The Nation Newspaper

Tag: pragmatism

  • Pragmatism, security and politics

    Our president gave a no holds barred interview on security and the irrelevance of state of origin in the appointment of service chiefs this week that showed his huge experience as a former military general but is very likely to create serious political controversy on constitutionalism. The president bluntly stated that loyalty not state of origin is the crucial issue in the appointment of service chiefs and he said this despite the fact 14  out  of the nation’s 17  security chiefs appointed by him are headed by Northerners. He admitted there is a quota system  in the constitution  but he said – ‘if you are a field operative you have to be   very careful especially in the military  where  I served for 20  years. ‘That  on the surface may  sound illegal  by the strictures of the Nigerian  constitution  but  that is what  is called  political  pragmatism or reality.  Which  simply means that security   in stark   terms  transcends quota  system and state  of  origin for  the   naughty  reason  that life  has no duplicate  and second chance  is a rarity in the volatile world   of  state  security  and political stability.  Legal  purists  may  be scratching their head in dismay or disbelief on the issue but  that is what we have to ponder  over to day.

    We  do  this analysis today  with a form  of comparative politics on issues from Nigeria’s presidential  campaign, the shut  down  of government in the US   over  the building of a wall  across  the border with Mexico  and the election of a law  and order candidate in Brazil  who  has just  been sworn  into  office   and who  valued security more  than human rights and won on that platform.

    In  Nigeria, the de facto Chairman  of the APC Presidential Reelection  Campaign Jagaba Bolaji  Ahmed Tinubu reportedly said that the 2019 presidential election boiled down to the character  of the two presidential  candidates   which  he said is quite  different. With  Buhari, he said if you left him in a room with a naira you  will  find your  naira intact on your return. According to Jagaban,’ with  Atiku, things are  more nuanced. This shows he has no vision for the nation   except the naked pursuit of power  for the naked  use  of that power.’  Which  simply  means that Atiku is not  honest  and should not  be trusted  with power.  This too  vintage  is political  pragmatism  stemming from politics    and    electioneering.  But  it   has its    important   implication  which  is that a crooked  person should  not  be trusted with power   and should not  be voted  for in any political  competition for power as in our 2019 presidential  election.  Of  course  I expect  the   PDP  to  counter this shrewd observation of the Jagaba but that  will  be difficult in   this   Nigeria  where  their  candidate is a veteran politician and a former Vice President for two  terms under a President   who   has,  on    available   records  in   published  works,  tarnished   the  PDP  presidential   candidate’s    reputation and  credibility  as his  Vice  President before  endorsing him  for the 2019 presidential  election.

    What  Jagaba  has done to  the PDP  candidate  and his credibility  is similar  to what  Donald  Trump  has done to CNN and other  anti-Trump  media like New  York Times by  calling them  fake news.   The  CNN   has been  involved  in a fight  to finish  with the American  president on that characterization and I expect   the  PDP  to  be looking   for similar  ammunition to  respond  to  the atomic  bomb  that the Jagaba  has detonated  on the character of their presidential  candidate.

    In   the  US, the American  President  Donald  Trump   has turned an  election promise  to protect America’s  border with Mexico over drugs  and crime into  a security  emergency  issue. He  unusually  addressed  the American  people  on  TV  to  say that the new  majority  the Democrats have in the Mid Term  elections in November 2018  is trying  to frustrate his effort to  protect America’s  borders  as promised  since the new Speaker  Nancy   Pelosi  bluntly said   he cannot build the wall.  But  Trump  is more pragmatic than Pelosi  on the issue in that he is ready to make a deal or a barter on priorities  with  the Democrats  to  build the wall. His threat  to use emergency  powers  cannot be taken lightly  especially when he turns the issue into  a security  matter  to protect Americas  borders   and  American lives,   which  is part of his oath  of  office   and   responsibility as the  President of the US.  So  in refusing  to open  government without funding for his wall  and turning the issue into an emergency security  situation,  Trump  may  be turning nasty  but he is still  a good example of credibility   and   pragmatism  in terms of fulfilling election  promises. It  is up to the Democrats to  make the best of a bad  situation and make a deal or face a credibility  crisis that they  do  not really know what they  want.  Again  the challenge  is in trying to match  pragmatism   with  election  promises  and  mandates   and   with  some  icing   of  flexibility and reality. In  my view  the ball is in the court  of the Democrats in opening up  the government  closed in seeming blackmail  by the US President Trump  for now.

    We  end up with Brazil, the world’s fourth  largest  democracy  which in October 2018  elected   a Trump like president in Jair Bolsonaro who  is against most things that liberal  governments like that of the Obama presidency promoted and championed like gay  rights and sexual equality. Bolsonaro won against  all  odds   while    the most  popular socialist  president in Brazil’s  history   Lula da Silva  was in jail   for corruption and could not  even contest  the  presidential election because of his jail term  and his surrogate   was well  beaten   by  new comer  and controversial  Bolsonaro. This was in a Brazil  that   the jailed   Lula  at the height of  his popularity brought both  the Olympics Games  and the  FIFA  World  Cup   given  the well  known  love of  Brazilians for  good  football  and samba.  But  Brazilians took  to the streets at  both events to protest against  both the looting of Brazilian sports administrators  and politicians and the  end  product was the jailing of Lula and the impeachment of his successor. So  in the end it is not only leaders  like Buhari   on  quota  system  and  security, or  Tinubu on integrity and  election  or Trump  on border  walls  and security, who  can  be pragmatic   on crucial   issues within the rule of  law.  Electorates  too  can  be quite  pragmatic  like they  did  in Brazil  where  they  picked  a president,   Jair    Bolsonaro, sworn in recently who  longed  and  campaigned for the law  and order of military rule to contain corruption  and violence  rampant  in Brazil’s  tortured  democracy  and  won   the election  against   all odds.  Once again  long  live,  the Federal  Republic  of Nigeria.

  • Pragmatism, deterrence and peace  

    The  sacking of US Secretary of State Rex  Tillerson by US President   Donald  Trump  after  a visit  to Kenya and Nigeria and the issues surrounding that situation is food  for thought today in all  its ramifications. We look at that single  incident in the context of today’s  topic   and the lessons  and conclusions to be drawn   therefrom which  are many and so interwoven,  just as they  are far flung across the globe.

    The  first    was that the unexpected meeting   between  the US President Donald  Trump  and North  Korean leader  Kim  Jung Un was  announced while the  US Secretary  of State  was on his African  visit  and he was taken  aback  by the development. The second  was that on the eve of his arrival in Kenya the self – declared  President of Kenya  Ruhallah  Odinga and the elected  President Uhuru Kenyatta   unexpectedly   appeared  at a press  conference where  they announced  to a bewildered  world  and even  more surprised  and astonished Kenyan  citizens, that they are ready  to work together in the interest of Kenyan  unity  and progress. The  third  was  the  reported  announcement  by the Nigerian  Foreign  Affairs Minister,   Geoffrey   Onyeama that Tillerson’s    sack  after  his visit  to  Nigeria will  not affect   whatever  agreements and  deals made  during  his visit  to  Nigeria immediately  after which  he was given the boot by his boss, the US    president.

    Starting from the  announcement from S Korean envoys who  visited the N Korean leader in his country and went to the US to  brief the American  president on that  historic meeting before  making the announcement   that made the world hold its breath in   disbelief  and  relief, that a nuclear holocaust  has been averted in our time, it was  obvious that a  scenario of unprecedented  diplomatic  pragmatism was  unfolding right before an unbelieving world.  That  two strong global  leaders who had called each other idiots without  mincing words  and  had  boasted  that each  had enough nuclear arsenal  to wipe out the  other and the rest of the  civilized  world,  have now agreed  to  meet and discuss, was a break through in international relations  and should  qualify the two  for at  least  a Nobel  Prize.  That  is if  the wise  men in Oslo  know what they  are  doing and  can  remember  that they gave the last  US President, Barak  Obama the Nobel  Prize  for peace at the beginning of his presidency for  its potential  for peace and that   presidency after two terms averted its own  red line in Syria  and created ISIS which has spawned  the greatest  terrorism,  migration  and security  crisis of our time.   Surely, the saying in Shakespeare’s  Julius  Caesar   that  ‘ambition should   be made  of sterner stuff  is applicable here. This  is because    this  time,  two strong  headed  leaders have sheathed their dangerous nuclear  swords,   unbelievably after  a sporting  event, to the relief of a frightened world that had prepared itself  for the worst. This  to  me is  a’ real    world ‘  balance  of  mutual   deterrence  that has resulted in a  real  euphoria  of global  peace and is   vintage  diplomatic  pragmatism  that merits genuinely  a Nobel  Prize  for peace, regardless  of the personalities  and past    mutual   and   global  annihilation  tantrums that have  brought us to this present  scenario. Really,  in my view, this is the stuff  of which  genuine Nobel  Prizes   for Peace  are  made as   incentives  for peace should be  generous and  encouraging  especially   at this point in time.

    In  Kenya, the US Secretary  of State  fell  sick  and had  to skip  some functions but  his host  the president of  Kenya  had  a pleasant  surprise  for  him in terms of peace and reconciliation in Kenya which must  have been on top of his visiting agenda.  Kenya had been victim of terrorism in recent times and the US was trying to shore up regional effort  to combat  terrorists who had struck US embassies  and shopping malls in the area   for  some time. But  what  stole the thunder on Tillerson’s visit  was the unexpected and inexplicable and almost  unAfrican  way the two antagonists in the last presidential elections in Kenya came out to say they  are fed up with fighting and election violence and have made peace. That  to me is highly commendable and I recommend  it to  African  nations  especially  Nigeria where  Boko  Haram  is still  kidnapping  our girls in broad  daylight while  Fulani herdsmen  and farmers are  at loggerheads over farming and grazing rights  while the  government struggles  openly  to be objective and fair  in resolving  the violent and  highly  provocative situation in terms of  huge   loss  of  human  lives now  all over the nation.

    Indeed   Nigeria  could  be said to  be the Waterloo  of  the short  diplomatic career  and    shuttle  of the US Secretary of State Tillerson  as he was fired by the US president shortly  after visiting Nigeria.  The reason  given  by the volatile  US president was that they  disagreed  on the Iran Nuclear  Deal put in place by the Obama Administration  which the new US   president called the worst  deal in US history  and promised to destroy. An  interview  by CNN Christine  Amanpour  of a former US Secretary of State, a lady  recently  shed  more light on the dismissal of the US Secretary  of State. Amanpor  had asked a  leading question ostensibly  to portray the US  president in bad light over the sacking but was unpleasantly  disappointed  by the response  of the lady  diplomat  who served the Obama Administration.   According  to the former  Assistant  Secretary  of State, Tillerson  was pursuing a personal  agenda as Secretary of State  when  he should have subsumed that  to the wishes  and leadership of the US president who  appointed him  in the first  instance. As  if to buttress  this view point   Donald  Trump  announced  that Tillerson’s  replacement,  former  CIA  chief Pompei   is someone who is on the same wavelengths  as him  on most  matters    and especially  the Iran Nuclear  Deal  just  as he thanked  Tillerson with a wave  of the hand for his services. That  really  meant  goodbye  to  bad rubbish as  far  as the Tillerson tenure  as Secretary  of State  was concerned.

    It  therefore  came   as a surprise  that the Nigerian  counterpart of the sacked US Secretary of State, our Foreign  Affairs   Minister  Geoffrey  Onyeama  reportedly  said  that whatever  Tillerson  agreed  with Nigeria was  valid because he came  to  Nigeria as US  representative  and the mouth piece  of the US  president .  Surely  that  is being diplomatically  correct  but   very  realistically  and pragmatically  wrong.  It  is another way  of saying  our Minister of Foreign Affairs  was  being presumptious. Any  agreement with  Tillerson  as US Secretary  of State  will  not be worth the paper it is written  on because of his frosty  relations with  his boss whom  he reportedly  called  a moron  and never retracted  that description when given  the opportunity. Anyway  his boss, the US  President  Donald  Trump   never  forgave him. Tillerson  was a CEO  of  Exxon  Mobil  and was a successful  oil  man  close  to Russia’s Putin   and    was also against sanctions against  Russia  over the invasion  of  Crimea.  Nigeria is well advised to take any agreements with him with a pinch of salt  until  his successor  reaffirms any such  paper  tiger  of   agreements. Once again long live the Federal  Republic of Nigeria.

  • Legacy, pragmatism and idealism

    Today’s  title stems  from the   post – debate   categorization   by analysts  of the world views of the leading two US Democratic Party presidential candidates this  week. Senator  Bernie  Sanders  was labeled idealist, and Hillary  Clinton as pragmatist based on her exposure and stint  as Secretary  of State before. Both  were sworn as  it were  to defending the Obama legacy although Hillary  took a swipe at her  opponent by wondering what the Republicans would be left to say given the way the Senator was attacking the Obama legacy especially on the state of the US economy.

    I take  issues today with  this simple branding of the contestants as well  as the concept  of the legacy they are both beholden to defend because their  party has been  in power  for the last eight years in the US.  Consequently  and  ipso  facto   they  must  accept responsibility for the state of both the domestic and global  economy as well  as global  security  and  foreign  policy given  the  US leading role in world politics.  That  in reality means that as they sell  their  candidacy  they must  articulate  new ways that  they have in their arsenal to make things better  for the  American electorate  which  is their first  constituency  and vote catchment environment.

    In  contrast however  one   must  bear in mind that the Republican Party  has no such  responsibility  or  albatross on its neck  because it  has  been out  of power  also   for eight years.  However,  if Donald  Trump’s  views on the Obama Administration are representative of that party’s  judgement  of the performance of the Obama  tenure, then the two terms have been a mere waste of time and the US government needs to be rewound, reset, rejigged under an  angry Trump Administration, the prospect of which is giving even the Republican establishment nightmares and jitters  on how Trump or have gotten to such an  alarming   head  or  situation.

    In  addition  to  these  I  intend to measure some of the actions of the Buhari Administration in Nigeria in terms of these  concepts as well  as well  as the legacy  bequeathed to  it  by the Jonathan Administration it succeeded after winning  the 2015  presidential election.  I will  take  a look at the workings of our separation of powers, our 2016  budget and the decision  to take a  loan  from the World  Bank  to  finance our huge deficit in the face of falling oil prices.

    Now let  me air  my views  on the categorization  of  Sanders as idealist  and  Hillary  as pragmatist  as well as the political capital  that either can make with the American  electorate over the Obama legacy. Personally  I found Sanders  more profound and interesting  than  Hillary. The  debate looked as if Hillary  was taunting Sanders who looks  like an old man but has a lot of fire in his belly given his utterances on new ways to create jobs and improve the lot of a stagnating middle  class  as well as looking after the lot of the old and war  veterans.

    At a stage in the debate Sanders roared at Hillary  that you  are not president yet. Undoubtedly  if Sanders had his way he would not be defending the Obama legacy but the party potential  candidates  had been roped into that when Vice President Biden dropped his bid to contest and was literally policed by his boss to the venue where he announced his withdrawal  from the presidential race. Biden insisted   then  in his   speech that whoever gets the Democratic  Party’s  nomination  must defend the Obama legacy.  But  he also pointed out that the party must reduce poverty and the gap between the rich and poor  which  he said had not been that high in the US  history. That really  is what Sanders  has been saying and that doesn’t  sound as a  sound  legacy  of  the Obama Administration two terms of eight years of which Biden was the  No 2 helmsman.  The  debate  and battle between Sanders and  Hillary  will eventually  unravel whether  Biden’s admonition to sell the party  on the Obama legacy  was  given  in good  faith or was just   sour grapes and his    way of throwing spanner  in the works  for those who did not allow him to succeed  his boss.  Surely time will tell  between now and July when the convention to select the party’s  candidate will take place this year.

    One  thing that is clear from the  debate is that Hillary  looked and sounded  tested –  like  someone  who  knows  the limitations of power having been a president’s wife and  Secretary  of State. Undoubtedly the Democratic  Party is still the darling of the minorities in the US whose demographics  have swelled  such  that calling them minorities has  become a misnomer and  anachronism given their numbers  and polling might in the US today.  Such  political capital  appears to be Hillary’s  for the taking but  a formidable Sanders stands in her way.  She  should  be careful for that was what  happened eight  years ago when a virtually unknown senator stole  her thunder  at  the convention  to become the first black  US president.  History  has a way of repeating itself   for good  or bad if care  is  not taken.

    Let  us now  go back to the Nigerian  context of this analysis.  The first  is the legacy  of the Jonathan Administration that the Buhari government inherited. It is a legacy  of profligacy  and corruption on which it appears nothing solid can  be  built  and  for which  the new government  seems  sadly   ill prepared to address. That  really  is the truth. You only need to read the papers on revelations on Dasuki gate and  the properties  being seized  from  military  chiefs who own state  of the art  hospitals  to know that the government is in dire straits. It must prosecute and punish to  deter, but it must also govern and fulfill its promise to the masses  which  elected it.  But then does  the government have the requisite  manpower and resources for this? Given the present   pace of policy formulation  I doubt this and  I stand  to be corrected.

    On  the workings of our separation of powers I see a separation of ways emerging between the three tiers  of  government. This  week the Chief Justice defended the Supreme Court judgements which overturned some election victories  and reversed some other judgements. That is how it should be because the Supreme Court is the court of the highest  arbiter and its word must  be respected as the law.  So  for the Chairman of the ruling party to wonder aloud at some judgements of the court is in bad taste and is not good  for constitutionalism.

    Similarly the legislature and the executive  are on collision course largely because the executive did  not do its home work well  on the budget  and also  because  the legislature  is trying to make  a meal of its oversight function  of approving the budget. The  legislature has highlighted discrepancies  in budget  figures  but that is part of its function and the executive should reconcile its figures. But  it was lazy  of the executive to have prepared its first budget  along the lines of the  paraphernelia,   values  and  life style  of its extravagant and  inept  predecessor which created the war  chest  of the fight against  corruption.

    There should  have  been  a departure to cut costs in the face of dwindling oil  revenue  and to call on the judiciary and legislature  to  do  like wise. Worse  still  is the decision to take World Bank loan to finance our deficit. Taking a loan to finance a productive deficit  meant  for   infrastructure, jobs and  poverty  alleviation  is in order. But  taking a World Bank  loan at this time is like walking blindfolded  again back  to where  our former  Minister of  Finance, an  agent  of the World led us and our economy into the woods  while  she was rewarded by the Bank with promotion at her first  calling and juicy  consultancies at her last outing.

    At  a time when we should be asking Okonjo-Iweala to explain why she gave the NSA the recovered Abacha  loot that crystallised into Dasukigate, we  are like  a dog returning to her vomit and playing into the hands of the World  Bank  and its infamous and inhuman loan  conditionalities. I really  feel we should  look elsewhere to finance our deficit. Perhaps  China while  making sure we monitor  our loan disbursement critically. Surely we are in dire straits economically and in terms of security but its high  time we learnt  to cut our cloth according to our size  in all facets  of our responsibilities  and obligations. Once  again long live the Federal Republic of  Nigeria.

  • Nigeria’s vote for experience and pragmatism

    I do not normally refer to my previous write ups in my columns but my column of March 21, a week before our presidential elections of March 28 was quite clairvoyant even though I am saying it myself. The title was; Elections as Nemesis for Corruption and Performance ‘ and the results   of the presidential election simply reflected that . I concluded thus in that essay – ‘’ So in Brazil the reelected president is demonstrating zero tolerance for corruption in spite of the fact that her party was known to be corrupt and got elected anyway. But the saving grace for her was her reputation for integrity and the trust of the Brazilian people. Next week Nigerians will decide the fate of their president on a similar plate and it remains to be seen how he will fair with the wind of change blowing in opposite direction of his performance and record of fighting corruption during his tenure. ‘’

    From that conclusion on March 21 one can say that the Nigerian people have spoken and sealed the fate of their president decisively on March 28 by voting him out of office on that day. Similarly they have chosen a president elect like the Brazilian president who has a reputation for integrity and is someone they trust at this point in time in our history – and that is retired General Muhammadu Buhari – GMB henceforth. The topic of today flows naturally from my column of March 21 with election positioned as nemesis for performance and corruption to that of the presidential election day on March 28 titled ‘Famous Elections and Today’s presidential elections. ‘

    This is because Nigeria’s 2015 presidential election result in choosing GMB as president over the incumbent president was Nigerians payback time for the poor performance in office by a president who also suffered defeat because he had no knack or clue on fighting corruption. The incumbent   president’s dismal record on both   provided     good fodder for the GMB canon to blow his reelection   chances   to smithereens as the results show.

    Consequently today’s topic evolved from this scenario and background of an election in Nigeria in the midst of an insurgency that has single handedly destroyed Nigeria’s hard earned sovereign reputation as a nation of peaceful people. A reputation now supplanted by the odious terrorism of Boko Haram which even those raised in a terror ridden environment like Israel’s newly elected Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu   have compared infamously to global terrorist Islamist organization Al Qada. So in electing GMB as their next president I say Nigerians voted pragmatically for their   common sanity, collective peace of mind and their political life as a nation and a people with hope in a better tomorrow.

    I usually cite   a British example when I write about political stability of the type that the March 28 presidential elections has brought to our corruption and insurgency plagued political system. That is the saying that : ‘’ with the Queen   in Buckingham Palace every Briton sleeps well in his bed ‘’. Again I say boldly and proudly and with thanks to the Almighty God that – with the election of GMB as president on March 28 and the swift concession of defeat by the incumbent president even before INEC announced the election results formally, every Nigerian,   or majority at least   slept well in his or her bed.

    Let us now do an initial coroner’s inquest into the demise of the Jonathan presidency   to see the path to the emergence of GMB as our president elect. In doing this let me make some observations in tandem with my last three columns on our then impending presidential elections. The first is that the presidential election of March 28 has globally become a famous election in its own right given the global interest, concern for Nigeria’s stability and security , and the media coverage of it.

    The second is that the two presidential candidates, both the victor and the vanquished have earned the appellation usually reserved for politicians and leaders who rise above pettiness and partisanship to act in the larger and salutary public interest. They have become statesmen in their own right in the eyes of the world. The incumbent, the loser, earned this by his unhesitant and sportsmanlike concession of defeat . The victor, GMB by the appeal and inspiration in his acceptance speech titled – ‘’   The Die Is Cast ‘’ in which he asked all Nigerians to have faith and trust in his election as he has no malice against anyone including his political opponents and that indeed all Nigerians should sleep peacefully in their beds as he will deal fairly and firmly as he promised, with one and all.

    Incidentally the theme of my write up last week was The Die Is Cast in which I dilated on the Ides of March in Shakespeare’s tragedy Julius Caesar and prayed that the March 28 presidential elections will not end in a tragedy as it did for the slain Roman Emperor. Definitely God has answered that prayer and you can excuse my unbelievable joy at the title of the president elect’s speech – the die is cast. Which with all humility means I can claim some telepathy with our incoming president. Surely one can say that better days are ahead in this new dispensation.

    I have already stated why Nigerians voted out the Jonathan presidency and why they voted in GMB. The president elect is however the Man of the Moment in this piece and it is necessary to dissect his promise and prospects in the leadership of our nation for the next four years at least. He brings immense experience to the office of president being the second Nigerian to have served both as a military head of state and an elected democratic president. Hitherto only OBJ had that singular honor although what he made of that should never be made a compass or guide for our new president elect. Indeed he should distance himself from that administration’s legacy and should only use it to know pitfalls he must avoid if his administration is not   to   lose the love of Nigerians which his election has given him on a platter of gold. A good analogy on this is the famous statement credited to a former president of Ghana when it was reported that oil has been discovered in commercial quantities in that nation. The Ghanaian president said very carefully then that while oil is a blessing Ghana will make sure that its discovery will not be a curse as it is for Nigeria.

    Secondly the election of GMB has catapulted him from a serial presidential loser to a charismatic leader with a salvation army goal of salvaging the soul of the Nigerian nation. He has been elected at an advanced age and will not be overwhelmed with sycophants and praise singers who imprisoned his predecessor in Aso Rock while they pursued their selfish Washington Concensus economic goals and IMF conditionalities that ruined our economy and earned the administration the hatred and hostility of Nigerians translated into the defeat of March 28.

    GMB comes into office with confidence and boldness given his antecedents and military training now conditioned by previous electoral defeats now crowned with the success of March 28. He knows destiny, collective will and political alliances made his election possible and acknowledged as much in his first interview with the famous but often brash CNN reporter Amanpour who saw a different, more dignified Nigerian president elect. Quite different from the one she used to take to the cleaners on credibility and half truths in recent times before a world audience to the pain and agony of watching, patriotic Nigerians.

    For now Nigerians have heaved a sigh of relief on a successful election of a new president and a new lease of life for our distressed and insurgency beleaguered nation. We pray that the cap fits GMB as he begins his onerous task of cleaning our Augean stables. Nigerians believe he can do it firmly and boldly given his experience and reputation . The ball is in his court and the same ball is at his feet. For now all Nigerians stand up for him as they chanted in that famous DSTV commercial; ‘’Stand up for the Champion, Stand up’’ – God bless Nigeria, Amen.

  • FGN-ASUU imbroglio: Need for pragmatism

    On July 1, the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU), the umbrella body of all academic staff in the 74 federal and state universities in Nigeria rose from its National Executive Council (NEC) meeting at the Olabisi Onabanjo University (OOU) Ago-Iwoye, Ogun State and resolved to embark on another fresh round of industrial action to compel the Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN) to honour the 2009 Agreement and 2012 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) it signed with its leadership.

    It is imperative to look at the background of issues which prompted ASUU to embark on this fresh round of action, after less than two years of relatively stable academic calendar after the 2011 industrial action which was suspended on February 2, 2012.

    In 2001, the FGN negotiation team entered into an agreement with ASUU aimed at resuscitating the university system in Nigeria and saving the system from total collapse. The agreement provides for re-negotiation every three years for impact assessment and implementation. The agreement was due for re-negotiation in 2004, but the FGN reneged and it didn’t take place until 2007, when the then Honourable Minister of Education Dr. (Mrs.) Obiageli Ezekwesili, on behalf of the FGN inaugurated the FGN-ASUU Re-Negotiation Committee led by the then Pro-Chancellor University of Ibadan, Deacon Gamaliel O. Onosode (OFR); the ASUU Re-Negotiation Team was led by the then President of ASUU, Dr. Abdullahi Sule-Kano.

    Out of the 10 issues agreed on in 2009, two have been implemented (extension of retirement age of academic staff in professorial cadre from 65 to 70 years and staff pension clause). Of the eight remaining, none has caused more ruckus than the revitalization of Nigerian universities as well as the payment of Earned Allowances of academic staff totaling N1.5 trillion spread over three years, 2009-2011.

    In the 2013 fiscal year, Nigeria’s budget stood at N4.9 trillion out of which N426.53 billion was allocated to the education sector representing 8.7% with the university sub-sector getting a paltry sum of N55.4 billion. The World Bank in its report of global education in 2012 stated that allocation to education sectors in some countries improved tremendously with Ghana 31%, Cote d’Ivoire, 30.0%, Uganda, 27.0% South Africa, 25.8%, Swaziland, 24.6%, Kenya, 23.0%. Our annual budget allocation relative to the education sector stood at 8.4%. It is also painful and disheartening that Nigeria could only spend 0.76% of its GDP on education, while other less endowed countries invest more of their GDP in education (Angola, 4.9%, Ghana, 4.4%, Kenya, 6.5% and South Africa, 7.9%.

    This amount does not only fall far below the UNESCO 26% minimum benchmark for allocation to the education sector, but has far-reaching negative implications and effects on the ability of university administrators to strategically position them to perform their traditional roles of making the university a place for teaching, learning, research and community engagement.

    It is a compelling paradox that Nigeria so richly endowed with human and natural resources with over 167 million people, with approximate land mass of one million square kilometers suitable for commercial agriculture and over 34 solid minerals, largely untapped and ranked among the top ten crude oil and natural gas exporters with daily crude oil output of 2.2 million barrels per day is still grappling with trivial issues of nation building, development and optimum harnessing of its potentials.

    For many years successive governments have not deemed it fit to prioritize education and give it its pride of place in the scheme of things.

    The importance of education towards the socio-economic, political and technological development of any society cannot be overemphasized. It is the catalyst needed to drive any nation towards greatness. The advanced nations of the world like United States of America (U.S.A), Japan and China, knowing the critical role education plays in national development annually commits the whopping sums of $282 billion, $104 billion, and $60 billion respectively towards funding Education, Science and Technology research and development (R&D) initiatives. The impact of this investment can be attested to their positions in global ranking of development competitiveness, standard and quality of life of their citizens, with over 60% of the Top 400 universities in the world coming from these countries, led by California Institute of Technology (Caltech).

    To resolve the lingering industrial dispute best characterized by A. Rapoport (1974) as asymmetric and structure-oriented conflict due to its longstanding antagonistic and fractious nature calls for constructive engagement on the side of both ASUU and FGN and deep reflection of ideological pragmatism rather than rigidity. The ASUU under the leadership of Dr. Nasir Fagge should as a matter of patriotism and strategic national interest call off the industrial action and return to lecture halls in the interest of long-suffering students who have been compelled to spend four months at home, while efforts are being intensified by well meaning Nigerians and stakeholders to compel FGN to honour its agreement and commitment to the university lecturers.

    ASUU should listen to the calls of well-meaning Nigerians and interest groups by strongly considering using alternative dispute resolution channels and mechanisms such as the Industrial Arbitration Panel (IAP), for their collective bargaining on remuneration and conditions of service. Moral suasion should also be deployed by ASUU leadership, by appealing to stakeholder on tertiary education through its board of trustees (BOT) led by eminent and highly influential professors Chukwuka Okonjo and Eskor Toyo as well as highly placed individuals and groups in corridors of power to favourably consider their proposal and demands. ASUU should understand that strike should be used as a last resort in industrial disputes as many channels of agitation are available to them to put forward their grievance and demands without causing disruption in the academic calendar, so that the option of strike is not made ineffective as its frequent use has become counter-productive in our circumstance.

    On the other hand, the FGN should as a matter of urgency figure out a more ingenious way of honouring their commitment and agreement with ASUU, through appropriation of extra budget for the education ministry through the National Assembly. The NEEDS assessment report of the Dr. Gabriel Suswam-led committee should be implemented without further delay. This will halt further decline in the quality and standard of Nigerian university graduates. The claim by government officials that meeting the demands of ASUU will lead to the collapse of the economy is ridiculous and self-serving; one wonders where government sourced over N3 trillion to bailout commercial banks in the wake of the financial crisis in 2007; the N500 billion to the aviation sector and billions of naira to the creative media industry (Nollywood).The claim by President Jonathan of politicisation of the strike in his last presidential medial chat is diversionary and unfounded. The ideological difference between ASUU as radical, progressive union and successive governments in Nigeria at the federal level is a historical phenomenon dating back to 1988 when ASUU first organized national strike for fair wages and university autonomy under General Ibrahim Babangida for which it was proscribed on August 7, 1988. It didn’t start with the present administration and has nothing to do fundamentally with anyone occupying the position of minister of education.

    • Arinze, is a Post Graduate student at the University of Nigeria, Nsukka.