In 1923, Ijora Power Station, with 20MW capacity,derived from steam turbine and coal red boilers, was commissioned.

Between 1928 and 1939, the Native Authorities (NA) developed stand-alone power generation at Port Harcourt, Kaduna, Enugu, Maiduguri, Yola, Zaria, Warri, and Calabar.

In 1929, the Nigerian Electricity Supply Company (NESCO) was established to supply electricity to the mining community around Jos and Bauchi from mini-hydro plants installed in fast growing rivers at Kura, near Jos. A few years later, the second phase of development at Ijora, Ijora ‘B’, an 85 MW oil-red generator, was added in the 1940s.

The idea of introducing electricity into Nigeria began in 1891 when Governor Denton wrote to the Secretary of State for the Colonies to request for funds for street lighting. He justified the cost on social good. Again, in 1893, following representation made by the Lagos Chamber of Commerce, then, an all-white body, Governor Carter wrote to the same officer pleading for the new Electrical System. He noted that though the street lighting in Lagos was “most defective,” he did not think the people would be willing to pay municipal tax to fund the provision of streetlights as they were so fearful of tax. The prayer was answered in 1896 when electricity was introduced into Nigeria with the installation of a 60 KW Generator, which wired up to 120 streetlights, the Government House, the hospital and two other strategically important buildings. The annual cost of operating the electricity supply amounted to 2000 (Two Thousand Pounds), which included salaries for the British Staff and the cost of coal.

While ECN started the construction of 132 kV Transmission Lines, NESCO grew its total generating capacity to 25MW by building small hydro plants and diesel generating sets. NDA also extended its mandate to include its 2nd phase extension at Kainji and began studies to develop new mHydropower plants at Shiroro and Jebba.

In 1946, the Public Works Department (PWD) set up the Nigerian Government Electricity Undertaking (NGEU) as a unit in the Department. NGEU was to develop electricity generation and distribution in 13 major cities while the NA took over the same duty in Ibadan, Abeokuta, Kano and Katsina. However, four years later, the Electricity Corporation of Nigeria (ECN) was created as a Government Statutory Corporation through the 1950 Ordinance No. 15.

ECN took over all the 13 electricity Undertakings with a total installed capacity of 25.2 MW and assumed electricity supply to the whole country. Between 1960 and 1974, ECN’s installed capacity grew, but curiously, the Niger Dams Authority (NDA) was established in 1962 under the office of the Prime Minister to construct and operate the Kainji Dam, with a first phase of 320MW.

After the decision by the Colonial Government to install a 60KW generator and wire up some significant buildings and 120 streetlights, it became apparent that government could not recover the cost of operating the facility. Government resorted to increased charge per unit, which contributed to high incidence of default in the payment of electricity bills. Although government resorted to litigation to check the trend, it was forced to write off many bad debts. The recourse to litigation was also problematic as many of the defaulters absconded or pleaded insolvency. Thus, in 1933 and 1934, government wrote off bad debts amounting to 26.16.1d and 28.5s.2d respectively. Thereafter, more measures were introduced to reduce this threat. Separate card indexes were introduced for two categories of consumers. One card would be for those whose ability to pay their current bills was not in doubt or who could easily be persuaded to pay if they default. In this group were colonial officers and owners of substantial amounts of property. The other card index was for all other consumers. Even with the introduction of these new measures, including card indexes, the colonial administration, weary of subsidising growing power supply to Lagos, had to develop the modern system of tariffs and customer classification that all utilities use today.

It is instructive to point out at this stage that the government soon realised that good illumination of roads and public ways was a pre-requisite for the successful development of new Estates.

Resultantly, there was rapid growth in those well-lit estates so much that the management was unable to cope with the in lux making further development in the direction prohibitive.

The same issues that challenged the colonial administration 100 years ago such as customer defaults and resistance to pay electricity bills, still plague the DisCos today.

Though electricity was supplied to a growing number of people in Nigeria throughout the 20th century, its use was subject to restrictions such as rationing. This became inevitable as the number of consumers increased and demand for electricity exceeded supply. The normal shortfalls in demands were further compounded by delays in delivery of materials from the United Kingdom.

Several regulations were introduced, which placed restrictions on the use of electrical appliances.

Read Also: How abandoned electricity project left historical community in darkness for decades

One then wonders why such operators were not allowed to sell their excess capacity.

Government monopoly, wrong policy. Licences were also issued to NESCO, African Timber and Plywood Company Limited at Sapele, and Shell Petroleum Development Company in the Niger Delta. In comparison, ECN had 81.9% of electricity generated in 1960 and this grew to 87.4% in 1966 while the other private power plants had the remaining 18.1-12.6%.

The virtual monopoly of ECN conferred sweeping power on it and made it immuned from sanction or liability for damage or loss sustained by a consumer on account of the interruption of its supplies. To bridge the demand gap, government issued licenses for Private Power Generation by states, arms, and individuals to generate electricity not exceeding 10KW for domestic purposes and up to 200KW for industrial purposes. A fee of 2.2s was payable for a license for any installation up to and including 100KW installed capacity. Such licences were only for the sole purpose of generating electricity for the owners use and not for sale. They were only valid if public supply was not available. Those private plants would cease to operate as soon as public supply was restored and no compensation would be paid for the suspension of the plant.

It is alarming that between 1960 and 1966, whereas the total installed capacity in the entire country increased by some 82%, the total demand grew by a whopping 215%.

According to the World Bank Report, the power supply situation began to deteriorate leading to severe shortages, which resulted to scheduled power cuts caused by a combination of factors, mainly technical and managerial. The years 1965 and 1966 were among the worst years for power shortage crisis (pre-Civil war) in Nigeria.

Compared to the crisis of the period  between 1980 and 2002, this was mere child’s play, but in the condition of the 1960s, the unstable power supply was unsettling. In any case, there was already a widening gap between demand and supply in the electric power sector.

Development of local capacity is imperative if we must ensure steady uninterrupted power supply in Nigeria.

It was reported that the General Manager of ECN at the time, one Mr. Y. Sun, explained that the largest turbine at Ijora Power Station ‘C,’ which had been defective since 1963, had the  second roller blade damaged in 1965, but bad welding caused a reduction in the plant’s generating capacity. This was compounded by a delay in the commissioning of the new 17MW plant, a shipping strike in England, and a burst boiler at the Station.

So, what has changed? There is the need for local capacity for energy security, if not commercial reasons.

The rising demand for electricity meant that power plants had to be kept running without sufficient routine maintenance and repairs. The resultant breakdown of equipment, cable faults, mechanical fatigue, and the inefficiency of maintenance engineers contributed to making power failures more frequent in Lagos in the late 1960s. There was therefore, recourse to load shedding of the magnitude of over 800,000 KWH between January and December 1966 alone. The economic consequences of frequent load shedding in Lagos area were noted as follows: One consequence of power failures was dislocation in production programmes.  This caused scarcity of such items as cement, beer, soft drinks, textiles, motor, and cycle tyres with the resultants price inflation.

We measure service in a variety of ways — by its length of time, the courage required, the breadth of assignments and the depth of accomplishments. In these, and other ways, the service rendered by Gen. Colin Powell is widely acknowledged by a grateful nation as distinguished and exemplary. Indeed, for many years he has been recognized as one of the most admired Americans.

We last met in mid-July. He was characteristically cheerful, optimistic, engaging and positive. When asked how he was feeling he responded without hesitation: “Other than my multiple myeloma cancer and Parkinson’s disease, I feel fine.” Our discussion ranged widely, and his energy, quick mind and forward focus suggested that he did not expect an abbreviated future. He was an optimist to the end.

Powell titled his memoir “My American Journey.” The son of Jamaican immigrants, his 84 years embraced much that is exceptional about America at its finest, a place where hard work, determination and opportunities seized can carry one to the highest realms of leadership and influence.

Powell’s distinguished service came in three distinct yet interrelated arenas. The first and longest was his military service. He spent 35 years in the U.S. Army after graduating from the ROTC program at the City University of New York. His command and staff positions ranged from Asia to Europe and the United States.

He earned the confidence of the soldiers he commanded in the field and the flag officers he led at the Pentagon attaining the rank of four-star general. In his military career he was a trailblazer serving as our youngest chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the first African American to hold that position, and the only ROTC graduate. As chairman of the Joint Chiefs, he was an integral part of the group that advised the president and built the coalition that led to the remarkable victory in the first Gulf War.

His second major arena of service was as a diplomat and shaper of foreign policy. He served as deputy and then national security adviser to President Ronald Reagan and later as secretary of state (unanimously confirmed by the Senate) during the first term of President George W. Bush.

Success in the world of diplomacy requires earning the trust of both allies and adversaries, exercising wise judgment in shaping decisions, and developing a strategy and vision that will stand the test of time. As national security adviser he built a reliable and effective interagency process for advising the president and as secretary of state he did much to attract, develop and retain a talented group of diplomats across the world.

Read Also: JUST IN: Ex-US secretary of state, Colin Powell dies

He gave his best advice to the presidents whom he served and then faithfully carried out their decisions. President Gerald Ford once told me within five months of taking office that he had discovered there were lots of people eager to tell you what they thought you wanted to hear and fewer willing to tell you what they thought you needed to know. Powell always conveyed what he thought the president needed to know rather than what he wanted to hear.

His third major arena of service was inspiring and investing in future generations of Americans through chairing America’s Promise – The Alliance for Youth, a national nonprofit organization he founded with his wife, Alma, dedicated to mobilizing people from every sector of American life to build the character and competence of young people.

Powell’s convictions about politics were consistent with his philosophy of life. He was not defined by his race. He believed that meritocracy was a great motivator and brought out the best in people. One should try to find the person best qualified for a job and support them. Public policy involved solving challenges rather than winning arguments.

He believed that the nation needed two strong political parties and that policymakers entered dangerous territory when they became “dug in and nasty.” He worried that when positions get so hardened, we cannot find our way to the center where the country is.

He was always thinking about the future — not burdening but blessing those who would come after — not leaving them with a mountain of debt but with a rising plain of opportunity.

In meetings he articulated what came to be known as the Powell Doctrine that a successful military venture had four defining characteristics: a clear political and military objective; the support of the American people; an overwhelming force; and a realistic exit strategy.

His cautious views on war were borne out of his experience as a soldier in Vietnam. He referred to himself as a reluctant warrior. He loved the Army and the men and women with whom served. He admired their courage and applauded their patriotic service. At the same time, he believed deeply that the way in is often easy and the way out is often hard.

Citizens, young and older, need role models. We select role models in part by what they do and in part by who they are. What do they demonstrate through their choices? What are their priorities? What qualities of character do they exhibit when pursuing those priorities?

For Powell people were as important as policies. For those of us privileged to work with him he inspired without hubris and did not allow the things that matter most to be at the mercy of the things that matter least.

 

• Roger B. Porter, IBM Professor of Business and Government at Harvard University, served as the assistant to the president for economic and domestic policy from 1989-93.
• Copyright © 2021 Deseret News Publishing

By Goodluck Jonathan

It is with great delight that I address you all at this 30th Inauguration Lecture of the National Defence College. I am honoured to be here to share my thoughts with leaders in the security and defence sectors, policy experts as well as stakeholders within the development sector.

I thank the Commandant of the College for extending this invitation to me to speak on this important topic of human security and the responsibilities of all citizens.

I believe, as a former President, I was invited to deliver this lecture for some reasons. If the Institution wanted a purely academic approach, the best speakers are here in the National Defence College and other similar institutions like the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS), Nigerian Defence Academy (NDA) and the universities.

My conviction, therefore, is that I am not here to take you on a voyage of revising the theoretical concepts, I believe, you have already been taught from the avalanche of literature on the subject.

I consider the topic a very interesting one: ‘Human Security and National Development: The Whole Society Approach.’ The driving theme is human security. I am convinced that you may have read so many definitions and perspectives on human security, especially from the United Nations reports, UNDP, European Union and the world great powers. I will therefore avoid taking you through those definitions.

One thing is clear; the approach of different institutions and countries underscores their areas of need and the emphasis also changes from time to time, based on their peculiar experiences.

Just to refresh our memories, let us look at Kofi Annan’s view of human security. The late former Secretary-General of the United Nations defined human security thus:

“Human security, in its broadest sense, embraces far more than the absence of violent conflict. It encompasses human rights, good governance, access to education and health care and ensuring that each individual has opportunities and choices to fulfill his or her potential. Every step in this direction is also a step towards reducing poverty, achieving economic growth and preventing conflict. Freedom from want, freedom from fear, and the freedom of future generations to inherit a healthy natural environment — these are the interrelated building blocks of human and therefore national security.”

From the viewpoint of academics, one can attempt to factor threats to human security into the following broad features: (1) Economic Security – unemployment, job insecurity, income inequality, inflation, etc (2) Food Security – the problems of physical and economic access to food; (3) Health Security – threats to life and health and inadequate access to healthcare services; (4) Environmental Security – the degradation of the ecosystems, pollution of water, air and soil; (5) Personal Security – physical violence, war, discrimination, domestic violence, child abuse; (6) Community Security – ethnic tensions and violent conflicts; (7) Political Security – state repression and violation of human rights (UNDP, 1994:24-33 (to reference).

Social Security- lack of safeguards or safety nets and protective measures to shield not only workers in the organised sectors but other citizens who are in dire need of food, clothing, shelter and education.

Theoretically, it may be convenient to differentiate between state security and human security, but they are so intertwined that for security operatives in the field, it is difficult to draw the line.

One thing that is very clear is that human security and national development are so inextricably linked that all members of society are required to participate as players.

Permit me to use some unpleasant incidents that happened in this country some years back to elucidate my thoughts on this. I am talking about the Maitatsine Religious Riots of the 1980s.

Before I ventured into politics, I was a lecturer in ecology and a practitioner in environmental protection. I must confess that one of the most interesting articles I had read that seems to have a direct bearing on this topic, as it relates to environmental influence on social changes, was written by late Professor Sabo Bako of blessed memory, in 1991. Then, the late Bako was an academic staff of the Department of Political Science, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria.

In his article entitled ‘Ecological Crisis and Social Conflict in Northern Nigeria’s Dry Belt’ (Bako, 1991)2, he succinctly linked the Maitatsine Religious Riots in Northern Nigeria to the drought of the 1970s. The Maitatsine urban revolts which constituted major social crises in this country, occurred in Kano in 1980, Maiduguri in 1982, Kaduna in 1982, Jimeta Yola in 1984 and Gombe in 1985.

The members of the Maitatsine group were mainly from the Sahelian region as shown in tables 1 to 5. They were predominantly peasant farmers and livestock rearers whose sources of livelihood were devastated due to the drought of the 1970s and the rinderpest epidemic, within the period.3

They were victims of ecological disasters who could no longer stay in their immediate environment, thus they had to migrate to other areas for survival. More than 95% of those that were detained over the riots were Nigerian nationals from Borno, Sokoto, Kano, Bauchi, old Gongola (now Adamawa and Taraba States) and Kaduna/Katsina States (Bako, 1991).

Even from within these States, majority of them were from the areas worst affected by drought, desertification and rinderpest. These are the areas north of the latitude 12°N. Similarly, over 98% of the non-Nigerians came from the five Sahelian countries of Niger, Chad, Burkina Faso (then Upper Volta), Mali and northern Cameroon.

The devastated environmental circumstances compelled the people to migrate to urban areas in search of different means of livelihood. Unfortunately, they were confronted with social settings different from theirs. This different social reality exposed them to the frustrating challenge of securing jobs, (especially for non-skilled peasants), accommodation, water, healthcare, etc. It is not surprising that most of their children were sent to join the traditional Almajirai and Gaddawa Islamic pupils.

These groups of frustrated people began to see the rest of the society as enemies. They therefore looked for an avenue to vent their spleen and revolt against what they felt was injustice. Consequently, religion became a ready tool for easy brainwashing and indoctrination. The Maitatsine crises were actually environmentally induced, but only exploited religion as a platform to express them.

From this scenario, it is obvious that the Maitatsine saga bears an interesting connection to the topic of discussion- ‘Human Security and National Development: The Whole Society Approach.’

Clearly, the Maitatsine Crises involved Environmental Security, Economic Security, Food Security, Health Security, Community Security, Political Security as well as social issues involving religion, general wellbeing and survival.

I brought up the Maitatsine issue because I am convinced the National Defence College is an institution that must play a key role in developing our nation’s security architecture. Such government policies must not be based purely on existing literature, but must be centred on our local experiences and peculiar circumstances.

As a nation, this will help us arrive at an informed decision on how to solve the security problems confronting us today, which include terrorism, banditry and kidnapping.

In the past two decades, I have been on the political turf, within which I had been opportune to take decisions on policies and programmes that affect the lives and livelihood of citizens, both at the sub-national and national levels.

During these times, I have equally been privileged to be involved in the governance affairs of our sub-region and the continent. This has given me a more than passing interest in security and its interconnectedness with peace and development.

It is important to point out that what constitutes a nation are the people. The people form the communities; hamlets, villages, towns and cities that in turn constitute the Local Governments, in the case of Nigeria.

The LGAs form the states (regions or provinces) and which in turn make up the nation. Human security is therefore the security of the nation.

Security, whether personal or national, is the defining element of a state. The first mandate of a state is the security of the nation and its people. Nations exist primarily for one thing; the protection of their peoples and their means of livelihood.

 

• Former President Goodluck Jonathan delivered this inaugural lecture for Course 30 at the Nigerian Defence College, Abuja.

Other responsibilities of the state, pertaining to social protection and human rights, could still be accommodated within the matrix of human and national security.

It is obvious that no nation can develop when the people live in fear. When human beings live in fear, their productivity drops and the economy of the nation also flounders as a consequence. Every nation must therefore place emphasis on human security.

One of the reasons why our economy is not performing optimally is the level of fear in the general Nigerian society.

There is no doubt that fear is a key factor in human development.

Many countries recognise this fact. That is why the Canadian option of human security which emphasises freedom from threats to people’s rights, safety of lives is anchored on the principle of Responsibility to Protect (R2P). This precept as well as the Japanese notion of human security amplify the idea of driving human security using freedom from fear as the focus. Japan holds the view, as do many other countries, “that human security can be ensured only when the individual is confident of a life free of fear and free of want.”4 The Department of International Development’s Civil Society and Human Security Research Unit in the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) has studied and promoted the concept of human security for years. In their view, human security means “security of the individual and the community in which he or she lives as opposed to the security of states and borders“. The focus here is on the everyday experience of the individual or group and their vulnerability to violence in multiple forms which affects their daily lives.

Text of a speech delivered by ex-President Goodluck Jonathan at the National Defence College Course 30 Inaugural Lecture in Abuja.

The construct of human security is an idea borne out of new realities within existing security framework. Before now, security was conceived and understood from the context of defence, where peace and security were viewed as solely the responsibility of state actors who had the mandate of protecting the territorial integrity of a country, especially against aggression and external threats.

The idea of human security became necessary due to the challenges and inadequacies associated with traditional concepts of security which failed to accommodate emerging threats within a state.

The Human Development Report published in 1994 by the United Nations introduced a new perspective to security, by making the individual, rather than the state, the object of security. Central to this practical idea is the fact that security should be citizen-focused. To attain what could be called national security, the security of the citizens, which include their environment, food, education as well as other political, social and economic needs must first be guaranteed.

Human security therefore is securing individuals from threats that impede the freedom and dignity of citizens.

In this sense, it is a progress-driven agenda designed as a development policy, to ensure sustainable peace in the society.

Any country that wants to truly secure its borders and people should prioritise investment in citizens and their welfare, as a means of eliminating the threats to peace and sustainable development.

The goal of development is the pursuit of human happiness, peace and dignity. Development eliminates the many fears and uncertainties in a society. This is because human security is hinged on such development aspirations such as quality education, equality, access to justice, democratisation, strong institutions, good governance and sufficiency of life.

Insecurity on the other hand, is anchored on concerns arising from inequality, poverty, wants, hunger, and other needs, especially as captured in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Human security and development are premised on the fact that threats to our humanity will hinder peace in the society, as development is a product of peace, security and sustainable livelihood.

In this regard, the United Nations’ General Assembly Resolution 66/ 290 was designed to “assist Member States in identifying and addressing widespread and cross-cutting challenges to the survival, livelihood and dignity of their people.” The nature of insecurity that plague many nations, especially in the West African sub-region today requires a development approach to security which should communalise security and advocate the eradication of threats to human survival and safe livelihood.

Any meaningful discourse on human security and development should be framed around the interdependence between people’s liberties, the environment, their economic status, progress and peace. Therefore, the thrust of human security is to work towards ensuring the elimination of major threats to development, safety and the attainment of shared peace and prosperity.

Before this time, not many people considered climate change as a source of national security. Today, I am sure that we can picture the place of the Lake Chad crisis, the whole issue of dwindling resources and their implication to our collective wellbeing and security.

Section 14 (2) (b) of the Nigerian 1999 Constitution states that “the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government”. The word security in that phrase is used loosely. I believe those who framed our constitution did not want to go into the technical definitions of the term ‘security’.

However, mentioning security and welfare in the same sentence suggests that they had human security in mind. If human security is the primary purpose of government, then what must the state do in an environment like ours?

Part of the obligation of the state in this regard is to ensure and sustain an environment to guarantees people’s rights and freedom as well as enforce law and order.

It is also important to encourage dialogue among different groups of stakeholders as a means of improving relationships, promoting national integration as well as giving the people a sense of belonging.

It is for this purpose that I convened the 2014 National Conference. It served as a platform for a national dialogue meant to engender understanding, ventilate the choking atmosphere of suspicion, and foster peace and unity in our country.

Looking at the Maitatsine Riots and the theoretical definition of Human Security, it is clear that the state alone cannot provide the environment for human security. Every member of the society must be involved because some key factors in national affairs like religion are too sensitive to be handled by the state alone.

It is therefore imperative that for the country to improve on human security, such groupings like religious leaders, civil society, community and youth leaders must be encouraged to play their roles.

However, it is important to use this opportunity to caution some religious and community leaders against teachings that not only threaten the nation’s unity and peace but also become subject of interest to human and national security.

Across the world, there is no gainsaying the role of the armed forces in national stability and nation building. In fact, a discourse on nation building and national integration cannot successfully hold without recourse to the unflinching sacrifices of our men and women in uniform.

For us, as Nigerians, we have every reason to celebrate and honour the commitment and patriotism of the armed forces and others on a daily basis in our march towards national unity and rebirth. For those in uniform, your daily routine revolves around defending the sovereignty of our nation and upholding its strength and honour.

As defenders of our nation, you carry on your shoulders, the burden of protecting millions of our citizens. I am sure that the training that you have acquired here has further equipped you for greater responsibilities in service to fatherland, in the days and years ahead.

Over the years, officers and men of our armed forces have been our symbols of unity, strength and stability not only in Nigeria but across Africa. This is factual because they have been instrumental to restoring peace and stability in many nations during different peace keeping operations.

It is the gallantry of servicemen and the research and development initiatives from military facilities like yours that have helped the country to earn much respect and honour among the comity of nations.

Even as our nation is assailed by multi-faceted security challenges, the patriotism of those in uniform cannot be said to have waned.

Thousands of them who are still deployed in different theatres of war have continued to acquit themselves creditably, with many paying the supreme sacrifice while defending the country.

However, to achieve sustainable peace the whole society has to be involved in an environment broader than the well-established kinetic space. The whole society approach to security is underpinned in the concept of nation building as a journey of many miles with different stakeholders having shared responsibilities. From the human security perspective, peace is a communal asset and every member of the society must work towards attaining it, preserving it and safeguarding it.

This implies that all segments of the society should be driven by patriotism, to work in a concerted manner towards eradicating the threats to peace. This underscores the need for unity of faith and optimism among all stakeholders to address the challenge of insecurity.

To achieve this, government and other state actors must see citizens as allies and therefore align with their aspirations and work towards winning their trust.

This calls for investment in initiatives that would enhance the welfare of citizens. The approach underscores the mutuality of shared responsibilities between the military and civil communities. It is the commitment towards these obligations from all stakeholders that will lead to sustainable peace and development.

The end of the cold war, dawn of globalization and climate change orchestrated a paradigm shift in our appreciation of the causes and nature of conflicts and wars. Today, wars are not merely fought in conventional battle grounds. We have come to understand that the theatres of war can now be located among our people and within our societies. They are now in our homes, our schools, our political grounds and even in our hearts.

The struggle for scarce resources, climate change and contestations for political power have all given rise to new strands of security threats. Democracy as a form of government is meant to be a platform of hope and inclusiveness anchored upon the attainment of human freedoms and needs.

Democracy offers constitutional safeguards to rights of citizens and equally outlines a blueprint on good governance structured around the fulfilment of human needs and the protection of humanity from security threats.

The crises of democracies across nations are as a result of the failure or inability of states to address these human security issues.

Democracy may not have all the answers to our national challenges but the truth is that a truly democratic system narrows the space for strife and conflicts.

Since the beginning of the Fourth Republic, our nation has made incremental progress towards deepening the roots of the nation’s democracy. The fact that questions are today being asked by the people on the direction of that progress means that Nigerians appreciate democracy but expect us to do more to make it work better for our people and the country.

There is no doubt that the independence of the electoral management body is the key plank upon which a thriving democracy rests. In Nigeria, the agency with the constitutional responsibility for this role is the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

There is the need for those involved in the ongoing electoral reforms to review their efforts and ask themselves some tough questions. That way, they will be able to determine whether they are advancing the course of democracy by working to enhance and protect the constitutionally guaranteed duties of INEC or seeking to encumber the body with unnecessary posturing, capable of negatively affecting the exercise of its independence, in the conduct of elections.

I have always made the case that electronic voting is the way to go, if we truly desire to secure the credibility and integrity of our elections. It is difficult, therefore, to understand why the argument against the possibility of electronic transmission of election results continues subsist, despite all the advancement made in information and communication technology, over the years.

If we truly desire to deepen the roots of democracy in our land, we should not seek to reverse the progress already recorded by INEC in the application of modern tools in the conduct of elections but aim to improve the processes in the light of new technology.

Presently, the Covid 19 pandemic has compounded the whole issue of security, especially the healthcare and other social services that has implication for human security.

The pandemic which has claimed millions of lives and accounted for the loss of billions of investments across the world is one crisis with multiplier effects.

The effect of Covid-19 brings to the front burner the challenge of security in modern times and also captures the elasticity of the concept of human security, especially its link with development.

I may not want to belabour the issue of Covid19, which we are all already very familiar with. Yet one could see its effect in accentuating the issue of FEAR which I had earlier identified as a key factor in human security and development.

Fear is central to human security. According to the Webster dictionary, it is “a painful emotion or passion excited by the expectation of evil, or the apprehension of impending danger”.5 Sometimes, fear could be a positive emotion, especially when it is used in reverence for a constituted authority or deity. For instance, the fear of the Almighty God, our creator, is a positive emotion.

However, generally fear, to a large extent, determines the level of economic growth in a nation, in almost all sectors.

There is indeed a corresponding relation between fear and economic growth. Nations where people live in fear tend to record reduced economic activity and less development than others.

In many circumstances, the fear factor in human survival, prosperity and security requires that more should be done to restore hope in the people and in their economic wellbeing.

Farmers who harbour fear about their personal security will be too scared to go to their farm, as is the case in many parts of the country. For an agrarian economy like ours, it is not good news if farmers are abandoning their farms because of fear.

The economy will generally take a hit if traders and merchants for instance are not confident enough to open for business because of the fear of the menace of state and non-state actors in the field of security.

If the economic environment and the investment climate are not reassuring enough to an industrialist, he may not venture into building that factory that could provide employment to many youths. Even those already operational risk shutting down if the fear factor in a society is not addressed.

How about the school environment? Is it safe enough for the pupils, students and their teachers to remain in the classrooms and sustain the education cycle which is the engine of growth and basis for innovation and survival of a nation?

The same is applicable to places of worship which are responsible for moulding the minds and hearts of members of the society. Are Christian and Muslim faithful free to conduct their worship in an atmosphere devoid of fear?

The judiciary is normally seen as the last bastion of hope for the people. Do the people believe that they are safe to run to enforcement agents when wronged? Are the litigants confident that they would get justice in court?

Even the politicians running for office are not spared of this dilemma as their fear borders on the transparency and integrity of the electoral processes and elections outcomes. In climes, where fear still dwells in the minds of politicians over the credibility of electoral processes, governance will continue to suffer distortion and negatively impact the collective destiny of such a nation.

I will say that the issue of fear constitutes the central focus in human security. My charge to the leaders at NDC is that they should begin to assemble their smart brains to join hands with other key stakeholders towards developing ways of measuring and mitigating fear in our nation.

I believe that it is not just enough to measure the GDP of states because the element of fear affects the GDP directly.

Although it may not exist at the moment, I believe it is important to develop the metrics for measuring fear in our society. What are the conditions and situations that people fear most and how do we address those fears?

If we cannot conduct quantitative models for measuring fear because of its abstract nature, we could at least conduct a qualitative assessment through the use of descriptive sciences like statistics.

As the world continues to grapple with the challenges of COVID-19 and other forms of insecurity, let me submit that as Africans, our hope for triumph lies within our commitment to the values of democracy, peace and justice.

We need to democratize our system and push those ideas that will guarantee our citizens hope, freedom and justice.

We need to ensure that our elections are credible, free, fair and inclusive. This is how to win the emerging wars in our societies.

The theaters of war have moved from conventional battle grounds to our societies and to win the wars we must first win peace.

Democracy is hinged on the promises of peace, justice and hope. The gaps between these promises and reality are what is responsible for the fragility of many states and decline of democracy in Africa. For democracy to flourish we must put citizens at the centre of our policies and realise that every action, inaction or programme that diminishes the civil liberties of the citizen is a threat to peace and security.

As a nation, the security architecture must accommodate the management of fear in the land because of the place of fear in human development and national growth.

As I conclude, let me restate that security and peace are communal assets and we need the commitment of everybody as well as mutuality of trust, faith and patriotism to maintain and achieve them.

I thank you all.

Text of a speech delivered by ex-President Goodluck Jonathan at the National Defence College Course 30 Inaugural Lecture in Abuja.