Tag: create

Those conversant with the high wire politics surrounding emerging agitations to tinker with the structure of this country would have smelt a rat in recent calls by governors for the creation of state police. Not that the calls detracted substantially from the salient issues to restructuring.  No!

Rising from a meeting with the Inspector General of Police (IGP), the governors set up a six man committee to give effect to their decision. The committee is to meet urgently with the acting President to facilitate the setting up of state police.

It is to be admitted that some of the governors including those of the ruling All Progressives Congress APC had lent their support to restructuring. But the seeming indecent haste with which they are rooting for state police in isolation of other potent issues to restructuring is bound to raise genuine suspicion.

This is more so given that some of the governors in their individual capacities had voiced out strident opposition to the entire idea. Governor Rochas Okorocha was curiously reported to have said that we do not need restructuring but ‘repackaging’. He did not come clear of what he meant by repackaging and its relevance in the wide spectrum of discussions on how to resolve the defective order of our federal contraption together with the serious threats it poses for national unity and progress.

Perhaps, snippets to what he meant could be gleaned from his reference to repackaging and selling Nigeria to the outside world. In this wise, he could be talking of image re-branding. He may have had in mind Nigeria’s image deficits outside. Through repackaging, he seeks to polish the nation’s image for marketability. He sees a new brand image for Nigeria as the issue. It remains to be conjectured how that proposition fits into discussions on true federalism, devolution of powers or the demand of the governors for state police. They do not relate in any way.

If we had no need for restructuring as he would make us believe, the governors would not have seen anything wrong in the extant structure of the Nigerian police institution. We could as well go on with business as usual. But by rooting for state police, they have ipso facto, admitted that there are issues to the organization of the Nigerian federation that needed to be addressed.

The demand for state police has been in public domain for some time now. So there is nothing new in the position of the governors. In fact, one of the recommendations of the 2014 National Conference which well meaning people have been canvassing for implementation is the issue of state police.

It was clearly addressed by that document which this government and some leaders have refused to give hearing hiding under some nebulous reasons. If the governors are now seeing reason in the state police idea, it then means there are recommendations in that document that will benefit the people of this country.

But that is beside the point. The creation of state police has been a recurring decimal in all discussions on restructuring. When former military president, Ibrahim Babangida lent his weight to the inevitability of restructuring, it was one of the issues he copiously canvassed. His views, though popular and well taken did not find favour in sections that prefer the status quo even when it has become a big baggage to the progress of this country.

Curiously some of the governors that have opposed restructuring are now in the vanguard of institutionalizing state police through the back door. They want to isolate state police from the fundamental restructuring of the polity. They would meet with the acting President to perhaps facilitate its creation through constitutional amendment.

Though a good idea, it is beginning to appear that the governors want state police for reasons that are less than ennobling. Before now, there have been suggestions that Nigeria is not ripe for state police. One of the points raised is the fear by governors to put state police to partisan advantage. That fear is real. It would appear the interest of the governors has more to do with the advantage it would confer on them especially in dealing with opponents during elections.

That is not to say that we should continue with extant structure of the Nigerian Police. No! We need to restructure the federal order. We need power devolution, fiscal federalism. We need to whittle down the omnipresence and omnipotence of the federal government in virtually any and every thing. It is a package of structural changes for efficiency which state police is just an integral part. There has to be a holistic perspective to the entire idea. That is the only way it can make sense. Sadly, the National Assembly displayed crass insensitivity to public opinion on the issue when it voted against power devolution just last week.

Though the APC manifesto captured restructuring, we have since been inundated with discordant tunes on the matter. Even when governors elected on that platform came out clearly to support structural changes, some of its leaders and governors have had to hold dissenting views. Apparently worried by the seeming lack of agreement within the ruling party, they have set up a committee to come up with their own interpretation of what restructuring connotes.

The committee which is chaired by Kaduna State governor, Nasir EL-Rufai is “mainly to define exactly what APC means by restructuring so that every member will know exactly what we mean. What we are talking about is a committee to articulate what the APC meant by restructuring”, its national publicity secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi said.

By this, the impression being conveyed is that there is some ambiguity in the position of the party as encapsulated in its manifesto. But when this is juxtaposed against the explicit wordings of that manifesto, one will be at a loss as to what there is again to define because the manifesto’s position on the issue is unambiguous.

The APC manifesto promised among others to: “initiate action to amend our constitution with a view to devolving powers, duties and responsibilities to states and local governments in order to entrench true federalism and the federal spirit. Restructure government for a leaner, more efficient and adequately compensated public service”.

It promised further to initiate policies to ensure that Nigerians are free to live and work in any part of the country by removing state of origin, tribe, ethnic and religious affiliations and replace those with state of residence.

Here, we are faced with such key concepts as devolution of powers, duties and responsibilities to states and local governments. We have a promise to entrench true federalism and the federal spirit. It says it all. It also talks of restructuring government for a leaner, more efficient and adequately compensated public service. If the party achieves these, it would have set the ground for a better nation. Nigerians are better for it. Then, it would have satisfied most of the issues thrown up by agitations for restructuring. Then also, there would be no reason to worry about definitions or constructs that are in the world of abstract.

Perhaps, the only deviation here is that the party did not explicitly state it was going to restructure the country. But, it will restructure government. The semantic defect in the latter is adequately compensated by the manifesto’s unambiguous position on devolution of powers, true federalism and the federal spirit. There is nothing more to add or delete. At any rate, that was the covenant between that party and the electorate which formed the basis for its victory at the polls.

Any attempt to subtract from them, will amount to reneging on electoral promises. What is required now is not a committee to define clearly stated objectives but concrete and concerted action to give effect to them. At any rate, definitions in social analysis are rather inconclusive. The APC cannot bring about these changes through administrative fiat. The route to them lies either in constitutional amendments or national dialogue or both where the inputs of other political parties and interest groups must count.

Those who have followed events within the nation’s polity would obviously be wondering whether there are universal standards for appraising issues that impinge on the political realm. This trend is more perceptible when such matters relate to the policies and activities of leaders while presiding over the affairs of this country.

It is common in partisan political activity for opponents to seek to fault the policies and actions of their rivals with a view to convincing the electorate they could do things better if given the mandate. That is the nature of democracy. Its strength and attraction lie in the plurality of views and alternative paradigms it offers.

But, the expectation is that those hitherto in the forefront of criticizing policy initiatives of incumbents, will do things differently with better results given the opportunity. It is not envisaged they will turn around to implement the same policies even with the objective conditions remaining the same.

Similarly, activities or policies with higher prospects for deepening democracy for which a government was rated low due to its inability to allow them flourish, are expected to have a field day when those in the vanguard of their promotion have the reins of government under their control. That is the basis for the preference of one political party over and above the other. That is the fulcrum on which democratic choice and action revolves.

In our clime, it would appear this rule is in most part, observed in its breach. You get to find to your consternation, policies and actions that drew stern criticisms and condemnation when a particular government was in power being seriously implemented and justified as soon as the mantle of leadership shifts to another even with objective conditions remaining the same.

And one begins to wonder the type of progress a nation that applies different sets of rules to the same phenomenon; a nation that places higher premium on political expedience over objective realities can possibly make. You begin to ponder whether such positions were for public good or to satisfy self-serving ends. Such has been the contradiction elevated to the front burner by events surrounding the nation-wide protests championed by a popular Nigerian musician, Tuface Idibia against the biting policies of the current government.

The musician had called a nation-wide protest which at once drew the sympathy of many civil society groups that found ample justification in his course. But the police authorities were not favourably disposed to the protests citing the possibility of a break-down of law and order. They also claimed that a rival group had also slated its own demonstrations on the same day around the same venue and time, citing them as evidence that things will go awry should the protests be allowed.

So much pressure was mounted on Idibia that he had to succumb and shelve the demonstrations due to security reasons. But other civil society organizations and interest groups already committed to the protests would not budge. They made good their promise to draw the attention of the government to the plethora of problems confronting the Nigerian masses on account of its anti-human economic policies.

The demonstrations took place very peacefully in many cities including the federal capital territory, Abuja. But one significant thing that happened in Abuja was the appearance of another set of demonstrators apparently in sympathy with the policies of the government. They came to the streets to show solidarity with the government and its policies. True to the prediction of the police, they closely trailed those protesting against government policies to their venue but luckily kept some distance.

The real motive of this group is largely unknown. It neither advertised its intentions nor the date and venue of its outing. They are entitled to their support of the government and its policies. Why they chose the same date and time and came close to confronting the anti-government protesters is a matter of conjecture. However, their conduct fuelled suspicion that they may have been hired to give a semblance of veracity to the claim of the police authorities. It looked in all ramifications contrived, sponsored and fake. Their tactics is not new. Not with Abuja as the theatre of their outing.

Not surprisingly, the development has further fuelled speculations that the government put in everything to frustrate and deny the people their inalienable rights to peaceful protests against its debilitating policies. Ironically, this is a government that came to power riding at the back of such popular movements. It is a government that mounted a very serious and sustained opposition against an incumbent culminating in the historic defeat of a government in power in Africa.

That singular feat has since had its domino fall-outs, first in Ghana and then in The Gambia. Such a government is least expected to place obstacles on the road to peaceful protests and demonstrations since, it is a huge beneficiary of such popular movements. It should not be seen to be taking devious steps to foreclose the opportunity to tap the temperament of the people on critical issues that affect their lives.

Such a government should be interested in knowing the effects of its policies on the people with a view to taking remedial actions where necessary. For, bottled up anger which does not find avenue for ventilation could result to more deleterious consequences. That is the danger we face attempting to muzzle up dissent especially in democratic setting.

Incidentally, this government had a lot of goodwill at inception that it ought to align itself with the people. That was why it removed the so-called fuel subsidy and nobody raised eyebrows. Attempts by the previous regime to effect slight adjustments in the pump price of the product had attracted a nation-wide shut-down in 2012 by the Occupy Nigeria group. Then, leaders of the present regime were in opposition and many of them had tacit support for that action.

If the current regime removed subsidy without any challenge, then Nigerians believed that it had good intentions and should be allowed time to put things alright. But nearly two years thereon, the lot of the common man has grown from bad to worse. The price of every essential commodity has doubled making life short, nasty and brutish. There are no jobs. And those who hitherto were in employment, lost them in large numbers on account of the economic recession into which the nation appears irretrievably mired. In the face of this, all we have been hearing are promises that things will improve for the better. But there are no signs of respite in sight.

Of late, we have started hearing of promises that the government intends to implement measures to force down the prices of basic food items. How such a policy will address the issues that gave rise to this increase including the rising cost of diesel which now sells at around N300 per litre and the supply side of the chain is left to be seen. How it intends to force down prices at the prevailing exchange rate in a country that largely depends on imports for its basic needs including food is left for the government.

By the protests, the demonstrators and millions of others who did not participate have shown that they are quickly losing patience in the responses of the government and its capacity to ameliorate the debilitating living conditions of the people. They are saying loud and clear and have happily been heard by the Acting President, Yemi Osinbajo that they cannot afford to continue this way as any policy lacking in human face is not for the living.

They are saying very unequivocally the government should do what it preaches both in terms of allowing democratic freedoms and enthroning fair play in its campaign against corruption. They want a government of example that lives by the sermon it preaches.

Else, we create monsters that may turn around and begin to haunt us. And this should be instructive. Now Osinbajo has heard them loud and clear, we expect quick responses to the seeming duplicity in some of the actions of the government and immediate succour to the suffering masses.