|
INSIDE AFRICA
Nigeria's challenge of the 21st century will be in the hands of present generation By Dr. Ibiyinka Solarin Special & Exclusive to USAfricaonline.com and USAfrica The Newspaper, Houston The resolution of the present crisis of legitimacy offers Nigerians, perhaps the final opportunity to address and redress our collective self-doubt about the national question in its myriad socio-economic and political complexions. If this question is addressed and resolved in its multiple dimensions, it would be difficult, if not well-nigh impossible for any one person or group, purportedly acting in our name to drive us precipitously to the brink as has happened on different occasions in the last thirty eight years. If this question is not resolved now, Nigerians have only postponed the day of judgment on the final future of the country. The present, therefore, is pregnant with meaning for the future. The gradual walk away from Nigeria's uncertain terrain, has infinitely positive possibilities if the opportunity is firmly grasped. Nigeria can begin again, on the basis of equity and justice, because there will never be peace without these two twin attributes in this land. If this African experiment in fashioning a modern powerful nation-state fails, it will constitute a colossal loss to people of African descent everywhere. But since there is nothing preordained or "naturally" willed about any polity, there is nothing ineluctable about Nigeria as a legal or political entity either. If Nigeria fails, it will dishonor the memory of those who fought for its independence, paid with their lives for its corporate integrity and damn eternally the little minds and men who destroy it. Having stated all this, let us face some inconvenient facts. When one puts aside all the unctuous praying, braying, platitudes, "dogan turanci" of our military politicians and professional politicians; stripped of all mystification¹s about "having no other country", "the business of salvaging", "transit to transition", perpetual and eternal transition, the end game for many who aspire to public office or have imposed themselves on us, in the recent chequered political history of this potentially great country, is all about one thing alone, guaranteed and unfettered access to the earnings from Nigerian petroleum deposits. If Nigeria fails, all will be worse off, but some will be much, much worse off; land - locked, in the great divide, no petroleum deposits, no easy foreign exchange earnings. Indeed life will be hard, niggardly and short. Nigeria in the final analysis, was, in 1914, a phantom creation of British colonial expediency. The task of turning the country into a robust polity ready for the challenges of the 21st century is in the hands of the present generation. Frantz Fanon, scholar, remarkable man of the African Diaspora, psychiatrist, revolutionary and theoretician, it was, who wrote "each generation must out of relative obscurity discover its mission, fulfill or betray it." The intended outcome of the British political engineering in Nigeria ultimately was, the search for the optimum method to protect the imperial economic interest and the best political configuration that would guarantee this. The British had the opportunity to lay the foundation for a truly Federal Nigeria in 1953 and they told the Nigerian nationalists to choose between the creation of states and independence. So having perfected the art of divide and rule, they bequeathed to the Nigerian leaders, a structurally-flawed and precariously-balanced federation. Unfortunately the inheritors of the colonial state, could not see that it is in their own enlightened self-interest that this colonial artifice be redesigned, based on equity and justice. Suppose the powers that be in Nigeria, in 1963, had been more statesmen, than politicians, scheming for political / electoral spoils, the Mid-West region would not have been the only region created. If more regions (states) had been created simultaneously, there would have been no civil war. Nigeria cannot continue to lurch from crisis to crisis due to the unresolved question of the national question and political legitimacy. A "national" policy or a consensus in many spheres of development cannot be arrived at because many see public policy execution as booty-sharing. Nigerians perceive each other in the public arena as representatives of their clans and nationalities gathered for the great feast, with mutual suspicion and distrust, as to who garners the most, the least. A country of one hundred teeming millions of black humanity, with abundant natural and human resources, yet to date seems unable to establish a stable working democracy. There is no field of academic and professional endeavor you will not find a Nigerian worldwide. In many of the finest teaching and research institutions worldwide, will be found Nigerians as scientific inventors / researchers, deans, vice-presidents, presidents, department chairs, faculty members. Also as attorneys, engineers, medical doctors with highly lucrative private practices as well professionals in specialized fields in both the private and public sectors. This is why the idea of a sovereign national conference resonates so powerfully with reflecting Nigerians at home and abroad. This conference which must be made up of accredited representatives of the people of Nigeria is the venue to confront and address the issue of the national question and political legitimacy exhaustively. The general theme for the conference ought to be Nigerian Federalism in Theory and Practice. All other issues are subsumed under this broad theme. The operating idea of the sovereignty of this conference means that its decisions will constitute core principles and canon of the basic existence of Nigeria, once they have been ratified in a national referendum. For example, what has been happening since 1975 in Nigeria, is a relentless attempt to foist an authoritarian unitary system on a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic entity. The result today is a suffocating over concentration of power and revenue at the center, that turns around to treat the federating units as supplicating vassals. The situation is exacerbated by the aberrant intrusion of the army into government and the consequent infusion of its ethos and culture into civil governance. This brings us to the role and place of the Nigerian Armed Forces. The political history of Nigeria in the last thirty two years, calls for a sober and clear-headed reassessment of the role and place of the army in our society. This is the thorniest question the sovereign national conference will have to face. The Nigerian Armed Forces, as presently constituted, has now become the proverbial albatross around the neck of its own people, the final arbiter of the possibility or otherwise of Nigeria. The evidence is conclusive, that the officers of the Nigerian Armed Forces, (retired and serving) today constitute a highly privileged and politicized group, whose prejudice all aspiring civil leaders of the society must contend with. The only means, which affords them the opportunity to acquire this decisive influence in the Nigerian society, is the rifle. The accredited representatives of the people of Nigeria, must come up with a mechanism to demystify the rifle, so that access to it by any person, or groups of people, will never again be the means to foist a personal or group agenda on Nigeria, and threaten the lives, liberty and security of its citizens. What is the nature of the Nigerian Army? The Nigerian Army is not a cohesive or monolithic group, its vaunted unity is a grotesque illusion. Its tenuous espirit de corp had long been shattered and it is, as the political history of Nigeria has shown, highly pitifully to cleavages and fissures. Its command and control is highly susceptible to misuse and misdirection by ambitious individuals acting for self or a cabal. A trip to memory lane will amply validate all these points. Once its tenuous cohesion was fractured in 1966, the Nigerian Army has since been exposed for what it really is - a reflection of the Nigerian polity, with its cynical ethnic manipulation, crass opportunism and political brigandage. The exigencies of war time nationalism covered all this up. The civil population certainly knows enough now, thanks to the writings and media interviews or statements of Generals Ejoor, Jemibewon, Garba, Danjuma, Oluleye, Obasanjo, Akinrinade, Diya, Madiebo and Ojukwu. While the Nigerian Army as presently constituted, contains many thoroughly professional men and women, it is also a child of Nigerian experience; it contains many soldiers of honor as well as what Obasanjo has called soldiers of fortune. It has proven itself, as an institution, not a promoter of democracy, equity and justice but a traducer of same. Nigerians can for example, ask themselves how the Nigerian Army as an institution could have become an instrument of an incipient fascism of Buhari, only to be replaced by the scandalous venality and perfidy of a self-styled presidency of Babangida. Babangida, through the instrumentality of the Nigerian Army subverted virtually all institutions in Nigeria, ended up with such an unprecedented concentration of power that he was able to rule at will. In the hands of late Sani Abacha, initially through guile and cunning, under this despot¹s iron grip, the Nigerian Army became one man¹s instrument of murderous fear, and tyranny that, under the most spurious and specious excuses, railroaded people into jail, detention without trail, exile or untimely death. A supposedly national institution, became one man¹s instrument, that sought to turn Nigerians into political mules and half slaves, to be ridden wily-nily into a foredoomed kleptocratic autocracy. But for providential intervention, can anyone fathom what would have been Nigeria¹s lot if Abacha¹s NECON had "confirmed" our election of him? Abacha would then have his "democratic" carte blanche to deal with his opponents within and without. The fate of those already incarcerated would be sealed and the exiles could bid Nigeria goodbye. The second dimension of the role of the army vis-à-vis the national question and legitimacy relates to the mechanism of coup making in Nigeria. Not just any officer or groups of officers in Nigeria can effect a successful coup d¹etat. The critical question is "Do you have the constituency and the critical support network?" Nzeogwu, Ifejuana, Ademoyega et al, did not pay sufficient attention to this cardinal prerequisite and lost out to Ironsi. Ironsi himself, was swallowed up within six months by the conflagration of the forces unleashes sequel to the January 1966 coup. He did not control the army and he lost to those who did. Murtala Mohammed, who led the July 1966 coup on the other hand, was so sure of his constituency, that he told the chief security officer of Nigeria to his face that he was planning a coup. When he and his co-conspirators finally struck, they were in such effective control that they surrounded Fajuyi even in his own capital in Ibadan. Though Nigeria unity was not their concern, once they were persuaded otherwise, and the dust settled, their control of the army presented the rest of the country with a fait accompli, except in the East. When Yakubu Gowon, a thirty two-year old Lt. Col., became head of state in 1966, there were Brigadiers and Colonels ahead of him, that is if one were going by the line of succession or seniority. But a coup d¹etat is not about the line of succession or seniority, it is about the reality of those who control the barrel of the gun. The pattern of coup making in Nigeria, (coup making being the major inhibitor to the development of democracy) is for a group of conspirators, whether a political crisis exists or not, (one can always be contrived as Babangida, Abacha and their cohorts did in June 1993) by virtue of their numerical representation in the army, seize its command and control to foist a personal or group agenda on the rest of the country. In control of the strategic power base or command, they then look for pliant and reliable officers from other parts of Nigeria to serve in subordinate roles under the new dispensation. The regimes of Babangida and Abacha may represent the most brazen conversion of and use of the Nigerian Army as an instrument of personal rule; the coups of July 1966, July 1975, December 1983, were no less instructive. Yakubu Gowon, was the only person acceptable to the conspirators (Murtala Mohammed, Danjuma et al) to lead their own Federal Military Government in August 1966. The rest of the country merely acquiesced to the reality of their seizure of the command and control of the Nigerian Army. For the nine years Gowon was Nigerian Head of State, Murtala Mohammed was the power behind the throne by virtue of his constituency in the army; besides he was openly disdainful and contemptuous of Gowon and his abilities as he had had to concede leadership to him in July 1966. When his subalterns, Abdul Mohammed, Shehu Yar Adua et al, decided to remove Gowon, in 1975, he promised to protect them if anything were to happen to their plans. When Gowon left to go to Kampala, Uganda, for the OAU summit in July 1975, he knew he was not coming back to Nigeria as the head of state because it has been told to him to his face, as the Commander of Brigade of Guards (his guards) Joe Garba, was one of the three chief conspirators. Gowon had his own plans, while he was globe-trotting about, and preaching to Nigerians about stability and democracy, he was in reality surreptitiously nursing his own agenda by sending secret missions to Latin America to learn how the military dictators there operate long term. His problem was that he did not reckon with the ambitions of those, who in actuality control the army, and have merely conceded his position to him in 1966. When they got tired of his dithering and prevarications, they withdrew their support, terminated his rule and put paid to his ambition. The only plane that was allowed to land in Nigeria the day after the coup, was the one that brought Murtala Mohammed from London to become their head of State. Obasanjo was informed of the coup by the planners the night of its execution; he had no idea what his fate would be in the Nigerian Army in the aftermath of the coup. After retiring all the serving generals, the conspirators now had to form their own government. They let the remaining senior officers including Obasanjo know that they already have their head of state, so he quickly told them he would serve in a subordinate role if they would give him real responsibility to go with the office. Obasanjo claims he accepted to serve as deputy to Murtala Mohammed who was his junior in the army in the interest of stability. All that sounds very noble. The only choice he really had, if he did not like the situation, was to resign his commission in the army, and that goes for any other officer from other parts of Nigeria. Power in the Nigerian army belongs to those who have the decisive constituency. History later placed the conspirators in an awkward position of choosing another head of state, after Mohammed was assassinated in February 1966. Obasanjo, the faithful deputy was chosen; he knew he serves at the pleasure of those who put him there and so conducted himself for the duration of the regime. Since Nigeria has been under civilian democratic rule, for less than nine years of its thirty eight years of independence, it means that those who control the Nigerian Military, have basically usurped the sovereign right of the Nigerian people, to determine their own government. It is delusional for those who engage in seemingly endless schemes, to seize the command and control of the Nigerian Army, turn it into an instrument of fear, insecurity, instability and tyranny against the people, to assume they speak for the people, just because they have forced themselves on them. The evidence is compelling globally, that arbitrary and capricious rule under any guise redounds to the ruin of a society in the long run. Nigerians must struggle to enthrone a democratic system, based unyieldingly on the rule of law, at this auspicious advent of a new millennium. A sovereign national conference of the accredited representatives of the people, is the best venue to discuss the basis on which Nigeria and its federating units, will enter the 21st century. There will be those who might harbor a morbid apprehension about this conference, either out of fear of its unknown outcome or concern for their privileged position in the status quo. It is in their own enlightened self-interest, to support the call for this conference, because the existing internal political economy of Nigeria is neither based on equity and justice for its federating units.
The surest path to ruin and demise of Nigeria as we know it, is to ignore the festering issues of justice and equity, that face this country. A sovereign national conference provides the people of Nigeria perhaps the last opportunity to decide the future and the kind of country they want.
|