By Niyi Akinnaso

Donald John Trump, the 45th President of the United States, was an unusual leader, if ever he was one. He was autocratic, whimsical, and ruled on instinct. He flouted established institutional norms and basically ran the government like a Trump business. No wonder, his administration had the largest turnover of top officials in history.

No American President other than Trump has publicly pursued the policy of otherness, by openly insulting or denigrating others, especially Blacks, Native Americans, Asians, and Muslims. In a conversation about immigration, Trump referred to El Salvador, Haiti, and African nations as “shithole countries”. Even fellow politicians, who crossed his path, either by contesting against him or by opposing his policy, also earned one derogatory label or the other. He lashed out at others as much with his tongue as with his tweets. So vile and inciting were many of his tweets that his tweeter handle was pulled down.

His racist, xenophobic, and misogynistic behavior was supplemented with rosy promises of protecting America against immigration, globalization, world trade, and the outsourcing of American jobs, especially in the auto industry. He also promised to “drain the swamp” in Washington.  It soon became apparent that his campaign, and later governance, slogan, “Make America Great Again”, was a code for “Make America White Again”.

In no time, his base broadened beyond White Supremacists and Whites without a College degree to include far-right conspiracy theorists, such as QAnon, and extremist groups, such as Proud Boys. He courted them and they gave him a cultic following. The rank and file of the Republican party first tolerated and later adopted him, although not without notable exceptions. Luckily for him, his party controlled both Houses of Congress for two years and the Senate throughout his four-year term.

There are at least three reasons why the Republican party, which first attempted in 2016 to scuttle Trump’s candidacy, eventually warmed up to Trump. First, he delivered on some conservative projects on trade, border protection, and tax break for the rich. He also loaded various courts, including the Supreme Court, with Conservative justices. Second, Trump developed a cultic following from which Republican politicians wanted to reap electoral benefit. Third, it would appear that Trump’s discriminatory tendencies matched Republican basic instincts. They both oppose the expansion of minority access to resources.

Against the above backgrounds, there are many things for which Trump will be remembered. First, his anti-science stance drove him to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement on climate change on June 1, 2017.

But by far, his anti-science stance was best illustrated by his woeful handling of the coronavirus pandemic. He downplayed the recommendations of scientists, including members of his own Coronavirus Task Force, on basic mitigation measures. He scuttled federal plans to combat the virus, politicized mask wearing, and urged states to reopen prematurely. He staged events in the White House and held several political rallies, which were regarded as super spreaders. As a result of his negligence, millions of Americans, including him, were infected by the virus, while over half a million have died as a result.

Facing criticisms at home, Trump turned on China and the World Health Organization as coronavirus scapegoats. In his tirade against China, Trump variously called the coronavirus the China virus, the Chinese plague, and Conflu. As a result, he made Chinese in particular and Asian Americans in general targets of hate. He defunded the WHO and even threatened to withdraw the US from the Organization.

Second, a longtime skeptic of trade liberalization, Trump unilaterally withdrew the US from the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations and launched a trade war with China, by increasing tariffs on over 800 categories of Chinese imports worth over $50 billon. He also imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from various countries. As a result of his whimsical trade policies, the US trade deficit reached its highest level in 12 years.

Third, Trump manifested his love for autocracy by cozying up to autocrats, notably, Vladimir Putin of Russia; Kim Jong-un of North Korea; Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines; Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil; and Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. The US gained nothing significant from his relationships with these autocrats.

However, some developments resulted from his alliance with Netanyahu. First, in a break with decades of official US policy, Trump moved the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Second, four Arab countries-The United Arab Emirates, Sudan, Morocco, and Bahrain-normalized ties with Israel. As pointed out in Foreign Policy’s Year in Review, these countries were motivated by narrow interests, including Trump’s promise of favours or advanced weapons from the United States.

Fourth, according to CREW researchers, who tracked Trump’s conflicts of interest resulting from interactions between the Trump Organization and the American government during his presidency, Trump left a legacy of corruption. His administration was “marked by self-interest, profiteering … and more than 3,700 conflicts of interest”.

Fifth, Trump will be remembered for his unprecedented assault on American democracy. He denigrated the electoral system and claimed he won the 2020 presidential election, which he lost by 74 electoral college votes and over 7 million popular votes, as certified by all 50 states. He refused to concede the race and delayed the formal transition process. He filed over 60 cases in various courts, including the Supreme Court, and lost them all, except an inconsequential one. He unsuccessfully pushed electoral officials to “find votes” for him.

Not satisfied, Trump invited his supporters to Washington and incited them to march on the Capitol as the legislators were engaged in the certification of the results. The ensuing destruction involved five fatalities. Over 300 participants have been charged for various offenses. It was the worst domestic assault on the Capitol in history. Trump capped his refusal to concede the race by refusing to attend his successor’s inauguration as required by tradition.

This dent on American democracy and image abroad will take years to repair. Similarly, the deep divisions Trump has planted among fellow Americans will endure and manifest in various ways for years to come.

Finally, Trump remains the only American President to be impeached twice, one in 2019 for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress and the other in 2021 for inciting an insurrection. Although he was acquitted by the Republican-led Senate on both occasions, the two impeachments will remain on his record as permanent indicators of institutional rejection of the Trump presidency.

By Niyi Akinnaso

Kidnapping. Abduction. Banditry. Robbery. Killing. Rape. Cultism. These are the major indices of insecurity in Nigeria today. That’s why, according to the Global Terrorism Index 2020, Nigeria is ranked the third country in the world most impacted by terrorism. It is also the reason Nigeria is ranked the 14th most fragile state, leading the Financial Times, in its editorial of December 22, 2020, to warn the Nigerian leadership to reset priorities in order to avert state failure.

As the scourge of insecurity rises across the country, the cry for solutions gets louder and louder. One persistent call stands out among the cacophonous suggestions. It is the call for the establishment of state police. The advocacy has come from numerous quarters, including Vice President Yemi Osinbajo and State Governors. Even former President Olusegun Obasanjo, once an opponent of state police, has made a U-turn.

There are at least three major reasons for the recent attention on state police. First, with the increase in frequency of these criminal activities, it is clear that the spaces in which they occur are grossly insecure. This is especially true of highway kidnappings and school abductions. It is believed that adequate police presence could prevent some of these crimes.

Second, state police is the standard in democracies, large and small, across the globe. In the United States, whose constitutional and governance model is adopted in Nigeria, the decentralization of the police goes down even beyond states and municipalities to universities, schools, hospitals, and highways.

Many observers feel that such decentralization shouldn’t even be a controversial issue at all in a country as large as Nigeria, with a population of over 200 million, spread over 36 states, a federal capital territory, and as many as 774 local government areas. When Nigeria was less than half of the present population, the police was decentralized to regions and local governments.

Third, since policing is a local function, it is imperative that police personnel be sufficiently familiar with their environment, usually from having lived or gone to school there and knowing the local history, language, culture, and prevalent social practices. The policy of moving police personnel across ethnic, linguistic, and religious boundaries in a country as vast as Nigeria, with hundreds of ethnolinguistic groups, is counterproductive.

Fourth, the establishment of various local vigilante groups and state security formations speaks to the inadequacy of police personnel in the country. Already, conflicts are occurring between these local formations and the police establishment. As more and more of these formations are established, such conflicts are bound to multiply. It is now time to consolidate local policing by decentralizing the force and unifying local policing by absorbing qualified personnel from existing local and state security formations.

At the same time, however, care must be taken to ensure that states will be able to effectively manage and finance local police. Two major fears have been expressed. One is the tendency for local authorities, especially politicians in power, to deploy the police to selfish errands, such as wreaking vendetta on political opponents.

While this cannot be ruled out, it is important to point out that such deployment is going on right now with federal police. For example, during elections, influential politicians often hire or otherwise deploy to intimidate political opponents. Besides, the police leadership once admitted that over 100,000 police personnel are attached to public office holders, organisations, and influential members of society!

The real problem is not so much with the politicians as with the corrupt political system and police establishment. Professional capacity building and concerted ethical reorientation of the police force will be needed to ensure best practices. However, such reorientation should be backed up with an upward review of their remuneration, which leads to the second fear expressed by opponents of state police.

It is the fear that state governments, already cash-strapped, may not be able to adequately fund state police. Again, states already have a heavy investment in the police, even while under the federal system. Stories of state governments purchasing vehicles and constructing office spaces and housing quarters for the police abound in various newspapers. Besides, states are currently funding one security formation or the other to meet the shortfall in police supply.

Nevertheless, funding is a genuine fear, which is why I suggested two weeks ago that a comprehensive solution was needed to combat insecurity in the country. Such a solution would include state police, the devolution of powers, resource control, fiscal federalism and reallocation of resources, and direct control of local governments by states.

Such an arrangement will not only provide the resources needed for states to fiscally manage their police force and improve local security, it will also provide a solution to other problems threatening national unity. One such problem is the persistent agitation for the recognition of ethnic nationalities and the demands for self actualization by various groups.

It must be emphasized, however, that the establishment of state police will not eliminate the cattle grazing problem, which has been pushing herders to the South with all its attendant problems. Nor will the creation of ranches anywhere in the country provide enough grazing opportunities for cattle. What is needed is investment in the production of fodder crops.

Governor Abdullahi Umar Ganduje of Kano State has taken the lead in this regard with an initial investment of N88 million in the production of fodder seeds. According to the Coordinator of the Kano State Agro Pastoral Development, Ibrahim Garba Muhammad, the state also plans to invest in commercial fodder production in partnership with the private sector.

Other Northern Governors and indeed cow owners should borrow a leaf from Ganduje. They also should begin to invest in hydroponic technology widely employed in the livestock industry for sprouting grains as young tender grass. The technology improves water use efficiency and facilitates rapid and efficient growing within days on any scale in controlled rooms. What is more, hydroponic fodder is considered to be the best livestock feed.

Whether grass is grown the traditional way or by the hydroponic system, adequate security is needed to avoid destruction and theft. Accordingly, the earlier state police was established the better for these developments in particular and national security in general.

By Niyi Akinnaso

Almost six months ago, I offered a brief look at the Northern question in Nigeria as a direct analogy to Antonio Gramsci’s analysis of the Southern question in Italy (see The Northern question in Nigeria, The Nation, September 16, 2020). Both regions share similar traits in their respective countries in comparison to the other regions. In other words, the situation in Northern Nigeria vis-a-vis Southern Nigeria is similar to the situation in Southern Italy vis-a-vis Northern Italy. Call it a scissors comparison, if you like.

Northern Nigeria, like Southern Italy, bears the burden of all national woes, scoring far below Southern Nigeria on all indices of development-per capita income; contribution to GDP; industrial and manufacturing growth; unemployment and underemployment; out-of-school children; illiteracy; and poverty. Here’s how the outspoken governor of Kano, Nasir el-Rufai completes the picture of Northern underdevelopment: “Northern Nigeria has become the centre of drug abuse, gender violence, banditry, kidnapping, and terrorism. We have also been associated with a high divorce rate and breakdown of families.” Not a pretty picture at all.

You would think that these are enough serious problems for Northern leaders-political, traditional, religious, and business leaders-to focus on and solve. To be sure, some of them are concerned about these problems and are seeking ways to solve them. Notable among those who have expressed concerns over these problems are Governor el-Rufai and billionaire business mogul, Aliko Dangote, who recently warned that “Northern Nigeria will continue to fall behind, if the respective state governments do not move to close the development gap”.

Unfortunately, however, quite a number of Northern leaders have been much less concerned about these problems than they have been about cows and their herders. I will not grace their misguided statements or actions on the so-called herdsmen-farmers conflict in the South. This in itself is a mischaracterization of the problem. The real problem is the forceful occupation of farmlands in the South, first to use them for grazing cattle and then to colonize the occupied territory.

Read Also: Between Gumi, Bala Mohammed and El-Rufai

Whether this was a planned strategy by Northern Fulani cattle owners is immaterial. But it is a widely held perception by many a Southerner, partly because land occupation is deep-rooted in Fulani history and partly because it is in the body language of many a Northern leader up the ladder to the presidency. Or how else should the protracted silence by Northern leaders on the marauding exploits of herdsmen in the South be interpreted until the problem reached crisis point, when Southern leaders, local strongmen, and social activists began to engage in self-help to protect lives and livelihoods in their territories?

To be sure, some Northern leaders, such as Governor Bala Mohammed of Bauchi state, have taken back their irritating comments in support of weapon bearing herdsmen, while the President has gone even further, by issuing a shoot-at-sight order on AK47 bearing bandits, the misunderstanding of the plight of Southerners in the hands of killer herdsmen, kidnappers, and other bandits persists. And no apologies for the destruction of lives and livelihoods in the region has so far been issued. Nor has any compensation.

The truth is that the situation in the South is beyond banditry. This is especially true of the Southwest, which is being suffocated by the Fulani herdsmen and Hausa traders from the North and by the Igbo merchants from the Southeast. Go to any state in the Southwest, you find these two groups growing larger and larger.

On the one hand, there are Igbo traders, who have taken over major portions of market spaces in the cities and built houses and shopping malls all over the place. On the other hand, there are Hausa traders, also in the cities, in spaces they have occupied as Sabon Gari, to use their term for the settlements of strangers in their region.

For decades, these two groups have lived peacefully side by side with indigenes, occasional skirmishes occurring only when the settlers went overboard. It is a different matter, however, with marauding AK47 bearing Fulani herdsmen, some of whom have been identified as bandits, driving farmers from their farmlands and kidnapping, maiming, raping, and killing their victims.

The brazenness with which the herdsmen have carried out these acts and the absence of clearly perceived repercussions have incensed many observers at home and abroad. Clearly, no Southwest government is prepared to cede any land for grazing cattle as enough land has been ceded already to others.

It is very heartening, therefore, that Northern leaders have come to realize the need for ranching as a solution to the herdsmen-farmers conflicts. Northern governors have a duty to assist cow owners in their states in realizing this objective in much the same way as the old Western Region government assisted cocoa farmers through loans and training in the use of insecticides. I was among the youths trained to train farmers in my father’s village in the late 1950s.

At the same time, however, it is high time Southwest governments paid due attention to agriculture beyond sloganeering. The foley of dependency on tomatoes and other foodstuff from the North was demonstrated recently when food supply from the North to the Southwest was blocked by Northern traders, while pushing for compensation from the Federal Government for members killed and property destroyed during the EndSARS protest and the Sasa crisis in Ibadan.

Undoubtedly, it was a significant misstep by the Northern traders involved. Nevertheless, it added insult to the injury suffered by Southwest farmers, whose farms and prospective harvests were disrupted and destroyed by marauding herdsmen. It should serve as a notice to Southwest governments to beef up security and provide more support for agricultural production in the region.

In the final analysis, the Northern question should never be allowed to become a Southern question in Nigeria.

By Niyi Akinnaso

Since nothing happens in Nigeria these days without some political undertones, a semiotic analysis of insecurity in the country today cannot be undertaken successfully without recourse to politics. However, since no political analysis in the country is complete without recourse to the primordial factors of ethnicity, language, and religion, any semiotic analysis of insecurity in the country will also be incomplete without recourse to these primordial factors.

Nevertheless, the signs to be analyzed here are not merely the traditional symbolic (linguistic), iconic (pictorial), and symptomatic (correlational) signs. Rather, they are all and more at the same time. The actors speak the language of guns, bombs, and ransom. And they spare no time of day for their activities.

Taken together, the actors, their actions, and the discourses about them are signs of disruption and rupture, indicating a state on the verge of disintegration. At one extreme, the situation beckons the Haiti of Aristide days, when that country was at the height of hunger and devastating poverty. At the other extreme, it smells of Rwanda, Sudan, and the old Yugoslavia, all ravaged by ethnic and other divisions.

Herdsmen-farmers clashes and school abductions are two of the alarming signs of rupture in Nigeria today, The former has led to heated debates between Southern defenders of the victims and Northern defenders of the marauding herdsmen.  School abductions, on the other hand, have revealed the security lapses in the North and, by implication, the nation at large.

When school abduction first occurred in 2014, involving a little less than 300 girls in Chibok, Borno State, it appeared like a one-off event, never to be repeated. However, by negotiating their release with Boko Haram insurgents, President Muhammadu Buhari inadvertently made abductions part of the large-scale scheme of kidnapping for ransom, which has been occurring across the country.

In contradistinction to Boko Haram, which is opposed to secular education, the abductors after them have no coherent ideology beyond money making as they are largely interested in the ransom to be collected.

Although still limited to the North, school abductions are now occurring more frequently.

The follow-up to Chibok took four years: In 2018, over 100 schoolgirls were abducted from Dapchi, Yobe state. However, it only took two years before the third incident occurred in December 2020, when over 300 students were abducted from Kankara, Katsina State.

Since last December, however, school abductions have become even more frequent, involving over 600 captives. Barely two months after Kankara, over 40 students and staff were abducted from Kagara in Niger state.

Less than 10 days later, another abduction took place in Jangebe in Zamfara state, involving 317 schoolgirls.

This short summary opens up various interpretations. First, it would appear that the bandits (a diverse collective, including kidnappers, armed robbers, herdsmen, and rustlers) now find school abductions more lucrative than kidnapping individuals on the highway. Accordingly, at least in the past few weeks, there appears to be a reduction of kidnapping on the highways in the South but a simultaneous spike of school abductions in the North.

Besides, the abductors seem to derive more profit from the publicity attending school abductions, thereby spurring political leaders to take quick action. This is attested by rate and speed at which the recent abductees were released. At least some state governors are known to have at least accommodated the abductors in some way in exchange for the abductees.

Second, recent school abductions have been taking place in the Northwest, where banditry has been going on for years. No state in the zone has been free from banditry in the last few years. In the absence of decisive action by the affected governments, these developments have now snowballed into the school abductions we’ve been witnessing in the last three months.

Third, the combination of Boko Haram’s onslaught on Western education, the rampant school abductions by bandits, and the reactionary closure of schools in several Northern states adds further complications to the already low literacy, out-of-school children, and poverty in the North.

While this may be viewed as a regional problem, it really is a national problem. For years, Northern poverty, illiteracy, and relatively low contributions to the nation’s GDP have been a drag on the entire national economy. So has pastoralism, which some Northern leaders call “the Fulani traditional way of life”, affected agricultural production, especially in the Middle Belt and the South, by causing destruction of farmlands in the hands of marauding herdsmen and their cows.

The critical followup to these developments should be a decisive national action, which the Federal Government has failed to provide. True, the President occasionally talks about these problems, the promised solutions have hardly materialized.

When school abductions are mapped onto other insecurity issues, and the demands for self actualization by various groups, we have a nation truly in crisis and on the verge of disintegration. This is further complicated by an economy further depressed by the COVID-19 pandemic; large-scale youth unemployment and underemployment; inadequate infrastructure; and raging ethnic and religious divisions, we have a nation on the verge of failure. This is the kind of failure the Financial Times recently warned Nigerian leaders to avert.

The present situation in the country does not show that the leaders have heeded this warning. It is now time to do so.

Simple, single solutions, such as  the establishment of state police or even fiscal federalism are no longer sufficient. What, for example, will state police do when the police is grossly under-staffed and under-equipped? How will a state struggling to pay salaries be able to meet these shortfalls in the short term?

A comprehensive solution is now needed that will involve all branches of federal and state governments; traditional and religious leaders; sociocultural organizations; nationalist agitators; civil society organizations; professional groups; university experts; youth groups; and so on. This list immediately points to the need for a national consensus on how best to save the republic.

A body can be set up immediately to review existing documents from the various national conferences and  present the recommendations to the larger body for necessary modifications. Ultimately, the National Assembly should work the ensuing recommendations into law before the 2023 presidential election. The goal should be to make the bill a mandate for the incoming President to implement.