The Nation Newspaper

Category: Commentaries

  • Religion in age of social and moral crises

    One of the most notable developments in religion in Nigeria since Islam and Christianity supplanted the indigenous systems of belief and worship is the transformation of the adopted exogenous faiths themselves. A particularly momentous phase of this transformation began in the last five or so decades, in the course of the socio-economic turbulence that has characterised much of the postcolonial era.

    Like most changes in the country since independence, the developments in religion have not been particularly positive, or done much to sustain the values and ideals of religion. For one thing, the country has lacked the political/intellectual/clerical leadership capable of applying the essence of the adopted faiths to the practicalisation of a functional ideology or ethic. And even though the universities have done little to explore the ancestral religions for their philosophy and potential in spiritual and moral values, devotees of the dominant proselytising faiths have proved largely incapable of assimilating their adopted creeds’ basic ideals.

    These ideals themselves have subsequently all but disappeared into the maws of postcolonial adversities. Thus, what passes for religion today is little more than a compulsive recourse to vacuous, superstitious rituals, for evoking supernatural “breakthroughs” to prosperity. Practically devoid, if not contemptuous, of values or genuine spirituality, the most “successful” of the new churches are veritable commercial ventures. Besides, while posing as a salvationist institution, like politics with which it has become closely allied, religion has become a major component of the country’s fundamental problems.

    Ironically, the impetus for what grew to become an unconscionable “materialisation” (or despiritualisation) of religion began as a crusade for “holiness”. This mission was organised by university students in western Nigeria, who were members, in the early 1970s, of the then students’

    Christian associations. The prayer and bible-reading groups eventually started a revival emphasising the fundamentals of Christian belief and the need to be “born-again”. From the universities at Ibadan and Ile-Ife, the new movement gathered strength and spread to other parts of western Nigeria and the rest of the country, especially the large urban centres. Most significantly, it was individual members of this students movement that subsequently founded or reinforced what became the “Deeper Christian Life” and the “Living Faith” (a.k.a. Winners Chapel), the Redeemed Christian Church of God (RCCG) and other big charismatic Christian churches.

    Within the constraints of the experience and resources of its organisers, the Nigerian university students’ Christian awakening of the 1970s would compare favourably with the 18th Century evangelical revival in Europe, especially its Wesleyan manifestation in England. One might find the revival’s fundamentalist worldview and the fetishisation of the Bible medieval, but the spiritual aspirations appeared to have been genuine, while the idea of turning away from old ways, and of making restitution for moral infractions were taken seriously. However, the striving after “holiness” soon yielded to a harnessing of faith with crass materialism, with far-reaching adverse consequences for societal mores and values.

    Although the prosperity gospel was developed in the United States, the aggravation of socio-economic instability in Nigeria from the early 1980s made the new doctrine attractive as a magic-formula remedy to all problems, material or spiritual. Yet, what was generally being interpreted as spiritual issues and therefore amenable to prescribed rituals and faith, were basically existential and psychological problems arising from the failure of governance. This is why Pentecostalism has been truly described as a Third World phenomenon.

    The prosperity doctrine itself is simple enough: Believe in Jesus as Lord and Saviour. Thereafter, since God can do all things (and there are scriptures aplenty to “prove” this), all that is needed is faith. Thus the prosperity gospel became the fountain of unlimited hope (some would say illusion) regardless of the reality of ever-declining prospects of minimal survival for most people.

    This was the beginning of an explosion in the building of churches and mosques, many of them ramshackle structures. There was also a new class of clerics, the so-called pastors many of whom were produced outside the established mission churches. As long as these barely literate preachers could read the Bible and pay for half-an-hour air time on public television, they were in the business of making a living off the dissemination of pseudo-spiritual, often socially toxic, doctrines.

    The ensuing commercialisation of religion was a product of multiple factors, for example unemployment and growing destitution, which created clients of disoriented folk that needed the services of freelance “pastors” posing as diviners and undertaking “deliverance” from “demons”, “witches”, and other occult malevolent forces allegedly responsible for every imaginable distress. It was graduate charismatic pastors, like Oyedepo and Oyakhilome, who transformed evangelisation into big business, while the likes of Adeboye brought their neo-Christian Pentecostal churches into increasing liaison with incumbent rulers.

    Meanwhile, the Pentecostal explosion had compelled the established churches to modify their mode of worship and to adopt some of the Pentecostal doctrines in order to survive. The influence of Pentecostalism on Islam has been no less profound. It is not far-fetched to see the rise of militancy within Muslim sects and the violent uprisings that began in northern Nigeria about the mid-1980s as reactions, at least in part, to the spread of neo-Christian influence.

    Among the factors which ultimately changed the face of religion in Nigeria was the predatory materialism of a bubble prosperity from an oil rentier economy. The crisis in this economy in the late 1970s, and from the early 1980s to the end of the millennium and beyond, was another factor. These crises fueled instability and engendered considerable hardships. Above all, one of the measures for safeguarding economic collapse, namely currency devaluation, under a “structural adjustment programme”, evoked massive erosion of societal values unprecedented since colonial times.

    The socio-economic upheavals ultimately translated into social, psychological and medical problems which failure of governance practically put beyond anything but fitful amelioration. This was the background to the pretensions of religion as the panacea to every problem facing the country. Accordingly, a metaphysical explanation ascribing these problems to evil and other occult powers was put forward. Then, a comprehensive therapy consisting of “deliverance”, “exorcism”, and wish-making a.k.a prayers) was introduced. These “ministrations” at “revivals” and “vigils” have gone on now for over four dacades. Yet, the problems, rather than ameliorate, have worsened. But the crowds at the vigils and religious houses have not abated, nor has the faithfuls’ hope diminished that, someday, the prophetic panaceas will, with prayers, materialise. In the meantime, the combination of faith in magical prosperity, which preachers have encouraged believers to crave and expect, in addition to increasing aggravation of socio-economic woes, has begotten what may, for want of a better term, be called a “popular religion” which has become a symbol of Nigeria’s identity, as well as an accessory to decadence and widespread corruption.

    Popular religion is a complex of conditioned attitudes, rituals, and beliefs, acknowledging the supernatural as a “power” resource to be invoked for magical success in all ventures, and for the solution of all imaginable problems. Essentially composed of beliefs, mythologies and rituals of Semitic provenance, it also displays basic traditional African elements, as well as imprints of contemporary socio-economic turmoil. However, the amalgam is neo-Christian in the garb it wears, in its doctrines, and in rhetoric.

    Popular religion is, nevertheless, not to be equated with Pentecostalism from which it has, admittedly, borrowed several elements. Indeed, popular religion owes a lot to popular culture and worldview, and it is as much a cultural phenomenon as a development in religion. Besides, many who may be seen as being within the psychological ambit of popular religion usually belong to various other religious denominations. Muslim politicians consult reputedly powerful sooth-saying pastors, and Muslim women often attend Christian vigils. In general, the elastic fold of popular religion embraces members of the intellectual, bureaucratic and political elite, as well as workers, market women, shopkeepers and artisans – that is, people from all strata of society, especially those weighed down by deprivation, and by inability to meet basic everyday needs.

    Apart from deprivation and worldly cares, ambition could also push one into the mystical embrace of popular religion. It could predispose the well-to-do hustler to explore metaphysical avenues to advancement and power. The aspiring politician, the business executive, the avaricious bureaucrat and banker, and the advancement/power-craving academic – all are susceptible to the pretensions of mountebank “men-of-God” claiming to have the power to conjure “breakthroughs” via the agency of a God supposedly ever preoccupied with the interminable vanities of miserable mortals.

    The crux of the matter is that popular religion has developed a quasi Darwinian ethic in which the only recognised moral imperative is success and survival. Thus, just as every organism strives to survive by adapting so as to live by all means possible, the contemporary popular religious faithful equates morality with what it takes to “master his environment”, if need be by cannibalism, so as to achieve success/prosperity. This is why pious Nigerian rulers, in order to perpetuate themselves in office, appropriate and loot public resources, rig elections, and rid themselves of human obstacles, after which they proceed to the mosque or to the church in ecstasy, saying, “To God be the glory”, or “God is great”!

    “Civilization” and development, as well as other utility objectives that were part of the proselytising faiths’ mission in Nigeria, were supposed to be a prelude and foundation for the introduction of the putative higher social, moral and spiritual values of Islam and Christianity. Unlike today, “prosperity”, per se, was thus not the preoccupation of the new faiths. Similarly, the determination by the agents of Islam and Christianity to root out the indigenous religions was due to the assumption that the latter were lacking in the new faiths’ spiritual essence. What an irony, then, that these same adopted faiths have proved largely incapable of meeting postcolonial challenges without practically losing their values. The question thus arises: is the current devalued form of the adopted religions (that is, contemporary popular religion) the answer to the country’s problems, as is usually glibly claimed by Nigerian rulers and clerics?

    Obviously, the country’s problems are essentially socio-economic. They are, thus, ultimately, matters of governance and of competent, dedicated leadership. Religious institutions and leaders have neither the authority, nor the means to address socio-economic problems, or to enforce compliance with social/legal regulations, norms, and values. Pretentions to such powers through any metaphysical agency on the part of “magicians”, charlatans, and influential pastors who are past masters of spiritual scams, have transformed much of contemporary religion into criminal enterprise. This would explain why corruption and crime are escalating with the explosion of religious houses advertising spurious powers to wipe out the ills of society.

    Dr Akinola contributed this piece from Ibadan.

  • Jonathan’s national conference and the true believers

    Jonathan’s national conference and the true believers

    Permit me to begin this contribution with the words of Senator Femi Okorounmu who is the Chairman of the President’s Advisory Committee on the National Conference. In the February 12th edition of the National Mirror Newspaper, he said the following about President Goodluck Jonathan-

    “Jonathan has betrayed the goodwill of the Yoruba. The man doesn’t seem to have a clue about anything. First, he has no clue about governance- it appears as if he does not even have any slightest idea of what he wants to do. He never thought of becoming President and what he would do as President. He was just talking of transformation and I don’t even think he knows the meaning of transformation. The man is just being pushed around everywhere and to anywhere. The only thing he understands is that he wants to make money and he is making a lot of it. And because he wants to make money, he cannot tell people not to make money when they are making their own. So a lot of people around him are making money and he cannot do anything.”

    This is quite an indictment and more so these words were spoken only seven months ago. Okorounmu is a man of honour. Anyone that knows anything about the struggle for the emancipation of the nationalities, restructuring and self-determination in Nigeria can testify to the fact that he is not only a much-loved and deeply courageous man but he is also one of those that has dedicated his entire life and distinguished political career to the noble cause of creating a new Nigeria where regional autonomy is established and where power is devolved from the centre. One wonders what made this distinguished elderstatesman change his mind, put his reputation on the line and accept to chair a committee that was set up by the very same man that he dismissed with such contempt only a few months ago. Yet the truth is that people do change their minds about others from time to time and I am prepared to give Okorounmu the benefit of the doubt for doing so.

    Yet in this matter we must be candid. The truth must be told and that truth is as follows. If any serious-minded person thinks that a ‘’national conference’’ that is not ‘’sovereign’’ and whose recommendations are subject to the will and caprices of the President and the National Assembly can make any difference in our country or bring any meaningful change then they are living in cuckoo land. Besides which nothing good can come from Jonathan and his PDP. The whole thing is an attempt to divert attention from their own shortcomings and dwindling fortunes and to divide the ranks of the opposition.

    For the last 20 years some of us have been calling for a national conference but we have always insisted that the resolutions of that conference must be ’’sovereign’’ and binding on all, that it must comprise of representatives from every nationality in the country (no matter how big or small) and that it must have, as it’s first item on the agenda, whether Nigeria should remain as one and, if so, under what terms.

    Anything short of this is fake. It is nothing more than a palliative. It is a ‘’made in China’’ copy of the original. If you take the ‘’sovereign’’ out of the ‘’national conference’’ it is like taking the ham out of a ham sandwich. All you will have left is a talk shop whose recommendations will eventually be tossed into the dustbin by both the Federal Government and the National Assembly.

    The almighty Federal Government of Nigeria is not about to give up it’s awesome authority and ability to control literally everything and everyone in our country by allowing devolution of power from the centre, resource control, autonomy for the regions, derivation as a principle for revenue allocation, the right of every nationality to self-determination and to seceed from the federation, the confirmation of the secularity of the state, the confirmation of the rights of all religious, gender and ethnic minorities and all the other wholesome, progressive ideals that the true believers hold so dear.

    The PDP is simply incapable of delivering all these things and no PDP President, least of all one like Jonathan, would ever make such concessions. The PDP is a party of wily old dinosaurs and conservatives. When the time for a real conference comes it will not be by government fiat but as a consequence of a series of unpleasant, unforseeable and violent events that will compel us all to come to our senses, to come to the table and to once and for all sort out our differences or just go our separate ways. That is the bitter truth. It will never be given to us on a plate.

    Today, there are many within the corridors of power that have made their position clear and that have left no-one in any doubt about where they stand on this issue. One of them is Senator David Mark our amiable Senate President who recently said “I’ll crush the bid to add ‘sovereign’ to the National Conference’’. Many of us may disagree with Mark on this but at least he has the courage of his convictions and he is not one of those that relishes in double-speak and subtefuge. He has told us that he wants a conference but that he doesn’t want it to be ‘sovereign’. Good for him. My only prayer is that the Senate President himself doesn’t get ‘’crushed’’ in the process of trying to resist the ‘’sovereign’’ in the conference because when it’s time comes, no force on earth can successfully resist the people’s will, the forceful struggle for freedom and the right to self-determination.

    Permit me to end this contribution with the words of another man who was painfully honest about his intentions right from the start and who also had the courage of his convictions. In 2001, when pressed on the issue of the virtues of convening a sovereign national conference, President Olusegun Obasanjo said ‘’I cannot surrender the sovereignty that was given to me by the Nigerian people’’. Many of us found Obasanjo’s position on this issue unacceptable and downright repugnant. Yet one thing that we could not take from him was that he did not offer what he was not prepared to give. He went on to convene a national conference in 2005 but, like Jonathan’s one today, it was not sovereign and consequently it had little relevance or meaning. Many of us lampooned Obasanjo for outrightly rejecting the idea of a sovereign national confrence at the time and on March 18th 2001, I wrote the following words in a scathing essay for the Comet Newspaper (which later transmuted into The Nation) titled ‘’President Olusegun Obasanjo, The National Question And The Imperatives Of A Sovereign National Conference’’. I wrote-

    ‘’As a direct consequence of the gradual degeneration of the Nigerian state, the passionate campaign and vigorous agitation for the convocation of a Sovereign National Conference (SNC) is once again steadily gathering momentum. For even though we have a “democratically” elected government in power today, the fact remains that the, “National Question” is yet to be answered. And until we have searched our souls and settled some outstanding fundamental issues that still exist among our varous nationalities, until the brutal role of internal  colonialism has been completely and irrevocably shattered, Nigeria cannot possibly prosper and neither can she achieve her full potentials. This is because there can be little doubt that the many problems that this country faces cannot be solved simply by the establishment of democracy, the provision of good government and the equitable distribution of ministerial portfolios.

    There is far more to it than that and anyone that seriously believes otherwise must have been living on another planet for the last 41 (forty-one) years. And with all due respect to President Obasanjo’s efforts, it is painfully obvious that a sovereign national conference remains the only permanent solution to the myriad of complex problems in this country. For example, when did we as a people ever agree to stay together as one? And even if we ever did, what were the terms of our union? Did the people of the South ever agree to become perpetual slaves to the Fulani ruling class and their military collaborators? And even though we have a southerner in power today, what happens in 2007 after Obasanjo goes? Or can he remain there forever? Will the hegemonic forces, at that point, not insist on taking the Presidency back to the core conservative north? And in the event of this happening will we not have come back to square one? And in any case when did the south ever agree to assume the role of a wealthy yet submissive and timid wife that has been systematically and consistently cheated, raped and sodomised by a domineering and arrogant northern husband?’’

    Harsh words indeed but those days called for harsh words and extreeme measures. Needless to say, I wrote the essay one year before I met Obasanjo and after eight years of being radicalised by the annulement of the June 12th 1993 election of Chief MKO Abiola, five years of self-imposed exile in Ghana and six years of watching my people, the yoruba people of south-western Nigeria, being persecuted, tormented, butchered, jailed, tortured, driven into exile and humiliated by General Sani Abacha and his military junta. All that had a profound effect on me. These were the words of a man at war and to all intents and purposes, we are still at war in this country because nothing has really changed. The cry for a sovereign national conference is as legitimate today as it has ever been and until we have one Nigeria can never know peace.

    Those that have been seduced by Jonathan’s promise and charm offensive in this matter will soon learn that he is simply deceiving them. It is a poisoned chalice. At the end of the day, their greatest expectations, hopes and aspirations will be dashed and frustrated and they will be made to look like utter fools. A man that does not have the passion, strength and conviction to crush Boko Haram cannot possibly muster the necessary wherewithal or cultivate the strength of character to liberate the numerous ethnic nationalities that make up our country from the bondage, tyranny and oppression of an all-powerful centre. Some have said that the national conference is ‘’Jonathan’s gift to Nigeria’’. I strongly urge those that honestly believe that to remember the words of the Trojans- ‘’beware of the Greeks, especially when they bring gifts’’.

  • ASUU: As Omotola makes a fist

    There is no word to describe the beauty of this daintiest of woman. Put differently, her beauty defies words. It is the kind of beauty that would trouble and torment the soul of any man who beholds it; especially those imbued with lascivious spirit. Omotola Jalade Ekeinde (along with a few others) is the face of Nigeria’s movie business eponymously known as Nollywood. Tagged Omosexy by her fans, the languid, fledgling young mother of four, who hit our consciousness nearly two decades ago has today, grown into a veritable screen goddess and an international icon. She is a UN ambassador; early in the year, she made the Time magazine Top 100 list of the most influential people in the world. Today, she stands as the ultimate Nigerian diva, epitomising the very best of her age and our show business.

    Particularly endearing is the notion that like good wine, she gets better with age garnering more international acclaim, raising standards and reenacting pure genius in her new works. For instance, in a recent film Ije, (The Journey), in which she starred alongside Genevieve Nnaji, another luscious Nollywood star, Omotola marshalled a performance that would stand out even in Hollywood. Of course she has a closet bursting with awards from far and near. Such is the standing of this home-made belle who burst forth into the world by sheer brilliance, tenacity and hard work.

    Well, do not think that Hardball has become so suddenly besotted to this fair queen, this lush, delectable mass that he has resorted to writing a love sonnet in another form. Far from it (though not entirely, terribly, too far (am I stuttering?)).But the key point to note here is that Omotola has struck a chord that resonates strongly with Hardball (hmn!?) and of course with the lost denizens of the Government-ASUU imbroglio. She may have raised her game once more by delving into a terrain hitherto uncharted by the people of her clan. Last Tuesday, Omotola lent her sexy voice to the ASUU logjam, making a bold and audacious statement on her Facebook and Twitter accounts.

    While other celebrities were probably out there in exotic resorts making the most of the Sallah Holiday, she chose the period to spare a thought for Nigerian students who she described as “wasting away”. Hear her: “Education is a right, not a privilege. This should be the first responsibility of every parent, state and country to their child. Why are students of the most populous black nation in the world, ‘Giant of Africa’, not in school?

    “Where are all the educational funds? Why is there a crippling silence when Nigerian schools have been shut for almost four months and youths are wasting away with their future uncertain? Barka de Sallah. As we pray, eat, and relax on the occasion of this holiday, our youths should spare sometime to think. Youths, your destiny is in your hands.” Not even Hardball and a combination of the most cynical social critics in the land could have mustered such hail of umbrage and captured it in such powerful phrases and imagery.

    She talks about “crippling silence”, “youths wasting away” and education being a right. She pondered the huge and numerous education funds and ended by charging the youth to “think” and take their destiny in their hands. There cannot be a better and more influential voice speaking up for the Nigerian students at this time. She has a combined following on her two social media platform of no fewer that 1.5 million people. That is worldwide and that is massive.

    It is hoped that the starkly important message that Hardball and numerous other well-meaning Nigerians have been unable to pass to our obdurate government, the beautiful voice has done it. But let it be noted that by toying with ASUU’s demands, by failing to understand the import of education in today’s world, this government, this presidency to be precise, is invoking trouble.

  • On reclassification of Osun’s schools

    SIR: Since the government in Osun State announced its reclassification and school-merging policy with the commissioning of Salvation Army Middle School at Osogbo, different shades of opinion have been served through varied portals of information. While few are constructive and instructive, a few others are disappointingly banal and incredibly superficial.

    It grieves the heart that religious bodies like Baptist and the Christian Association of Nigeria (both the state and national executives) are the ones leading the pack of those cutting their noses to spite their face with regard to the school reclassification in Osun. From what I gather, the tuneless refrain in their worrisomely insular rhyme is that Christian schools are more (and should be) preferable to public schools. As if that is not enough a reprehensible stance, the Church and its colluding partners still go about claiming that schools staffed and maintained by public funds is theirs.

    In case they have forgotten, the Baptist people and CAN must be reminded that the schools they are now claiming ownership of ceased to be theirs from the time government took them over in 1975 and duly compensated the church. It smacks of irresponsibility to hear that a body which does not own public schools is putting up all kinds of reproachable and un-Christian histrionics in a bid to strictly determine how they are administered It is objectionable that the leaderships of the Baptist Church and CAN are zealously crusading for Christian schools in Osun. Where the people of Osun are happy that public schools are now becoming effective and well-structured, the Baptist leaders are bitterly mourning the loss of moribund Christian schools.

    I think the larger Christian community in Nigeria would be more grateful to CAN and the Baptist Church if they can channel their mounting energies into the rising killing of Christians by dangerous Islamic sect, Boko Haram, in the North-eastern region of the country. I am convinced that these bodies are largely mistaken, hence the wrong campaign they are putting up. Their claim of ‘Islamization agenda’ appears to me to be the waffle of a person who has no point worth anybody’s attention to make. Certainly, these bodies by their claims continue to convince the searching mind that the school reclassification policy in Osun is not inimical to the development of public education.

    The impression of crisis in Osun that the leaders of these Christian bodies give in the media exists primarily only in their imagination. For instance, the pupils of the merged schools relate robustly well with one another. If ever they are worried, it is simply on why the Baptist Church and CAN are whooping so abysmally on a policy that enriches the fortunes of public education.

    • Gbenga Iluyomade,

    Ede, Osun State.

  • Leadership, reflection of followership

    SIR: Nigeria’s problems are legion. Almost everyone can name a couple so it would be trite attempting to enumerate them. What has continued to confound observers, however, is how a country can be so richly blessed and at the same time abundantly cursed. Why has the country with all its endowments so criminally failed to live up to its much-touted potentials? Every citizen who still has the capacity to reflect and even foreigners who have dealings with the country ponder over the Nigerian paradox.  Great mental effort is made to uncover the most crucial reason(s) why this giant has continued to wallow in the mud. This is no easy task for in fact one could lose his senses trying to make sense of the senselessness here. In the end, the blame is laid at the doorstep of bad leadership and everyone goes home. But is this the entire picture? I don’t think so.

    ‘Nigeria’s problem is that of bad leadership’ is a popular refrain; even those that were in leadership positions just yesterday utter it. But there’s something sanctimonious about this statement, it smacks of the all-too-human trait of seeing every other person but oneself as the problem. There exists a sort of the ‘chicken and egg paradox’ when it comes to leadership and followership. Does the leadership make the followership or the followership the leadership? I think it can flow in either direction.

    I recognize two main kinds of leaders: the illumined and the regular leaders. The illumined leaders are those rare personalities that nations are once in a while blessed with. They have god-like aura, towering above the rest of the citizenry and standing largely above the prejudices, faults and weaknesses of their societies. They are philosopher-kings who guide their people like good parents guide their children. Any nation fortunate to have one of these leaders inevitably witnesses remarkable transformation. Moses, Mahatma Gandhi, Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk) and Nelson Mandela are some examples that readily come to mind.  The regular leaders on the other hand are the everyday leaders that occupy most state houses across the globe. They are not so above ordinary citizens; they come from among the people and are largely products of their societies. They mostly exhibit the virtues and vices of their societies.

    We have always had regular leaders who manifest the bad in our society. If Nigerian leaders are materialistic, it’s because we live in a materialistic society, if they are greedy it’s because greed thrives in our society, if they are ostentatious, it’s because ours is an ostentatious society, if they are heartless, it’s because our society is mean, if they are unimaginative, it’s because ours is a shallow society etc.

    Whatever negative traits a leadership exhibits is often only too abundant among the followership. A good society will most likely produce good leaders and a bad one, bad leaders. It is almost impossible for a bad leader to emerge in a society where the average citizen is good.

    When I criticize the leadership, it’s because their privileged status naturally comes with greater responsibility and not that the followership is innocent. Change can come from either the leadership or the followership. Where the leadership seems incapable of bringing about the change, then the followership might as well consider doing so, after all, it’s they who need it most.  As the popular saying goes, let’s be the change we desire.

    • Nnoli Chidiebere

    Aba, Abia State.

  • Why corps members can’t write good application

    SIR: An NYSC coordinator was recently quoted as saying that 89% of corps members cannot write good application, and lack good communication skills. What should we expect when WAEC and JAMB has special and magic centres and JAMB answers come out two days before the exam takes place?

    Hat should we expect when lecturers collect money ‘sorting’ from students for high grades, when final year students are always looking for where to buy project topics and materials, and one keep on wondering, what has these students been doing in school for the 4-6 years in school that they are still looking for project topic?

    When some lecturers will ask female students to use their money to book a hotel room in other to earn high grades; when for a four-year course, students spend seven years with 20 months of strike?

    When some lecturers hardly come to class, meanwhile some lecturers themselves are more corrupt than politicians.

    When lecturers photocopy their colleagues literary work and call it ‘handout’ then tell students to buy it for 5-7 thousand naira failure of which earn the student an F grade?

    When the Academic Staff Union of Universities, ASUU has been politicized and the Federal Government does not give a damn about the deteriorating nature of the education sector.

    When children to our politicians and other highly placed Nigerians are all schooling in expensive and highly sophisticated schools abroad, where there is no strike.

    The way forward in my own opinion, the government, lecturers, parents, students and all agencies under the Ministry of Education needs re-orientation; the whole system needs overhaul.

    We need a bottom-top approach, if we must resuscitate the Nigerian education sector.

    Both students and lecturers must sit up. State of emergency should be declared in the education sector. Sorting in cash or in kind must end, harassing of female students by male lecturers too must end.

    Students must only be graded based on what they wrote starting from secondary schools, WAEC, JAMB and every other examination as well as admission into any higher institution must be based on merit.

    Hard work must be appreciated and encouraged. Every politician, political leader, and all public office holder’s child(ren) must study in public schools here, yes, so the government will have the public schools at heart.

    School system and learning environment must be made conducive and appealing.

     

    • Favour Mkpo Udoma,

    Port Harcourt, Rivers State

  • Dialogue or diatribe?

    William Isaacs in 1999 did a seminal work entitled “Dialogue and the art of thinking together”, yours comradely shares his perspective of dialogue as “a conversation with the centre, not sides”. Many thanks to the respected columnist Segun Gbadegesin for mainstreaming my side talk or “off-the-cuff remarks” (in his words) on the controversial national conference during interaction with some correspondents recently in Ilorin. Certainly a conversation with my main thoughts on the issue, not necessarily with a reported side talk would have been more fruitful. Whatever it is worth, Gbadegesin came out as a chieftain of a boring monologue. He is definitely not a promoter of conversation. Witness his posted “NLC vs. The people” of October 4, in The Nation. He generated more heat than light in his unhelpful commentary and a “reload” of a predictable old position. It is unacceptable for him to pitch my constituency, NLC against “the people” on account of what he terms my “off-the-cuff remarks”. With millions of organized members, NLC and “the people” are certainly not mutually exclusive. The received wisdom has it that those who demand for equity must at least come with some clean hands. If you espouse dialogue (or is it conversation?) from the roof top, kindly lift those of us below out of polarization and channel our energy towards some better understanding. The bane of the modern proponents of Sovereign National Conference (SNC) with its ever altered and distorted variants is their aversion to the very principles of dialogue. The late Alao Aka-Bashorun, my mentor, lawyer and one time NBA President initiated the demand for a national conference in the mid-80s. It was then not as fashionable. It was even riskier. Under the military dictatorship ala IBB, Aka-Bashorun courageously envisaged genuine conversation as part of the broad progressive strategy to ease out authoritarianism. Today with a constitution and its imperfections, over 50 political parties, 35 state assemblies, Senate and the House of Representatives, Aka-Bashorun would have opted for deepening democratic process through improved elections rather than parroting the present day fashionable mantra-dialogue already discredited over the years by embattled regimes of varying persuasions and their pen of uncritical supporters.

    “Protest rallies on a regular basis” by labour must have captured Gbadegesin’s imagination.  But genuine observers of labour market issues know that social dialogue is the hallmark of trade unionists including me. After signing scores of thousands of plants, national and continental collective agreements over the years, through collective bargaining and genuine social dialogue, covering wages, hours of work, health and safety standards, gratuity and pension, maternity and child rights, I dare say I am a tested convert to dialogue. Present day SNC proponents are the ones who need a sermon on dialogue not labour. They often talk and reason but with themselves not together with others. And that may very well be the downside of the new conference. They   polarize and fight, instead of winning new hearts.

    My legitimate concern is that President Goodluck Jonathan’s latter day embrace of a national conference is an opportunistic and indeed belated diversion from the surmountable governance challenges he was elected to solve. I stand to be convinced to the contrary through greater persuasion not a feverish dialogue-phobia, unhelpful polemics and smear.

    Happily President Jonathan was more measured in his response to the concerns of the sceptics like me than the pen warriors of dialogue. In his address inaugurating the 13-man National Dialogue Advisory Committee, the President assured that “no voice is too small and no opinion is irrelevant”. He reassuringly observed that “the views of the sceptics and those of the enthusiasts must be accommodated”. Gbadegesin cannot be holier than the new Pope of national conference who also modestly accepted to be “one of those who exhibited scepticism on the need for another conference or dialogue” in recent past. “If indeed this ”Conversation is a People’s Conversation”, as President Jonathan assured, nobody dares shut some out through cheap diatribe.

    It is part of conversation too to express doubt about the so-called national dialogue as the likes of Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Bishop Mathew Kukah and Professor Ishak Oloyede audaciously did. It would amount to literary terrorism to say APC is against the people, just because Asiwaju Tinubu said the proposed dialogue is a diversionary “Greek Gift”. To say the church and Supreme Islamic Council are against “the people” just because Bishop Kukah and Professor Ishak Oloyede (one-time co-chairmen of similar failed project under OBJ) respectively expressed doubt about national dialogue, would amount to dictatorship of monologue.

    The critical question begging for answer; is National Dialogue  a genuine governance imperative or another unbudgeted diversion? As measured and conversational the President was in his address, he was still not convincing. We must first hold President Jonathan accountable for his electoral promises made without pressures before we can consider new issues he latched on under duress mid-term in office.  I search in vain for a National Dialogue, National Conversation or National Discourse at his inaugural address in 2010.  On the contrary, I read about “our total commitment to Good Governance, Electoral Reform and the fight against Corruption”.  Indeed the President promised “ensuring the sustenance of peace and development in the Niger Delta as well as the security of life and property around the entire country…” Also in equal measure we had presidential “pledges to improve the socio-economic situation through improved access to electricity, water, education, health facilities and other social amenities”.  High sounding “National Dialogue” at this hour is not just a diversion from the above pledges, it also unacceptably adds to already high costs of governance.  For as long as this new debate continues, the President’s full time report on all these issues that affect the working class and Nigerian people in general may also suffer with all the implications for the development  of the country.

    Are we a debating society or a functional productive republic? We promise to be part of the 20 leading economies in seven years. Are the other 19 economies agonizing through a wasteful divisive conference of ethnic nationalities or working tirelessly to combine growth rates with job creation and poverty eradication? President Jonathan was very upbeat about the gains of the previous conferences. Labour’s experience is not as encouraging. The latest constitution review actually set to deform labour when at the behest of some self-serving governors, labour was whimsically removed from the exclusive list by the senators thus eroding labour gains and standards. I think the President needs genuine SWOT analysis of these past conferences. The weaknesses might very well outweigh the strengths. Even now the threats are higher for Nigeria.  With the likes of Gbadegesin exhibiting nostalgia for the lowly trademarks of ethnicity and language (not even class) and getting romantic with failed state projects like Yugoslavia or the Soviet Union, we may very well be convoking a dangerous diatribe in place of useful dialogue for a better Nigeria and a greater Africa.

    • Aremu, mni, is Vice President of Nigeria Labour Congress

  • Nigeria: The unavoidable realities

    Many Nigerians underrate the differences between the various nationalities that make up Nigeria. They think that those differences as fragile and can easily be eliminated to build a “united Nigeria”.

    Such people mean well, but they are wrong – very wrong. How seriously wrong they are can be shown from three perspectives: the virtually permanent differences in nations’ cultures; the permanence of each nation in its own homeland, and the certainty that each nation will someday choose a status for itself in the world.

    Countries made up of different nations are many in our world. Nigeria is one. Each Nigerian nation had lived in its own homeland for thousands of years before the British came and included all of us together as Nigeria. Let us take two examples of such countries in Europe. Britain, (the United Kingdom) has contained four different nations, each living in its own homeland, for about 500 years. The four are the English nation of England, the Scottish nation of Scotland, the Irish nation of Ireland, and the Welsh nation of Wales. Because all these nations have been living in one country, under one government, their citizens have been mixing and intermixing for centuries. Yet, today, their different cultures are still different and distinct. The same is true of the cultures of the Spaniards, Basques and Catalonians of Spain who have lived together in Spain for about 600 years. It is true in every old country that contains different nations. What this means for Nigeria is that, even if Nigeria is lucky to live for the next hundreds of years, there will still be distinctly a Yoruba people with their own culture, an Igbo people with their own culture, a Hausa people with their own culture, etc. Anybody who thinks that these peoples and cultures will melt away or melt together in Nigeria is not reading the history of the world correctly.

    The reason behind this is that each people and culture have taken thousands of years to evolve their own particular characteristics. As a result, the differences are not superficial, they are very deep. And each culture determines how its people respond to situations. For instance, politically, the Yoruba people, living in kingdoms and towns, evolved a political culture in which the ordinary people took part in the selection of their kings and chiefs, and had a lot of say in the affairs of their towns. That is why the Yoruba are so freedom-loving, so confident, and so hostile to election rigging, dictatorial or arbitrary leadership, and corruption, today. Throughout their history, also, they have been used to respecting the religious right of everybody, and that is why they are the most religiously tolerant and accommodating people in Nigeria today. On the surface, one might say that the Yoruba and the Hausa lived under kings (Obas in one case and Emirs in the other). But the Obas were selected by their subjects, could only rule through councils of chiefs, and must respect the families, priests and various organizations, whereas the Emirs, being leaders of a foreign conquering people, ruled at a level far above their Hausa subjects. The differences that these facts created in the political behavior of these two peoples are not likely to disappear in hundreds of years. And the Hausa and Yoruba are very different from the Igbo who, for the most part, never developed states and rulers but lived mostly in rudimentary village and clan settings. The Igbo are proud of the fact that they never lived under rulers, and they are entitled to their pride. However, making these different peoples, with these different cultures, to live in one country is proving very problematic indeed.

    In spite of the mixing and intermixing of peoples in Nigeria also, the various homelands will always be distinct. Yorubaland will always be Yorubaland, Igboland, Igboland, Hausaland, Hausaland, and even small Biromland will be Biromland, etc. In Britain, the English, Scotts, Irish and Welsh have for centuries been intensely intermixing, and yet their homelands remain distinct. Because England experienced the heaviest industrialization in recent centuries, people came in enormous numbers from Scotland, Ireland and Wales to work and settle in England; even so, England is still England, the homeland of the English people. The homeland of even the smallest nation, the Welsh, remains distinct also. Whoever thinks that anything different from this picture will happen in Nigeria is deceiving himself. Nothing different is happening in any country consisting of different nations. Because Yorubaland is the most developed, most prosperous, and most free of inter-ethnic and religious conflicts in Nigeria, large numbers of Igbo, Hausa, and other Nigerian nationals are streaming into Yorubaland today. But, in spite of that, Yorubaland will always be the homeland of the Yoruba nation, even if Nigeria is lucky to exist for much longer. The differences between the various homelands of the various nations of Nigeria are very real indeed, and are virtually impossible to eliminate.

    Finally, nobody can dictate what each of today’s nations of Nigeria will ultimately choose to become in the world. How long will they remain together as one country? And how soon will some become separate countries in the world? One thing seems certain – that some parting of ways will come, one way or other, sooner or later. Worldwide, most nations that are parts of larger countries are breaking off today and becoming separate countries. In Britain, the Irish, Welsh, and Scotts began to agitate for separate countries of their own many decades ago. The Irish were allowed to go and create their own Republic of Ireland. Scotland is planning to hold a referendum in 2014 to become the separate Republic of Scotland. And the Welsh are following close behind the Scotts. That is the trend in the world in our times. The trend has resulted in the breaking up of the Soviet Union into 15 countries, Yugoslavia into five countries, Czechoslovakia into two, India into three soon after independence, Indonesia into three (with more on the way), Sudan into two, etc. It is threatening to break Spain into three, Belgium into two, Sri Lanka into two, Canada into two, etc. The United States, though comprising many nationalities, is different: none of its immigrant nationalities is settled in a separate homeland in the country. The United Nations has bowed to reality and passed a resolution affirming the right of every nation, large or small, to determine its own status in the world. The African Union has done the same.

    Some people think that it is because Nigeria is poorly governed and poverty-ridden that it may break into separate countries. But that is not so. Poor governance and poverty may speed up the break; orderly governance and prosperity may delay it for some time but cannot prevent it. Countries like Britain, Spain or Canada that are breaking up are not poorly governed or poor. It is just that breaking up seems to be, in our times, the destiny of countries that are made up of different nations with different homelands. Nigeria cannot avoid it. The only question is: how, and how soon, will it come to Nigeria? However, while we are still together, we Nigerians should strive to make our country a land of harmony and opportunity.

  • National Conference ruse  

    In proposing to convene a National Conference or Conversation, President Goodluck Jonathan is not attempting anything different from what past and now-discredited Nigerian leaders have done.  Former Military President, General Ibrahim Babangida did it; Former Military Head of State, General Sanni Abacha did it; and Former Civilian President Olusegun Obasanjo did it.  President Jonathan is now carving a place for himself among the failed and deceitful Nigerian leaders.

    To the discerning mind, all the conferences and talks had striking similarities.  First, it is no longer debatable that all the conferences referred to above were convened to further hidden and anti-democratic agenda of the convening incumbent.  In the case of Babangida, it was to create booby traps that would ensure an inconclusive transition Programme.  In the case of General Abacha, it was to create a seeming legitimate cover for his ambition to transform from a military Head of State to a Civilian President.  In the case of President Obasanjo, it was to promote and legalise his much-sought after (though often-denied) third term ambition in office.  (In the case of Obasanjo’s conference, it is almost hilarious, if it were not a serious matter,  to note that once the conference would not agree on a third term for the President,  he lost all interest in the conference he convened and never again referred to the work of the conference.)

    Second, the conferences and talks were convened by incumbent leaders who, having denied the need for, and benefits of, a Sovereign National Conference to discuss Nigeria and the fundamental issues that silently but poignantly threaten our unity, peace and progress, suddenly fell in love with the idea of convening these conferences and did a 90 degrees-turn on discovering the potentials of a conference to divert attention and legitimize their ambitions.

    Third, none of the conferences referred to above had the force of law or the force of the will of the people.  The reports and resolutions of the conferences were submitted to other persons and authorities who had the powers to alter them and thereafter give the force of law to aspects found suitable to the agenda of that ratifying authority.

    Thus, President Jonathan is merely playing an old hand as his proposal shares all the dubious features of the conferences gone by.  Is he not the President who, barely one year to general elections, is desperate to turn attention away from his colossal incompetence and failings that has led to unprecedented break down of law and order, tension in the polity and thievery of prized natural resources?  Is he not the President who, not so long ago, described the idea of a National Conference as dead and buried? And has he not, from the very outset, hinted that the conference or conversation will have no binding force at all and will be subjected to his and the National Assembly’s ratification?

    Should we then not be angry and deeply offended?  We should be offended that this administration is attempting to play on our collective intelligence.  Why has the President waited for this long to convene a conference and why convene a conference that has no power to do anything except submit a report that will be subject to the whims and caprice of the President?  If what the president wants is are optional pieces of advice, or a gauge of opinions to guide him, he can achieve that by holding widespread consultations with the different segments of the society without wasting the nation’s time and resources and diverting attention from urgent tasks rather than attempting to insult our collective intelligence by taking us all on a wasteful jamboree?

    We should be offended that this is another attempt to waste our resources and hard-earned tax payers’ money.  We should be angry and offended that the President has, by this laughable attempt, demonstrated his failure and inability to appreciate the enormous fundamental problems that affect and afflict this nation.  We should be angry that he is not aware that the anger and violence on display are outlets for deep-seated distrust for and disaffection with the current structure of government?  We should be angry that he has failed to grasp that the development of this nation has been held back by the failure to truly give the people a voice by convening a Sovereign National Conference backed by law to give a truly legitimate constitution to the people of Nigeria?

    I have always been an advocate of the need to convene not just a National Conference but a Sovereign National Conference because I realise that instead of denying our differences and attempting to force unity through a central government, we ought to discuss how the different ethnic and tribal nationalities will co-exist or if they want to continue to co-exist at all.  This is because, Nigeria, like most African countries, is an artificial creation and this artificial creation will only work if and when the federating units are given the opportunity to sit down to talk and agree on the rules for their co-existence.  The keyword is that the people should decide.

    Any conference that falls short of allowing the people to decide without interference should be rightly regarded as a ruse designed to further some hidden agenda.  To be credible and different from past deceptions, President Jonathan must demonstrate as follows:

    That there is ample and sufficient time for the conference to achieve anything meaningful and to implement the resolutions of the conference between now and the second quarter of 2015 when the term of the current administration must constitutionally end.  Realistically, it is now too late for that.

    That the conference will be all-inclusive and that the participants will be democratically chosen.

    That, the elections scheduled for 2015 will not be affected and that those elected into offices under the present constitution will not be eligible for election into those same offices under any new constitution emerging from the conference, if any.

    That the conference will not be barred from discussing any matter and, in particular, these four fundamentals: devolution of powers from the Federal Government; entrenchment of fiscal federalism, restructuring of the control of the Police Force and extensive electoral reforms.

    That the budget for the conference will not be profligate and capable of being used to ‘settle’ interests in favour of the ruling political party ahead of the 2015 elections.

    That the resolutions of the conference will not be subjected to ratification by the President or any other authority but subjected to ratification by a popular referendum.

    Without satisfying the conditions above, President Jonathan would merely be playing an old hand, consulting an old magic book and attempting to adopt a use-worn method to further his own agenda.  Time is precious, resources are fleeting and there are so many urgent tasks begging for attention than to leave the all-important task of charting Nigeria’s future to an incompetent and opportunistic administration.

  • Government and ASUU strike

    SIR: If anyone is still wondering why Nigeria is not working, then the person must read Malam Nasir Ahmad El-Rufai’s book titled ‘The Accidental Public Servant’. The quality of leadership is poor and this is traceable to the process through which these people evolve as leaders. If not, why would leaders supposedly elected allow Nigerian universities to be on strike for more than 100 days?

    The people who run government in Nigeria do not understand that the buck stops at their desk. Nigerians did not vote for them to keep our universities shut. These people, especially President Goodluck Jonathan, simply do not have what it takes to run a country. All that they concern themselves with is how to retain their positions for their personal benefit. Very soon, these same people will be campaigning, asking that we vote for them again. In other countries, the President and a number of people would have been sacked by now.

    To anyone who thinks President Jonathan’s recent remark that he would do everything possible to resolve all issues responsible for the strike by ASUU and National Association of Resident Doctors (NARD) offers a ray of hope, El Rufai (Page 441, Lines 19 & 20) has this to say in his book ‘ …-never expect Jonathan to keep a promise, never expect him to reciprocate a kind gesture’. Isn’t that what is responsible for this strike in the first place? This government lacks integrity and depth. If not, why would it not implement an agreement that it signed on how to improve Nigerian universities. El-Rufai was right! His book is a collector’s item.

     

    • Olami Akanni

    Abuja, Nigeria