The Nation Newspaper

Category: Sunday

  • Love and leadership

    Love and leadership

    •A wise leader is ointment unto a wound but the uncaring ruler is like sharpened glass in the eye.

    Love and leadership. Rarely do these words appear in tandem. Conventional scholarship treats them as if one is fatally allergic to the other. This error visits at our peril.

    A quick survey of the world reveals a smoldering planet. Boiling hatred and cold indifference strut triumphantly. War, strife, economic crises, food shortage, resource battles reveal that life will be less inviting for most people ten years hence than it now is. Old antagonisms remain while new ones become quickly invested with a disturbing permanence.

    Leaders may opt to use the unprecedented reach of the state to change their nations for the better or to impose themselves upon populations in ways dictators of the past would die for and did die for. Unfortunately, most modern leaders have not used the vast instrumentality called government to accomplish much that is great. Generally, they have scarred their people or turned their backs against them.

    Progress in science, technology and economic knowledge has been perverted to segregate global and national societies into extremes of wealth and poverty. The complex apparatus of governance empowers and alienates at the same time. As a leader, a person occupies a world immensely different than the world he is tasked to lead. Unless possessed of keen perception and focus, he becomes trapped in his small but powerful orbit while being alienated from the larger one he must govern. Most leaders are both prisoner in and warden of their unique ambit. They act upon but are not participants in that prosaic world occupied by common man.

    As such, they no longer lead. Leading requires an organic connection with the led. This connection is lacking. They make policies and order things but do not lead people. They are like angry, amoral scientists conducting experiments. The more elaborate and frequent the experimentation, the less empathy they have for the subjects of their tests. Should the subjects deign to wince or moan, the angrier and more amoral the experimenters become. Sadly, these subjects are the decent people you see at work, on the bus, in the store, and in the mirror.

    Leadership has become barren because it has lost humanitarian drive. Few modern leaders talk with passion. Fewer act with it. Yet great passion is needed to overcome the inert, vapid meanness of modern bureaucracy. To counterbalance the dull vastness and expanse of government, leadership must be inspired and be capable of inspiring both the unwieldy government apparatus and a numbed public. Unfortunately, today’s leaders are more driven by political calculation than by conviction or compassion for the people. Lacking the spirit to attempt the noble, they bask in what is base. They do what is palatable for those who inhabit their elite realm yet little ponder how their decisions affect the vast numbers who live in the larger, less stately world. Elitism has become so strong and shameless that it can now be spoken of as bordering on something evil.

    Adversity is said to reveal the character of a person. This is partially true. Adversity may unveil the strength of a person’s character. If you really want to know a person, don’t pound him with adversity. Laurel him with success. Nothing reveals the soul of a man more than acquisition of money or power. The poor and weak must behave meekly lest they be crushed for contending with the stronger. The weak must appeal to morality and justice for they lack other weapons with which to fight. Turn an average man into a powerful one; he often severs his pursuit of justice and the sense of proportion that comes with it. He joins the behavior he once criticized. In reality, he never believed in justice and morality. They were survival tools employed to help move him toward his immoral objective.

    In short, the poor and weak do as they must. The rich and powerful do as they wish. With money and power at easy disposal, a man reveals his true self; the unbecoming revelation of his vice is no longer a liability because no one dare challenge him. Thus, most politicians cannot remain true to their public word because they prefer to keep fidelity with their selfish designs.

    Most leaders in the western world and in their former colonial playgrounds are more ambitious than compassionate. Nowhere is this imbalance magnified than in economic policy. Few leaders primarily consider the plight of the working class and the poor although the majority of the people. Instead of thinking how they may accommodate the interests of the elite and rentiers of the world within the context of advancing the interests of the common and lowly, they first cater to those who already consider themselves the masters of all. If the concerns of the hoi polloi can be squeezed into a small corner of that large box, they will do the squeeze, lauding it as a populist achievement knowing full well the great herd of people has been dreadfully shortchanged. If they cannot fit in the people’s interests, so be it as well.

    All you have to do is tell the poor they must suffer because government gave them too much in the past. The price for the past generosity has matured and must be paid. Conditioned to suffering and inching by, the people accept this mean, superfluous austerity as the natural order of things. With a nearly religious conviction born of ignorance, they believe they must suffer because this evil japery is what is preached by those in high positions. But many in high positions are possessed of the lowest social morals. Yet this tale has been told so long and convincingly both the liar and victim are deceived by it.

    The poor thus willingly exchange the unfair smallness of their lives for something even less. If you press them, they cannot even remember what precious thing government gave them that they must now recompense at such a cost. They cannot say because there is nothing requiring the steep toll. They have been duped by the misplaced application of the morality of individual frugality to national governance. Yes, individuals cannot long spend more than they earn without falling into bankrupting disaster. However, national governments don’t suffer the same restrictions as individuals since national governments have the unique ability to issue currency. A currency issuer can “earn” as much money as they like. However, the elite have succeeded in imposing a Spartan penalty on those already suffering a Spartan life. Meanwhile the elite gain a libertine’s reward for their already libertine ways. In effect, the elite tell the masses they are politically and morally liable to pay for the excesses of the elite. The common and poor accept the unjust surcharge.

    Nowhere is this imbalance more on display than in the United Kingdom. In the aftermath of the global financial crisis, the Cameron government embarked on a severe austerity program. They treated the nation and its population as villains in a crude morality play wherein the profligate must pay for their errant ways by donning a coarse hair shirt after having endured prolonged and severe economic flagellation. Thus, Cameron and his smug Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, forced austerity upon a weakened economy.

    They slashed the government’s budget claiming growth would ensue. What they wrought is recession upon recession. Millions of lives have been impaired. Even the global champion of financialism, the conservative IMF, warned the bumbling Brits that they have gone too far off the ledge. The heartless IMF was forced to complain that Cameron’s knife wielding had become so draconian that it imperiled other nations as well the UK. Yet, Cameron and his sidekick stubbornly continued their painful imposition. All evidence substantiates the folly of their actions. In that fine Tory tradition, the two insisted they were right and that objective fact was never a good measure of economic policy.

    The fallacy of this brand of economics has long ago been exposed. The intellectual justification for clinging to this old rag has vanished. Yet, Cameron and his ilk across the world cling nonetheless. Their adherence is not based on rationality. It is based more in the strength of their bile and not on the content of their brains. They did not come to elitist economics as the logical conclusion of an intellectual journey. They embraced ugly economics because it fit their inhumanity, the low opinion they hold of their fellow man. Conservative economics mirages itself as an objective school of thought. It is an intellectual mask used to conceal mean, misanthropic sentiment. Most of those who adhere to classical economics care little about the general public.

    The world remains locked in a contest of good versus evil. Enslavement fights enlightenment. Poverty contests prosperity. Indifference opposes compassion. Odium battles love. Evil’s most effective weapon is subterfuge. It seeks to make you believe it is good and that good is evil. Thus, purveyors of this mean economics tells you what they do is morally sound and the only practical alternative. They lie a great lie. Their entire edifice of intellectual thought is founded on an ancient hatred. They believe the poor and humble are inherently inferior. Thus, anything done to better their lot is quixotic and wastrel. The poor are as they are because that is who they are.

    This brings us to a most basic point. Those who embrace this conservative philosophy can never mold or reshape modern society for the better. Their brand of conservatism may have served some utility two centuries ago. Now it manacles human progress. Although we live in an era of born-again conservatism, the challenges we face — those of poverty and inequality — call for enlightened and compassionate leadership. We need visionary leadership. To be a visionary leader, one must love the people such that he considers their plight night and day. Upon awaking, the first thought is of them. Retiring at night, the last thought is what to do on their behalf the next morning.

    A leader must love something greater than himself be it a nation, a company, a church or his family. The love of that thing must also be greater and more intense than the leader’s love of self.

    Those who think more about themselves than about other things and people should forget the quest to lead. One’s thoughts reflect the abundance of one’s heart. A person who thinks more about his narrow interest is not a fit leader. That person will devote the people and institution he leads toward his ambitions instead of devoting himself to the collective good.

    Conversely, love of others begets problem solving because love compels a leader to improve the lot of those for whom he deeply cares. Without love, the poor are perceived as inherently wretched, grubby and ignorant. With love, the wheelbarrow boy becomes a potential CEO. One can see a groundbreaking inventor in the young man constructing toys from discarded wood for his younger siblings. The girl walking along the side of the road in tattered school clothes becomes a future president.

    Leaders must never be satisfied with seeing the people as they are. A leader must believe in them more than they do themselves. If a leader is satisfied with people as they are, that leader will never do enough to exhort them toward what they can become. Nations enter their golden era when they convince even the people of the most humble social station to strive toward their better selves and to pursue their better dreams.

    The blossoming of a nation requires faith. A leader must believe in and act in reliance upon the inherent goodness of the people. He must believe they can improve. Given the chance to work at decent jobs with decent wages, the unemployed will apply themselves with verve and dedication. Given the chance, the homeless would live in a home and the ignorant would love to learn. Given the chance, the poor would seek to prosper and the hopeless would find in their heart a way to rekindle hope.

    In the end, the sun shines on the good and evil, the just and unjust. However, because God is kind to all does not mean we should treat all brands of leadership as equal. The conservative, classical brand seeks to define your place and then confine you to it. Enlightened leadership seeks to identify your better destiny, and then encourage you toward it. I see no close contest between the two.

    08060340825 (sms only)

  • Amaechi in the eye of the storm

    Amaechi in the eye of the storm

    Governor Chibuike Rotimi Amaechi of Rivers State is a human being, and can therefore do wrong. Only God is infallible. But one thing that no one can deny, friend or foe, is that the governor is working hard in the right direction to improve the lot of his people.

    I was in Port Harcourt with a colleague in August 2011 to interview him. The governor has left no one in doubt that he knows where the shoe pinches and is prepared to apply the needed soothing balm. Some of his policies may be unpopular, like the banning of ‘Okada’ in the state, but then, many other states have followed suit, a confirmation that ‘Okada’ not only demeans our people but has sent too many to the grave prematurely, just as it has rendered many invalid. For sure, I did not agree entirely with some of the views the governor expressed during the interview. For instance, I disagreed with his view on the contentious fuel subsidy, which was the view of many of his colleagues (that subsidy must go and all that). But you could notice in him the passion of a man in a hurry to bring development to his state.

    Rivers State, like most other Niger Delta states is oil rich; but unlike most of those states, the richness is only beginning to translate into physical development in the state, years after the people last witnessed such development in the Diette Spiff administration. Without doubt, Amaechi’s achievements in the areas of education, road construction, power supply and even security, have stood him out as a beacon of hope in the south-south. It has been said often that human memory is too short. This may be true; but not so with the people of Rivers State who cannot easily forget how they used to raise their hands in Port Harcourt streets to show that they were not bearing arms. That was when armed robbers and other criminals held sway. All that is now history, with Amaechi partnering with the state police command to nib in the bud their illegal activities.

    Many of us who still remember the story of how he became governor would realise that he is governor because it had been so ordained. Left to the powers-that-be then, to wit, President Olusegun Obasanjo, Amaechi would not have been governor. As a matter of fact, his file had been closed by President Obasanjo who then acted God and declared Amaechi’s candidacy as having ‘k-leg’. It was by divine intervention that Amaechi met with favour in the courts and he was pronounced governor, thus becoming the first governor in the country who never contested any election!

    The same Amaechi before whom President Obasanjo built a wall of Jericho on his path to the State House in Port Harcourt is now midway into his second term. This should be instructive. Interestingly, he is in the midst of a fresh turbulence. Although the governor keeps giving the impression that all is well between him and President Goodluck Jonathan (that is the way it is in Nigeria; here, you don’t even disagree with the president, not to talk of fight him), that does not agree with public perception. However, while both of them are entitled to the phony jolly good fellow relations, the question that readily begs for answer in the public domain is: why would any political party want to rubbish one of its best? Before our very eyes, we have seen the ruling party (in particular) in cozy relations with all kinds of characters, even granting presidential pardon to a common thief; yet, that party is having a running battle with one of its best. Why? Before we know what is happening, that party would throw its ‘Worst 11’ forward and expect Nigerians to vote for them. That has been our problem since God-knows-when. Alhaji Shehu Shagari was forced on us when there were better candidates in the north that could have worn the presidential shoes. Obasanjo imposed an ailing Umaru Yar’Adua on us, and supported him with Goodluck Jonathan. See where we are. Will Obasanjo in retrospect and in good conscience say he has done the best for this country in this regard?

    Amaechi’s brush with the president has not just begun. As a matter of fact, as far back as August 2010, he has had a brush with the President’s wife, Patience Jonathan over the primary school being built in Okrika by the Amaechi administration. The governor told her that he had asked the local government chairman to contact owners of land around the school so the houses would be bought and demolished to enable children learn in a conducive environment, without distraction. Mrs. Jonathan was angry that the governor was using ‘must’ when he should be having dialogue with the Okrika people because land is a serious matter in Okrikaland. She may have a point there about consultation, but where is land not a serious issue in Nigeria?

    But madam was too annoyed over this issue that affects her people that she forgot she is First Lady of the country and not that of Okrikaland; she left the state which she was visiting in annoyance, leading to the cancellation of other engagements. Obviously, the president could not have been happy over such a development.

    There was also the issue of the Soku/Oluasiri oil fields that caused friction between the Presidency and the governor late last year. Although the Presidency quickly intervened to make the matter look like one between Governor Seriake Dickson of Bayelsa State and Governor Amaechi, it was clear that the hands could have been those of Esau, but the voice was Jacob’s. If anyone was in doubt that the Presidency was involved, a press statement by the Bayelsa State Commissioner for Information, Markson Fefegha, dispelled an earlier statement by the Rivers State government that accused the Presidency of mischief as disrespectful, insulting and smacks of arrogance. So, who is fooling whom?

    As far as I am concerned, there is but one mind in the President and the PDP chairman, Bamanga Tukur, and it is bent against Amaechi. In this kind of struggle, Governor Amaechi should know that no weapon is prohibited, provided there is the ‘federal might’ cover. As it happened in Bayelsa State with former Governor Timipre Sylva, the war might be fought from all fronts – on land, on air, on the sea, etc. It is the kind of fight in which anything, anything, not excluding deploying the teeth (biting) if that is what would make him capitulate. That was why, a few months back, the party leadership tried to whittle down his power as Chairman of the Nigerian Governors Forum (NGF), by sponsoring the PDP Governors Forum headed by their anointed Godswill Akpabio.

    We must, without doubt, be having some idea about the kind of candidates that the ruling party would throw forward for the 2015 elections. One would have thought that a President Jonathan who has directed his party to bring in more states in the 2015 elections would put forward the party’s ‘First 11’ and showcase some of its best, because, bad as the PDP is, it still has a few persons that know what they are doing. But we have always had the misfortune of having governors and other leaders who met treasuries empty and left them empty.

     

  • Why does strike have to be the labourer’s staff of office?

    I don’t know about you but any time I have watched the Senate President march in sedately behind the mace, I must admit that an emotion closely resembling envy always seems to pass through me. Seeing how big, strong and well-made the mace appears to be, I find myself wondering how well it can adapt to being used to pound yam for me on a Sunday, seeing as my pestle is no longer what it used to be. You thought I would be after the senate president’s seat? You! You! No thanks – you know, too hot and all that. Besides, I don’t think I like problems as such.

    I don’t think the country would like it very much if I were to solve senate problems with the mace, you know, like, sort of, using it to knock some sense into people’s heads during sessions. No, the country would definitely not like that and that would give me all kinds of problems, — (the country not liking it, that is, not the knocking bit). Anyway, I think we have all come to associate the mace with the amount of authority the leader has over the floor. It is his staff of office. So, every senate leader tries as much as possible to make sure it is the last thing he sees before going to sleep at night and when he wakes up in the morning. Just ask Okadigbo if you don’t believe me.

    So, every one of us needs one staff of office or the other. Have you noticed that teachers get handed chalk, duster (modernised now as marker and dust cloth) and a loud voice; and most of us think that nurses are born holding syringes, needles, and a sneering attitude, eh, have you? Your mechanic would tell you to bring the bolts and nuts (the kind that fits into your car, mind, not the kind that fits into Aro) and he would supply the spanner.

    Have you ever seen a new bride-to-be excitedly prepare herself for her nuptials? Phew! As a tribe, they make me want to whistle between my teeth. You see a bride go flitting in and out ordering and commissioning, purchasing and buying, comparing and judging, arranging and gathering and generally making sure that even if all else is forgotten or left behind in her parent’s house, the spoon and blender are not left behind. Then she clenches her teeth on those tools because they will be needed when the honeymoon is over and more importantly, they are, you guessed it, her staff of office. Me, I think I have bigger problems: how to find the words to tell her that she would need a great deal more than the spoon and blender to get the right mix of happiness.

    Anyway, I think that labourers seem to have been handed only one staff of office: no, not the shovel, anyone can handle that. It’s the strike. In the hands of labour, the strike is not only a work tool, it is also a work-to-rule tool. It is used to oil labour matters and also disrupt it. All things considered, strike is held in such esteem in labour relations that it appears to be the labourer’s only recognised staff of office. Just listen. Most men do not know the value of the food they eat at their tables until labour relations break down at home. Once, a man and his wife had a misunderstanding that resulted in the woman deciding not to cook again. In short, she declared a strike. Sounds familiar? Well, not particularly versed in the culinary art, our man was left stranded food wise. After unsuccessfully performing experiments with salt, spices and so on, and being forced to swallow the rather unsavoury results of those experiments, he quickly sued for peace, ‘for the sake of the children’, he said, but his friends contended that. Another friend once said he grew used to eating garri and dried fish whenever his mother declared her strike, which she often did.

    The causes and costs of strikes are best left to the industrial labour specialist to calculate, but let’s hazard a few guesses here. I have found that whenever my dog has been given a particular kind of food, he has declared an eating strike which has often been met with a counter strike: if he does not finish that food, he does not get anything else’. When strike meets strike, it’s quite a battle. A little like the government declaring that if workers do not return to work, they do not get paid. So, the dog lets the food rot, and the owner, not willing to allow the dog die for love or conscience, gives in, feeds the dog and all is well again.

    Is strike a simple matter of will versus will? I don’t think so, even if it appears to be a matter of who blinks first. Too often though, the government (the largest employer of labour in most third world countries such as Nigeria) thinks that a striking body of workers simply wants to test its (the government’s, that is, not the strikers’) resolve and responds with more will – leading to zero tolerance. ‘They are not returning to work? Then sack them!’ This simply causes more digging in.

    Can strike also be a matter of testing out who really holds the power in a labour relationship? That would be a little like the dog trying to find out how much he can make everyone in the house dance around just to please him. My dog tried to do that once. He rejected every kind of food placed before him for no reason and that had us worried. But when the vet gave him a quick run over and declared there was nothing wrong with him, everyone hissed and left him alone. Chagrined, he went back to eating again. The burgher.

    Often, money and conditions of service are at the heart of most strike actions. I have not yet met any employee who would claim that he is paid enough for what he does or is fully satisfied with his/her work conditions. Indeed, most employees believe, I think, that there is no reason why their employer cannot daily double the wages they are paid, and then triple it the next day. While most employees know that this is not feasible, nevertheless, I believe what most of them want really is a little respect. I think they would like to be acknowledged, not threatened.

    As we celebrate another May Day, I prefer to think that strike declaration should continue to be a sort of last resort tool. True, many labour conditions world over are simply deplorable, and most people are barely coping. It is even more annoying when you look at the Nigerian situation where the people of affluence are the unqualified who have gained unmerited access to governmental coffers and have proceeded to flaunt their privileges in the face of everyone. It indeed boggles the mind and stuns the heart into inaction. Nevertheless, considering that those who suffer from strikes are very often the innocent and those meant to be served and protected, there is a need to continue to use it minimally, cautiously and humanely. On the other hand, the welfare of Nigerian workers should not be an annoying interruption of the government’s jollification programme. It should be taken seriously so that strike will really be a rarely used implement of war.

  • Bala usman and the project of radical historical renewal

    In the first part of this series, we outlined the achievements and contribution of Nana Asma’u as a forerunner to the contemporary feminist movement in Nigeria and Africa whose insights enable us to come to grip with how the national project can benefit from a critical mass of individuals whose contributions are sorely needed to enhance the greatness of the national project. In this second part, we turn our searchlight to another personality whose reputation is unquestionable not only in the northern part of Nigeria, but equally in academics and the national scheme of things. Like Dudley, Kenneth Dike, Soyinka, Awojobi, Bolanle Awe and others that we have critically showcased, he constitutes a formidable part of the intellectual capital required to fast-track the national project into reckoning.

    It was Hussein al-Attas, the Malaysian philosopher, who categorised intellectuals into two: the functioning and non-functioning. For him, functioning intellectuals are repository of the hopes and potentials of their nation. They are constantly burdened by the malaise, the disjuncture and fissures in their society. The irony, however, is that such an intellectual, according to Chinua Achebe, “lives on the fringe of society—wearing a beard and a peculiar dress and generally behaving in strange way. He is in revolt against society which in turn looks on him with suspicion if not hostility. The last thing the society would do is to put him charge of anything.”

    The North, like other regions, has always been a real test of diversity and unity in Nigeria. It is made up of several ethnic components and diverse cultural manifestations that the term “North” seems to cover up. In Dr. Yusufu Bala Usman, we have a blend of northernness and Nigerianness that facilitates the making of an enlarged and enlightened mind ready to perceive through the prism of historical and radical interpretation the trouble with Nigeria and how to get out of our national wood. Like most scholars of his time, Bala Usman came to scholarship from a Marxian perspective. He strongly held on to Marx’s retort that philosophers have hitherto interpreted the world whereas the point is to change it. Transforming the world ranges from aligning scholarship to the amelioration of the human condition, subordinating knowledge to human progress and making theories socially responsible to human needs.

    The dynamics of Marxism was, in his case, confronted with the rampant injustice of his society. The justice which Dr Usman pursues is not only that which, in Anatole France’s words, “forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread,” but also an egalitarianism that is yoked to the necessity of national and democratic unity. Injustice and inequality represent for him two issues that uniquely define the incapacitation of national development in Nigeria. “National injustice,” Bala Usman would agree with William Gladstone, the British statesman, “is the surest road to national downfall.” It would have been easy for the “North” in Bala Usman to twist the course of justice into an ethnic template. However, it is part of the genius of this historian to forge a unique political and scholarly identity that defines his progressive orientation in terms of a broad national ideology that holds both the northern and southern political elites responsible for the degeneration of the polity. He was motivated by the vision that Nigeria could be rescued from the mercantilist political class which constantly sought to benchmark its material prosperity against the existential austerity of the ordinary masses. What is needed is an alternative governance space that affords intellectuals the possibility of exposing not only enormity of elites crimes but also the recipe that could bring about national transformation.

    Being a progressive therefore does not translate into merely lifting the radical cudgel of criticism against power without also applying the balm of recommendations that could point at the right direction that resolves the identified problems. Bala Usman was therefore not only functional as an intellectual who speaks truth to power, but also one who insinuates himself into social and national responsibilities. He was not only a seasoned administrator at the Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, he also accepted to participate in the national Constitution Drafting Committee which was set-up by the federal government in 1975. However, his radical thought on the preconditions for national unity could only be aired through a minority report he wrote with other progressives like Dr. Segun Osoba.

    Dr Bala Usman came to his nuanced critique of the trajectory of mal-development in Nigeria from a radical understanding of the methodology and role of historiography in national development. Understanding the nature of the national question requires a deep understanding of history and how it ought to be done. Bala Usman, together with his teacher, Professor Abdullahi Smith, pioneered a rethinking of postcolonial historiography and the teaching of history in Nigeria. This effort followed in the step of the Ibadan School of History masterminded by Prof. Kenneth Dike in the 60s and 70s. After its decline, the Ahmadu Bello University School of History took up the challenge of rethinking African history that had hitherto been circumscribed by colonial methodology and its emphasis on written sources as the only objective means for writing history. This methodology automatically leads to the disparagement of oral tradition and other sources as a veritable useful means of historical reconstruction.

    The implication of this historical methodology for the reconstruction of African and Nigerian history becomes immediately obvious: the largely oral basis of African history would ensure that we would never be liberated from the “victor’s history” written by the West. The colonial historical methodology essentially distils a conqueror’s worldview that is inimical to a true understanding of the achievements, values and possibilities inherent in a people’s history. Thus, as a contrary perspective, Bala Usman and others fabricated a radical historical template that ensures not only that historical reconstruction must involve a vast array of sources—written, oral, linguistic, ethnographic and archeological—but these sources must equally be subjected to strict critical and evaluative standards to authenticate their provenance and reliability.

    The radical nature of Usman’s historiography manifests in his insistence that history must be consulted to answer the question of the formation and possibilities of nation-states. The lessons of history, in other words, points at the capacities of nationalities and nations to emerge out of the multiplicities of cultural and ethnic energies available to it. Thus, the critical assessment of history from its many sources confirms that nation-building, or what Kenneth Dike called “an experiment in polytechnic state formation”, is a fact of history. In a lecture dedicated to the memory of Kenneth Dike and the Ibadan School of History, Bala Usman insisted that contrary to the European myth of a primordial and indissoluble racial and ethnic groupings that make up the state, “not only nations, nationalities and ethnic groups, but even racial groups, are products of the historical process and are formed, unformed and transformed in the course of historical development.” History therefore undermines our pessimism about the national project by confirming the possibility of mosaic of ethnic and cultural synergy that would make Nigeria an enduring dream.

    The legacy of Dr. Bala Usman is therefore that we can learn and unlearn our own histories as a nation, and from its insights take up arms against the centrifugal forces of disintegration and injustices. This legacy alone is enough to make Yusufu Bala Usman a world-historical intellectual, according to Hegel, the German philosopher. And the singular honour required for such men is to incorporate their thoughts into national action.

     

    Dr. Olaopa is a Federal Permanent Secretary, Abuja.

  • Ogbeni and his Canjab headache

    Ogbeni and his Canjab headache

    Suspicion is what is causing the Tom and Jerry game between the Christians and the Muslims in Osun State and it is not likely to die down anytime soon for as long as the two groups do not trust each other and the Christians keep raising the ante over every action of the government that seems to favour the Muslims in the state.

    This is why the Christian Association of Nigeria in the State is expanding the frontiers of its suspicion. The Muslim group is also trying to expand the frontiers of its operations. The Osun CAN is protesting the attempt by the Muslim group to influence the government in legislating the wearing of hijab by all female Muslim students in public schools in Osun irrespective of the missionary status of such schools. Osun State is therefore about to be consumed or swallowed by what the revered Yoruba historian Samuel Johnson would call “Ogun kanjabu’.

    I admit that the cassock and the hijab we fight over are garments of strong spiritual significance complimenting our dress code but for sure they are not a true reflection of what and who we are before God who deals more with our inner character than our outward appearance. Most of the so-called religious groups have developed and enunciated their own doctrines to create the impression that our inner piety is secondary to our outward hypocrisy. Coming up with the hijab-wearing demand in less than a year of being granted the hijra holiday by the state government is nothing but sheer opportunism by the Muslim group who wanted to leverage on Government generosity to get some other things they failed to get from previous administrations.

    The Muslim group should not indulge themselves in any form of self-congratulatory ecstasy because they have one of their own in power. It is sheer abuse of goodwill. The idea of animating issues that had already been resolved by previous administrations simply because Ogbeni is now the Governor is very hypocritical, opportunistic and provocative. Because the government acceded to their request for an hijra holiday is not a license to come up with other irreverent ideas and requests that can set the State on fire.

    This oliver Twist style is quite unfortunate because each time they come with some of these requests, the Christian group, knowing Aregbe’s passion for Islam before he became the Governor of the state, tend to suspect that it was the government that was flying a kite. Though it is not a crime for the Ogbeni to show passion for his faith, the best thing for him to do now is to moderate the tone and aggression of his love for his religion. The office he occupies does not encourage any form of extremism or excessiveness on his part irrespective of his personal desires. He is the father of the state and all religious groups including the traditional worshippers have become his responsibility. In my own view, I think the Ogbeni has achieved this balancing since he came to office. Henceforth, he should let all requests for any policy on religion be legislated upon by the State House of Assembly. The direct intervention of the government especially as it did on the hijra holiday would not do any credit to the Governor whose every action is now being misconstrued as part of his hidden agenda for the Islamisation of Osun State. The Governor needs the support and cooperation of all the religious groups. I believe the Ogbeni is too wise not to know that it is not politically expedient for him to risk general popularity and support for sectarian glorification and Nasfatorial martyrdom.

    CAN seem to believe that some of the actions and activities of the government have given Muslims undue advantage in the state. But even at that CAN must show or prove that these actions and activities have influenced government policies to warrant any serious insinuation. However, I find it ridiculous when people are suggesting that the Governor’s mode of dressing (he wears jalamiya very often) and the beards that he keeps are offensive to the Christians. Haba, why must it be a crime for a man to wear clothes or uniforms that he finds convenient? Or why must a man sacrifice the beards he has been nurturing for a number of years for citizens atonement? Supposing this is what his wife finds attractive in him, should he now disfigure his look and risk marital squabbles in order to pacify intolerant citizens?

    I will not under any circumstance advise the Governor to succumb to the pressure of his “adversaries” (whoever they may be), that he should delete his beards in order to look more cosmopolitan. It is taking public service too far to compel him to reconfigure the essentials of his person as a sacrifice for canpopic appeasement or electoral benevolence.

    Saying that the Sultan of Sokoto had visited the governor two times in two years is as good as raising the same query about Pastor E. A. Adeboye who I am sure had visited the Governor of the state on equal counts or more. One‘s political office or position should not be a hindrance to free association and meeting with people of substance whose influence in the state or in the country can be of tremendous advantage to the development of the state, socially, economically and politically. Afterall, all the so-called visits are not nocturnal, they have been conducted in the full glare of the public and Television cameras. It should not be a crime for the Governor to fraternise with the Muslims anytime he so desires so far the same gesture is extended to the Christian group. And I think the governor has been very fair in this regard.

    As the father of the state, the governor identifies with the Christians very actively during the Easter festivals, Christmas and New Year celebrations. Likewise he takes part in El-del Fitri, Maulud Nabiyyu, El-del kabir and now the hijra. I have seen him on many occasions attending wedding and funeral services in church holding hymn book and singing the hymns with pulsating staccato. I am sure that his attendance at these Christian gatherings is not just for political pacification but also for soul edification.

    The claim by CAN that the Governor wants to Islamise the state is reckless and unfounded. If indeed he had such an agenda, he is too intelligent not to know how to go about it. He would not have allowed the Christians to dominate his cabinet nor would he have conceded a higher number to the Christians in the appointment of the permanent secretaries in the state civil service. These are the elite corps of the policy-making caucus. Neither would he have allowed the Christians to also be dominant in the House of assembly. Even most of the aides that he personally appointed are Christians. The Islamisation of a state cannot be done if there is no structure to support and accommodate its legislation and legitimisation. And the major structure that can begin the process of such a radical change in people’s faith in a state is none other than the Executive council or even the state house of assembly. As it is presently constituted, the Christians are dominant in Osun government and it is surprising that CAN still feel uncomfortable with this present advantage.

    I do not want to believe that CAN is acting the opposition script not because I am stupid to the point of believing that we do not have corrupt Christians but because I think it is shameful and sinful that men of God are encouraging and conspiring with men in agbada to discredit and disparage a progressive and hardworking government that they have in Osun. Besides, religious bodies should not limit their intervention in the polity to only religious matters or policies. They should speak out on other issues that are germane to nation-building. The kind of activism which the likes of Dr. Olubunmi Okogie , Reverend Gbonigi and Reverend Abiodun Adetiloye displayed during the inglorious era of the military seems to have gone down significantly. While it may be true that the evils of the military provoked the kind of resistance and opposition put up by these people, are we saying such evils are still not with us even under this democratic dispensation? Recently the Governor of Rivers State, Rotimi Amaechi raised an alarm that Nigeria is sliding towards dictatorship yet our spiritual fathers are fighting over cassock and hijab as if it is more important than a nation under siege. Let our spiritual leaders speak out on kidnapping, armed robbery, unemployment , bad governance, bad roads, pensions crisis , decline in education, vanishing national values, corruption, poverty, election rigging, police killing of innocent souls and a lot of evils that still abound.

    I may not be familiar with the Quran as I am with the Bible but I am sure the ultimate objective of every religion is to win lost souls that may be heading towards hell. However, here we engage in conflict, riots and wars in a bid to win these lost souls. In the process we kill ourselves. Is it not intriguing that instead of winning souls, we are killing souls. I am now confused and disturbed that if we kill all the souls that we are supposed to win over, what do we now take to God to justify our compliance with and obedience to his soul- winning injunction?

    Each time we kill ourselves or go to war with one another over issues of religion or God, we create in the minds of those we call infidels or unbelievers, a very weak God that is incapable of defending himself. It is laughable that man who is yet to unravel and resolve the mystery of his own mortality is trying to defend a God that we all acknowledge is immortal. Is it not God himself who says in the holy books that the battle is his? Show me that man who feels he can defend God or fight God’s war for him and I will show you a fool in the abattoir of the reprobates.

    Both CAN and the “hijab group” of the “Land of the Virtuous” must be guided by the creed of the land that enjoins them to distance themselves from any form of iniquities. The land that harbours the virtuous should not at the same time spew profanities, shenanigans and territorial desecration.

    Thomas, former special aide to Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu,

    teaches History and International Studies at the Lagos State University.

     

  • Terrorism and tinted glass phobia

    Terrorism and tinted glass phobia

    Who says that Boko Haram has not changed the lifestyle of Nigerians? That person should ask car owners, not only those that look tense when they are on a bridge or Nigerian Christians that are afraid to go to church on Sundays and their liberal Islamic counterparts who are no longer enthusiastic about going to pray in public mosques on Fridays. Ask young graduates who are no eager to avoid the unemployment line by rushing into NYSC camps in the North where there is more need for such graduates? The latest group to ask this question is Nigerians who own new and used cars that manufacturers in other parts of the world created from innovative thinking and research. Such doubting Thomases should ask managers of the country’s security who do not want to be called losers by Boko Haram warriors and have thus unearthed a law created under military dictators to assist police in fighting Western Education is Sin terrorists.

    Terrorism is a major challenge for governments all over the world. It has led to creation of special agencies in some parts of the technologically advanced world. There was nothing like Homeland Security in the United States in the years before September 11, 2001. Air travelers and their non-travelling family members could go as far as the boarding gateuntil terrorists made it mandatory for security officers to create new policies to restrict non-passengers to the ticketing area of the airport. Hundreds of air travelers have learnt how to leave their belts at home when they need to go through security checks in all airports of the world. Even women obsessed with their femininity have had to live with small volume of face powder, small amount of perfume, and sometimes without toothpaste if they want to travel without hassles. It is therefore not strange that Nigeria’s security managers have gone into the archive of laws created during the era of military dictatorship in the country, in their search for what to do to assist them in frustrating Islamic terrorists, and unintentionally, the citizens whose cooperation they need direly.

    What is strange is that the archaeologists of military laws have not given citizens good reasons to believe that they are not just being capricious or arbitrary. No data have been provided to show any link between terrorist acts in the North and vehicles with tinted glass. Smokers did not have to complain about being prevented from carrying their matches or firelighters with them on the plane, after the experience of shoe bombers or the botched attempt of young Nigerian international terrorist to light the bomb under his underwear a few years ago. Air passengers all over the world who are lovers of peace and order have not complained about ordinances that forbid them to carry machetes, knives, and bows and arrows into aircrafts. The connection between these dangerous items and in-flight terrorism had been made clear to passengers and non-passengers.

    What has not been made clear to Nigerians is the connection between tinted glass on the two rear sides of cars and the killing of innocent people by Boko Haram bombing of the UN office in Abuja, churches, motor parks, and police stations. How many terrorists have been nabbed operating from vehicles with tinted glass? How many explosive devices have been recovered by police from cars with tinted glass? How many guns have been shot and how many bombs have been thrown from moving cars with tinted glass since the advent of Boko Haram? It is necessary for the police to use data obtained from such heinous crimes to enlist the support of innocent Nigerians that had taken loans to buy cars with tinted glass made by their manufacturers abroad.

    Reports have indicated that Islamic terrorists had thrown bombs from motor cycles while some had shot innocent citizens from moving bicycles. Is the change in our security protocols going to ban motorcycles and bicycles? Nigerians have been told that Boko Haram bombers have used empty houses and occupied houses to store explosive devices and powerful assault guns. What is the attitude of the Inspector-General of Police to thousands of such houses in the north and south of the country, board them up? Invoking an obsolete law in the books against owners of cars with tinted glass is reminiscent of erecting road blocks as a means of fighting crimes. It is obsolete and may be counterproductive.

    In a war that requires cooperation of civilian population, policymakers in the security sector need to know how to cultivate citizens. They should not create policies that anger or antagonize citizens unnecessarily. Asking car owners to obtain special permit for using cars that they had duly registered and for which they had paid duties to Customs is similar to punishing or blaming the victim. Anyone that drives an unregistered car in the country has committed a punishable crime. It should not be criminal for citizens who have paid customs on their vehicles and paid for registration with their local government or the Federal Road Safety Commission to use those vehicles. It should be safely assumed that Customs department, FRSC, and the NPF are interlinked and are agencies that share common interest in the country’s security. For the law retrieved from the archive to be fair to citizens, it must include reimbursement of customs duties and registration fees already paid by owners of cars with tinted glass.

    In the fight against Boko Haram, our rulers need to learn from best practices from other countries that have security challenges from Islamic terrorists or any other category of terrorists: Ensure that cars do not carry tinted glass that is in excess of what is allowed in other parts of the world and ensure that security officers are given gadgets that can see through tinted glass from a distance. It will be less expensive for the federal government to acquire such devices than to have to face litigations seeking refund of huge sums of money to citizens who own duly registered vehicles. It is instructive to know that when the law being excavated by the police was made, it was to give special protection to military governments without mandate to rule. Even in those days when civilians were prevented from buying cars with green and jet black colors, and owning cars with tinted glass, military rulers were exempted from the rule, an indication that the law was not to fight crime but to accentuate privileges of new class of rulers.

    Thomas Paine and David Thoreau at different times had warned makers of bad and oppressive laws about the danger in making such laws. They had argued that human beings have the capacity to resist or disobey unjust laws. The National Assembly should not engage in panel beating an unjust and unreasonable law inherited from decades of military dictatorship. What senators need to do is to jettison the law against the use of cars with tinted glass. It is absurd that, at a timethe president, governors, emirs, obas, obis, and obongs across the country are making a case for unsolicited amnesty for Boko Haram terrorists, the police is excavating laws to rattle citizens in all parts of the country or using vehicles duly registered with law enforcement agencies.

     

  • A disintegration foretold

    A disintegration foretold

    When our super patriots want to reassure us that predictions of Nigeria’s demise are grossly exaggerated, they argue from the position that a shooting war between the constituent parts – something in the mould of the Biafran Civil War – is highly improbable.

    But if you reverse that to look at the disintegration scenario from the point of a badly constructed house collapsing in a heap, then it suddenly doesn’t look so farfetched. Before our very eyes the country is being transformed into a jungle where only the best armed can survive. From Bokostan in the North-East to the Niger-Delta creeks gunmen have overrun the place.

    To the north, Boko Haram have with their crude bombs bludgeoned the might of the Nigerian state into submission. It’s a measure of the triumph of terror that today we are chasing after the insurgents – begging them to accept a generous amnesty, when it should be the other way round.

    In Plateau State, the military Special Task Force (STF) is running around in circles trying to break the unending cycle of bloodletting. But for every attack they foil, there are five more cases of cold-blooded murder of hapless villagers – producing a grim and mounting toll in casualties, and widening the chasm between feuding tribes and communities.

    Last Monday in Lagos, unknown gunmen snatched Kehinde Bamgbetan, chairman of Ejigbo Local Council Development Area (LCDA), riddling his SUV with bullets in the process. As at the time of writing this he was still in the hands of captors who were demanding $1 million for his release.

    That same week, the police paraded some sorry fellows who confessed to the kidnapping of the mother of Finance Minister, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala. Among the suspects was a former servant in the palace. Those two were just a few of a litany of kidnapping stories that have become daily fare in newspapers.

    Where amnesty for Boko Haram or the exploits of daredevil kidnappers are not dominating the headlines, the latest exploits of our army of armed robbers fill the gap. A couple of weeks ago some of them laid siege to Nigeria’s highest profile gateway – Murtala Muhammed International Airport – killed a couple of policemen and bureau de change operators, and carted away millions in foreign currencies.

    In many cities, areas that used to be safe havens have now lost their innocence. In Lagos in recent weeks, robbers have roamed free along the Lekki corridor – paying courtesy calls at places like Victoria Garden City. At about the same period, a Briton was snatched as he stood outside his residence on Victoria Island.

    Increasingly, authorities at federal, state and local government levels are discovering that areas over which they can assert proper control are shrinking by the day.

    Large swathes of border territory between Nigeria and Cameroon, and the countryside up north, have become no-man’s land where Boko Haram militants roam free and kill at will.

    In this veritable Bokostan being a government official is no guarantee of security. Last year, the insurgents took potshots at a residence of Vice President Namadi Sambo. Not too long ago, the country home of the Adamawa State Deputy Governor, Bala James Ngilari, came under attack with fatal consequences.

    The one region over which the government loved to gloat that it had restored order – the Niger-Delta creeks – is stirring once again. Two weekends ago, some gunmen who may or may not be members of a resurrected Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND), ambushed and killed 12 policemen in a contingent providing protection for a retired militant who had come to bury his mother.

    Until now, it was fashionable in analysing security challenges facing Goodluck Jonathan’s administration to blame it all – especially in Bokostan – on disaffected politicians who had vowed to make Nigeria ungovernable for the “interloper” president from the creeks. But to continue to credit what is unfolding across the country to this bunch is to ascribe to them powers that they don’t have.

    It is equally tempting to blame the crisis on poverty and the parlous state of the economy. But that again will not tell the whole story because for all the talk of the state of things, the Nigerian economy is much bigger and more muscular than it was 10 or 15 years ago.

    If poverty was really the issue here, then no one will be able to walk around because all those living below the poverty line will be carrying guns, knives, machetes and slingshots – robbing their neighbours.

    Again, poverty doesn’t explain the Boko Haram phenomenon. In fact, in all their grievances they never mention poverty, but rather speak of Sharia and avenging themselves against Christians over imaginary injuries.

    Poverty alone doesn’t explain the rash of kidnappings sweeping the land. These crimes are often executed by gangs who have been at it for a while and have developed a taste for easy millions and the good life. They may have been propelled initially by lack, but greed has since taken over as motivator.

    What we are seeing is the result of the relentless erosion of societal values which started in the 80s, and was encouraged by a succession of clueless military juntas and civilian administrations.

    We cast aside all the things that organised and stable societies everywhere value – hard work, thrift, honesty and modesty and replaced them with a celebration of vulgar wealth and ostentation. Politicians and persons in public office are only too glad to announce their arriviste status with obscene displays of opulence.

    While they are at it, universities remain shut for the better of a year on account of disputes over salaries. Pensioners who have served their nation for upwards of four decades are dropping dead on verification queues, while those who should care are taking care of themselves.

    By our actions we emphasise that the only thing that counts is cash and its ostentatious display. We send the wrong signals to young people and are aghast when they grab pistols to hasten their access to riches.

    We are raising a generation of kidnappers when all we feed them is a diet of games shows and reality TV that sell the fantasy that mind-boggling millions are just one dance step away. Moral instruction is a no-no; and history is just that – history – in many schools and homes.

    Our national football team wins a tournament and the president, governors and sundry moneybags go crazy doling out millions, lands and exotic cars. When last did someone in leadership honour the best student in mathematics or physics in Nigeria with millions, and choice land in Abuja? I cannot imagine the British Prime Minister opening the vault and handing out gold bars to footballers even if England wins the World Cup!

    The difference? The values we celebrate. The further we drift down this road, the more we cement our internal collapse. The answer is not in ephemeral solutions like state police or the creation of another security apparatus. It is for Nigeria to return to the basic values upon which decent societies are built. It requires leadership. The president and his team can take the lead if they have the will, and if they care.

  • Boston Marathon bombings: Another family tragedy

    Boston Marathon bombings: Another family tragedy

    After what seemed like eternity, the two brothers alleged to have planted the bombs that killed three people and injured more than 180 others at the finish line of the Boston Marathon on Monday have been apprehended. The older of the two, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, reportedly died in a shoot-out on Friday morning, while the younger, Dzhokhar, 19, was arrested in the evening after a manhunt that shut down the Watertown section of the city. Though the two brothers hailed from Dagestan, a Russian republic that shares borders and, to some extent, religious ideology and militancy with Chechnya, they had migrated to the United States more than 10 years ago and lived there legally. This fact was probably responsible for why President Barack Obama said the government would be seeking answers to a lot of questions concerning the background of the two brothers and why they suddenly took to militancy. The US will get all the answers it wants if the severely injured Dzhokhar survives.

    Though Anzor Tsarnaev, father of the two brothers, believed his sons were framed, there is no doubt that for him and his wider family this is both a family and generational tragedy. In fact, their home country and fellow Dagestanis are already primed to disown the bombers. When it first appeared that the Boston bombers were linked to Chechnya, that country’s President was quick to disclaim the fact. He suggested that American investigators should look into the Tsarnaev brothers’ upbringing in the US for explanations on their radicalism. Said the Chechnya President, Ramzan Kadyrov: “Any attempts to draw the link between Tsarnaevs (even if they are guilty) and Chechnya are in vain. They grew up in USA and their views and beliefs were formed there. One needs to seek the roots of evil in America. All the world should be fighting terrorism together. We know it better than anyone else. We wish all those who suffered to get well soon and we share the feeling of sorrow with Americans.”

    But if Dagestan and Chechnya could promptly disown the Tsarnaev brothers, their anguished family would not find it easy to do same. Not only have the brothers brought the family name to national and international opprobrium, the scale of the brutal assault in Boston is bound to make many seek explanations for the two brothers’ radicalisation both in their family and in the US as a whole. In addition, the impact of the bombings and the many lives they have wrecked, not to talk of the novelty of the attacks, are certain to keep the unfortunate incident in public memory for a long time. Nigeria and the Abdulmutallab family face the same humiliation every time there is a mention of the Christmas Day bomber.

    It will be recalled that under the influence of Yemeni members of al-Qaeda terror group, a 23-year-old Nigerian, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, with plastic explosives strapped to his underwear, attempted to blow up an American aeroplane over Detroit on Christmas Day in 2009.

    Shortly after, on January 10, 2010, this column attempted an explanation of the Abdulmutallab problem. The analysis raised a number of issues that are today even more pertinent as the world ponders the tragedy that has just befallen the Tsarnaev family. An excerpt of that piece is reproduced below, and though it was published before the northern part of Nigeria exploded in violence, it anticipated Boko Haram militancy. If only the North had listened.

    AbdulMutallab meets Gavrilo Princip,

    January 10, 2010

    “…Notwithstanding our defiant posture and wounded pride, the fact is that we have been foolish and hypocritical in our approach to urgent national issues such as religion, culture, ethnicity and politics. Unfortunately, all these issues have impacted negatively on the country to the point of producing monstrosities like Farouk. Terrorism is not exclusive to any religion, just as there is no single cause of terrorism. But in the case of Farouk we must go beyond the fact of his schooling in Togo, London, Dubai and Yemen to find out what predisposed him to acute explosion of rage and violence. There are many like him who schooled abroad even at a tender age and who shunned hateful ideologies. American psychologists may be able to piece together the jigsaw and come out with answers to what went wrong with the young bomber…

    “When he was 19 years old, Farouk had expressed the frightening and myopic opinion that he fantasised the waging of another major Jihad in which Islam would achieve victory and establish a world empire. It never occurred to him that even if that happened, that victory could not be sustained for all time. But with such foundational belief that forceful proselytisation was permissible, which sadly many clerics in Nigeria hold to be true, it was a matter of time before he became a tool in the hands of demagogues. It is a fact of our recent history that many violent proselytisers, many of them quite ignorant of Islam, and some of them hiding behind politics attempt to create an immiscible broth of religion and politics. Conventional explanations that suggest fanaticism and violence result from poverty must be examined again in the light of Farouk’s wealthy background so that the North can begin to rebuild confidence and establish an atmosphere where peace and harmony reign.

    “Given our past experiences the wise political option should have been for Nigeria to move in the direction of robust secularism in which the state would hands off religion. This has not happened partly because many states cannot seem to make up their minds over the instinctive theocracy of their fantasy, as Farouk indicated, and the stability and realism that secularism offers in a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural society. Except we deceive ourselves, Middle East is in turmoil because countries in the region are locked in a battle between secularism and theocracy, and between contending factions of theocratic sects. Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, among others should serve as examples of the dangers an increasingly vulnerable Nigeria faces. We must not assume that these problems will vanish automatically.

    “Disturbing as the backlash against Nigerians abroad is, the answer is not in the hysteria that has gripped the country, nor in the clumsy attempt to distance ourselves from our young compatriot. Whether we like it or not, Farouk is our son, and though by his education he is a citizen of the world, he is still our son. His family values might have failed to tether him to reality, but we must not ignore the fact that those values served his other 13 siblings well. Most families often have one black sheep anyway. It is the poor luck and personal tragedy of the urbane senior Mutallab that his errant son chose the world stage to display his waywardness. We must also not ignore the fact that the unhealthy mix of politics and religion in the North has engendered more religious violence in that region than anywhere else. And we must not downplay the danger of disintegration which our refusal to do something urgent and drastic about the unhealthy mixture could precipitate.

    “We may not have all the answers regarding the transformation of Farouk from a gentle and pious boy into a suicidal and venomously spiteful man, nor it seems does he himself. But we must begin the search. The magnitude of his fantasy and the sheer scale of his ignorance should tell us something about ourselves, our family values, our politics and the long years of pussyfooting over religion…”

    Anzor Tsarnaev, father of the two Boston bombers, said his children were framed, pointing out in particular that his younger son “is a true angel.” According to him, “Dzhokhar is a second-year medical student in the US. He is such an intelligent boy. We expected him to come on holidays here.” That may be the much he knew about his sons. The question parents must ask themselves is how much they know their children, or whether in fact they know them at all, given the penchant of the young ones to always spring a surprise. This column also examined this treatise on April 1, 2012 when it responded in this place to the deplorable tweets written by Liam Stacey to the huge consternation of his distraught mother. Hereunder is an excerpt of that column to help instigate a fresh appreciation of the subject in the light of the incredulity and grief of the Boston bombers’ father.

    Liam Stacey’s racist tweets and the dilemma of parenting, April 1, 2012

    “…Recall also that I once wrote about the Abdulmutallabs here. Except you are a parent, you may never fully appreciate that family’s sadness and horror as their son, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, attempted to bomb an airline over Detroit on Christmas Day in 2009. The tragedy of realising that they had raised a son who embraced terrorism was bad enough in a worrisome way, for the eyes of the whole world, and the even more censorious and withering look of their countrymen was truly damning. But much worse is the continuing tragedy of watching helplessly as that son stays in the limelight for the wrong reasons, tormented by the destructive finality of long years in prison, his life completely wasted, as are the hopes and investments of the family on him. It is impossible not to feel the family’s pain.

    “Imagine, therefore, what horror befell the British family of the Staceys last week, as their son, Liam, hugged the Twitter limelight for the wrong reason, trolling the tweeting public with deeply nauseating racist remarks on Fabrice Muamba, the Bolton footballer who collapsed on pitch during a soccer match with Spurs. Liam, a Swansea University biology student, explained in court that he trolled under the influence of alcohol, but he did not quite convince anyone his racist tweets did not reflect what he harboured secretly in his heart. As he was being tried and sentenced to 56 days in jail, reports indicated his mother wept bitterly, ashamed of the negative publicity her otherwise mild-mannered son had attracted to himself, and the fact that he had achieved notoriety that would haunt his present and future, truncate his education and career, and ostracise him in civilised communities everywhere for a long time.

    “No family is so strong and so cohesive as to be immune to the consequences of the obnoxious behaviour of its member. Increasingly, as the Twitter generation is showing, younger people are coming under the inordinate strains of modernity. Such strains sometimes manifest in the digital and communications revolution, in music, particularly rap and hip-hop, and in many other modern trends such as the shifting concepts of family, parenting, urbanisation, and the ideology of culture, economy (business) and politics. The problem is of such magnitude that families now depend on miracles and happenstances to keep themselves together and establish some semblance of order and harmony…

    “But the greatest challenge facing parents is not how to obviate the stupidities of their children, but how to raise children whose view of society is balanced, children who are neither misanthropic, like petty criminals, sadists and serial murderers, nor moral monsters who grow up unable to differentiate between the healthy predilections of a political and religious ideologue and the antinomian excesses of terrorists and extremists who espouse ethnic or racial genocide…

    “The challenge of any parent is to develop a continuum of coherent and relevant worldviews anchored on the key elements of lofty principles, great character and unimpeachable morality. That template of ethical continuums must, however, be such that members of the family, particularly the children, can express and fulfil their individualisms in ways that do not threaten the family or the society. It is never easy, especially because generational shifts and conflicts often periodically impose new and sometimes taxing realities upon families. But the danger of not establishing a family paradigm upon which children could anchor their lives and ideas is to create a vacuum in which all manner of ideas and cultures would thrive, many of them anti-social, and others inimical to the image of the family and the wider society.

    “To prevent the sort of tragedies Liam Stacey and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab brought upon their families, the first priority for any family is to set a tough code of ethics for themselves. Top on the list of that code, of course, is character, that most difficult and yet most beautiful of all virtues that inculcates a sound philosophy regarding the sanctity of human life, courage in the face of adversity, intelligent appreciation of issues, and a sound knowledge of one’s purpose in life. If a parent does not set this code for his children, and does not do it in such a way as to make the code adaptable to the present and the future, strangers, perhaps with malicious intent, will do it for them. After all, it is the sum of positive family values that determines how stable and prosperous a society becomes…”

    In the next few days or weeks, we may get a better insight into what radicalised the Tsarnaev brothers and motivated them into becoming mass murderers. Does it have to do with their conversion to Islam? If so what kind of preaching were they listening to, and who were influencing them? Or does it have anything to do with Dagestan’s campaign for independence or the sufferings of Chechnya? Whatever the reasons, the Boston bombings place greater urgency on the need for more realistic, adequate and intelligent parenting.

     

  • Boston bombings: Obama for third term

    Boston bombings: Obama for third term

    Did you hear the US president speak? How did you feel?

    In an emergency like the Boston bombings of April 15, one should naturally feel sad that some demented minds could go to the extent that the bombers went, either to settle scores, or for whatever reason. One wonders what point they wanted to make, and whether the victims were supposed to be their targets. Some say that is the way of terrorists. Even if I grudgingly concede that to them, I cannot understand why governments have to be caught napping all of the times in such emergencies, and we then have a situation where it seems there is no one in control; or at best, that it is the terrorists that are in charge. Since the world is now a global village, I was privileged, like millions of others all over the world, to watch the Boston bombings almost live, as well as the reactions of the relevant authorities in the United States to the ugly incident. One cannot but be reflective about the way the tragedy was handled. There was no undue panic; first responders – police at all levels, emergency workers and all, did their job admirably. It was as if they had been expecting the blasts.

    But, perhaps the most fascinating thing about it all, to me, was the way President Barack Obama responded to the crisis. I am not an American. Yet, when, on Monday we were told that Obama was going to address the press on the incident, I was resolute not to go to bed until I have heard him speak. Millions of other Nigerians did same. Despite the fact that we were far from the scene of the bombings, we were still interested in what the US president had to say. Obama was pregnant and we were anxious to see what he would give birth to. After such an incident, any American president would be. And it was almost certain Obama was going to say things one could connect with.

    We were not disappointed. In just three minutes or so, Obama was done; he had said all that needed to be said: We cannot say where this is coming from, at least immediately, and what the motive could be. Compare this with the 2010 bombing in Abuja in which 12 people were killed. Hardly had the crime been committed than our President, Goodluck Jonathan, came out to say who the criminals could not have been. It has turned out that that same person who heads the militants the president vouched for is now serving jail term in South Africa for the crime.

    Then, Obama sympathised with the victims and their relatives. Finally, he assured that America would not rest until those responsible for the crime had been brought to book. Obama might not have used our ‘gazette’ expression: ‘We are on top of the situation’, but Americans knew their government was ‘on top of the situation’. And coming from a man with Obama’s pedigree, there was enough assurance that the evil doers would not go unpunished. Americans believe him; they know that when their president promises, he delivers. It is only a matter of time; those responsible for the bombings would be unmasked and made to pay for their crime. As we write, suspects are being trailed. This is the kind of thing that gives hope to the citizenry and makes them take their government seriously.

    Even before that short but great address, you could see a business-like Obama. His mood depicted the magnitude of the pains he was going through. Three Americans killed and over 150 others injured in a single incident was just too many. As he sat with two officials in the White House monitoring developments, none of them made the mistake of smiling, not to talk of laughing. I do not know how many people noticed this. In Nigeria, you must see some top government officials laughing in the midst of such calamity. If you doubt me, check your record. Each time I see such a thing, I ask myself: Oh God, why are we like this? But I quickly adjust when I remember that we have been adjudged the ‘happiest people on earth’. So, there is nothing wrong even if we express pleasant feeling wherever and whenever, as if we have inhaled an overdose of laughing gas.

    Again, when Obama delivered his speech at an interfaith service at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross in Boston on Thursday, a speech described by the Business Insider as ‘both solemn and uplifting’, he left no one in doubt that he is not a president that is prepared to be delivering such graveside orations all the time; rather, it was a terse warning to the criminals, the “small, stunted individuals” responsible for Monday’s bombings at the Boston marathon: “Yes, we will find you. And yes, you will face justice, Obama said. And he meant it.

    When he described Boston in personal tones, you could still find the panache of a president in control; when he waxed philosophical, you will still notice the confidence of a president who is truly in charge. When he gave hope, Americans believed him: “you can bet” the 118th Boston Marathon will be run next year on Patriot’s Day.”We may be momentarily knocked off our feet, but we’ll pick ourselves up. We’ll keep going. We’ll finish the race,” Obama said. His words are like an oracle’s; because it is almost certain the event will hold as he promised if Christ tarried in coming. There is a great world of difference when a leader assures his people that all is well, yet that leader holds himself up somewhere, while asking the led to ‘go about their lawful duties’. Those who went on such ‘lawful duties’ and lost their lives and limbs to Boko Haram are not likely to benefit anything when the terrorists get their own pill, amnesty.

    When Obama went to Boston, he had no cause to remind the people that he did not have to be there. If he ever had such slip of tongue, both he and his party are finished; pure and simple, because votes count in America. He knew it was his responsibility to be there, to see things for himself, comfort the victims, and condole with the relatives of the dead. That was part of the reasons why Americans elected him; they need someone on whose shoulders to lean on in emergencies. It is not all about balls and foreign policy. Charity must begin at home. Obama’s speech in Boston was commended even by failed presidential candidate Mitt Romney who described it as ‘superb’.

    Perhaps the most annoying thing is that in spite of the fact that Obama has done so well, it has not occurred to anyone in America to call for third term for him. Here, sycophants sing the praise of lazy people, many of whom by incomprehensible means of fortune find themselves in positions of authority, and start promoting them for more terms even before they complete the first year in their first term. President Jonathan has just given his Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) a marching order to ‘bring into the party’s kitty 32 of the 36 states in the country in 2015; that is nine more than the party presently controls. The first question that readily comes into mind is what makes the president think he is such a particularly attractive product. What can the president point at as his achievements to make him the toast of Nigerians in the 2015 elections?

    Obviously, the PDP is like the person who is counting billions in his dream, he had better be told to work harder so that he would not die of hunger. But the president and his PDP can keep on dreaming. After all, dreams are free; but votes are sacred.

    Second term! Second term!!

  • Salvation on earth: Two exemplary paradigms (1)

    Salvation on earth: Two exemplary paradigms (1)

    The Argentines are having a ball. This column sees no reason why they shouldn’t. In Diego Amanda Maradona and Lionel Messi, they have two of the greatest footballers that the world has ever produced. The mesmerising Messi is currently the world’s best footballer, and like the prodigious Maradona at his prime, he could waltz or blitz his way through a battalion of defenders with the ease and facility of a goldfish in water. The sheer ecstasy of watching these two is the ultimate in orgiastic visual pleasure.

    But there are even more profound reasons why the Argentines should feel cool with themselves. The Catholic world has just elected its first ever Argentine Pope. Ninety five per cent of Argentines may be devout Catholic, but before now moving the headship of the papacy to the pampas or the whole of Latin America for that matter appeared a long shot in the dark. Now it has happened.

    In addition to this is the economic and political transformation going on in Argentina . Slowly but quite discernibly, Argentina is turning the political and economic corner. In recent decades, Argentines could only live on the glory of the country’s golden age in the last quarter of the nineteenth century leading to early twentieth century. Decades of brutal military misrule and grinding economic misfortune had sapped the energy and confidence of the people.

    It is also perhaps wondrously and intriguingly symbolic that Margaret Thatcher, Argentina’s greatest modern tormentor, should choose to answer the final call at the very moment of Argentinean revival and renaissance. The boulevards of Buenos Aires flared up in jubilation and ululation as the news broke that the nemesis of the nation had joined her ancestors. Famously libeled as a nation of Italians who speak Spanish but think they are English living in Paris, the Argentines appear to be finally rediscovering themselves.

    But it is not just the Argentines who are headed for a starry ascent. Virtually the entire continent of South America seemed to be witnessing a continental rebirth and rejuvenation. From Panama to Peru, an entire continent is being shaken and dragged off its rutted and gutted grooves of complacency and sloth. Leading the pack is Brazil which in a decade has lifted more than 50 million people out of poverty into middle class self-sufficiency.

    Brazil’s dramatic economic transformation and looming ascendancy as a global power have won grudging respect and concession from the USA. Brazil’s president, a pragmatic disciple of the iconic Lula, has been invited for a full state visit to America, the first time in about two decades that a Brazilian leader is being accorded such a honour by the US.

    The entire world is watching the developments in Latin America with curiosity and bated breath. This prodigious human emancipation and stunning optimisation of humanity’s capacity for self-transformation is not the result of a sudden religious conversion or the benevolence of some ancient Aztec or Inca god or goddess. Neither is it as a result of a slavish and sterile imitation and uncreative adaptation of other people’s culture. It is a tribute to the power of visionary and original ideas to re-engineer human society.

    Anywhere in the ancient and modern world where human society has taken a huge leap forward, we can be sure that some original and transformative ideas are behind the stunning advancement on behalf of all humanity. This was what happened with ancient forms of writing in ancient Egypt and old Babylon, the idea of democracy and revolutionary warfare in the Greek and Roman empires, seafaring in Ancient China, the concept of nation-state in the Iberian peninsula, the Industrial Revolution in England, modern philosophy in France, modern warfare in Germany and the revolutionary refinement of the nation-state paradigm in the US.

    We can add modern exemplars like Singapore which broke the binary spatial distinction between the First and Third worlds through the brilliant ideas of one exceptional individual and of course the new experiment in the brotherhood of all humanity irrespective of race and religion in post-apartheid South Africa which owes its inspiration to the humane intellectual genius of a man called Nelson Mandela.

    As armies of contending ideas wage relentless battle, all that is solid often melts into thin air. The ideas that finally lifted the Dark Age for Europe came from the Muslim world in its most visionary period and in particular from the conquest of Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks which led to the exodus of philosophers, thinkers, writers and other cutting-edge contrarians to mainland Europe. In their dark and devious schema, Western historians and intellectuals often project the Dark Age as a period of global human degeneration. But this is not so. It is a clever attempt to foist a unique European fiasco on the rest of the world.

    By the beginning of the tenth century, the Chinese nation was arguably the leading human society. Its sea-going vessels were described as huge clouds in the sky as a result of the size and sophistication of their masts. Extant artifacts in the Mombasa Museum in modern day Kenya suggest that Chinese sailors had visited the place around the sixth and seventh centuries. But it was around the tenth century that a vicious power struggle lasting for centuries broke out between the mandarinate and the Imperial Chinese feudal court.

    At the very period when China should have opened itself to receive fresh ideas from the rest of the world, it closed itself off. A long period of national decline ensued. Chinese eyes finally opened when the British, from about eight thousand miles away, seized Hong Kong. The Japanese Imperial Army added insult to injury when it invaded and subjected the Chinese to atrocious cruelties. The Boxers’ Uprising was a protest against national humiliation as well as an incipient rebellion against the feudal order. The turmoil eventuated in the Chinese Revolution.

    We must now return to our original quarry. Why is it that Latin America is experiencing an economic and political resurgence and rejuvenation while African countries, with the exception of a notable few, are gripped by stark stasis and collective retrogression? We need to establish two historical theses. First is that the religious standing and spiritual state of any society is a reflection of its intellectual stage and mental development and not the other way round. Except in moments of revolutionary crisis, all religions rely on the power of faith rather than the power of ideas. Just stick to your belief system and forget about fancy stuff which may be the handiwork of Lucifer. Unfortunately as Norman Mailer, the rogue American novelist and thinker, famously posited, there may be some devils working for God.

    See where Martin Luther and the discovery of printing dragged the old Church? And see where the Latin American Liberation theologists were dragging the whole concept of salvation before the Imperial Catholic church pulled the plug in a brilliant intellectual counter-insurgency coordinated by the inevitable and cannily cerebral Cardinal Ratzinger, the first modern Pope on pension.

    The second thesis is so simple and self-evident that it amounts to an intellectual scandal when it escapes our intellectuals. It is that the mode of conquest and colonial rationalisation also conditions and in the last instance determines the fate of human emancipation from the ravages of colonialism. Colonisation also has its rich and dark ironies. The first wave of Iberian modernity which allowed the Portuguese and the Spaniards to seize the South American continent was merely a dress rehearsal for the full blown Euro-American modernity that was to follow.

    So is it that while the Iberians could match the later day colonial masters in the department of colonial cruelty and physical coercion, they were mere toddlers when it came to intellectual sophistication and sheer capacity for psychological intimidation. For example, the Spaniards relied on raw firepower and epochal physical cruelty in their conquest and subjugation of the old Indian empires. At that point in time, only superior technology in armaments separated the two civilisations. In fact the Incas were ahead in terms of social order even though they practiced human sacrifice on a Fordist scale.

    But neither the Spaniards nor the Portuguese could come up with the sociological cum philosophical intimidation behind the French concept of the colonial subject as an “evolué”, or the intellectual coercion behind Lord Lugard’s infamous “dual mandate” which forcibly steamrolled the economy of the colonised into the metropolitan orbit in a crude rehearsal of modern globalisation. And this is not discounting the intellectually ordered millennial messianism that informs the very notion of American Exceptionalism.

    With this background in mind, one can now see why it was easier for the Latin Americans to overcome the contradictions of Iberian colonisation. Raw physical conquests often beget raw physical resistance. It is easier to acquire knowledge of firearms than to acquire the firearms of modern knowledge in a context of unequal exchange. The Iberian conquest spawned several armed rebellions which began almost immediately and became the bloody trademark of the continent for the next 300 years and still counting. In the process, the people developed a heroic culture of militant self-belief and zero tolerance for tyrannical rule.

    We can also see why intellectual subjugation is the worst and most deadly form of conquest. It leads directly to spiritual, economic, cultural and political enslavement. With his old religion gone, his culture subverted, his traditional institutions decimated, his modes of knowledge production devastated, the African , unlike the Chinese, the Japanese and the Indians, requires a complete makeover to even minimally function. But even to achieve this requires that he must first overcome the massive inferiority complex engendered by centuries of intellectual slavery in which he has been made to realise that he is surplus to the requirement of humanity. It is akin to being faced by a circular firing squad.

    The foregoing also explains why Latin America has thrown up an original riposte to Roman Catholic orthodoxy in the form of Liberation Theology while Nigeria and Africa have come up with an even more showy and stagy version of American prosperity preaching. Both are variants of Liberation theories. But while Liberation Theology preaches individual striving on behalf of communal salvation which is achievable in this world through relentless struggle, Pentecostal/Prosperity doctrine preaches individual salvation through self-liberation from want and poverty which is also achievable in this world through the cultivation of the right attitude. Both have their uses and points of convergence and divergence.

    With due respect, the Pentecostal theory of human liberation cannot begin to compare in classical erudition, intellectual rigour and sheer philosophical élan with Liberation Theology. But that is neither here nor there. Both have their practical values and ideological efficacy. While Liberation Theology is in strategic alliance with insurgent groups hoping to bring down unjust and tyrannical states in Latin America, the Pentecostal Church, at least in Nigeria, appears to be in alliance with a delinquent state which it helps to maintain order and stability by transferring to itself part of the state function of providing solace and succour to its citizens. For the fanatical adherents, this is not just an opiate but the oxygen of life itself. Needless to add that it is also an anti-revolutionary carbon monoxide.

    This column does not pretend to enjoy a monopoly of wisdom. It remains an interactive session in which readers are encouraged to talk back. Since this is a very weighty matter which involves the destiny of the Black race, readers are invited to ventilate their views before the matter is brought to conclusion in a few weeks’ time.