unfathomable; but experience has shown us some of its base elements. Despite the almost universal condemnation of Hobbes’ so-called projection of a European bourgeois nature as a universal feature of humanity, we deceive ourselves if we think that none of it is applicable to us. Has egoistic mindset not been widely demonstrated among us? Is greed not killing our society? Our own SLA infamously castigated a section of the country for greed, unfortunately playing on the corrupted forms of their names. But if truth be told, which part of the country hasn’t displayed egoistic and greedy tendencies? None!

“Money is the root of all evil”, as the Holy Scripture tells us. We might just add that political evil is on top of the evils and money is its enabler. Just look around. Is there any of the fundamental institutions mentioned above, from elections to justice, from civil service to legislature, that money has not condemned to rot?

Individuals are assumed to know best their interests. But money has taken over as the yardstick of all interests. Thus, voters are bought at the cheapest price, and they forget about their long-term interest in education, health, and security. They receive N500-N1000 for a ballot and that’s it. Rousseau once mocked the British for being free only during elections because immediately after elections are over, they become the slaves of their parliamentarians. Can we say anything different about us?

On the flip side of money is poverty. While there are poor people with their dignity intact, extreme poverty and its attendant hunger compromises integrity. A hungry man with basic needs of nutrition and clothing for self and family may unfortunately be compelled to accept favors which are against his long-term interests. It is why conscienceless politicians would rather keep fellow citizens in perpetual poverty so they are under their beck and call especially during elections when they shamelessly and wickedly release pittance to them and arm them with illicit drugs and weapons to maim and kill opponents. Therefore, the elimination of extreme poverty is a condition for stable democracy.