It is a tragic irony that a day which should be marked and celebrated as a major landmark in our resolve to live as free and enterprising citizens of Nigeria has now become identified with violence and fear. Last year’s expensive arrangements to celebrate 50 years of our Independence were bombed out by a group which said Nigeria had nothing to celebrate, among other grievances which offended and frightened most Nigerians. This year’s Independence anniversary was celebrated by our national leaders behind closed doors, and across the nation, Nigerians were told that the celebrations would be low keyed. This meant that Governors made broadcasts from the comfort and security of Government Houses; and in other places, excuses were given to citizens for the absence of traditional festivities. In Zamfara State, twenty two people were murdered on independence day by suspected armed robbers in one village alone. In Maiduguri, bombs killed three people. In Abuja, additional barricades went up around the city centre, in spite of the fact that there were no public celebrations.
Nigerians do not need further evidence to tell us that our lives and livelihood have become much less secure since last year’s twin bombs claimed by the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND). This year too, the Movement was reported to have issued threats to bomb the festivities if they held. Government claims that its decision not to hold the traditional parades which Nigerians had enjoyed for the last 50 years had nothing to do with the MEND threat, or the threats of bombs from Boko Haram. Nigerians do not believe the government, which is saying a lot for an administration that is yet to earn much confidence or acclaim from any policy, programme or quarter. It is worse, however, if, as is widely suspected, the cancellation was informed by the fear of bombs. What this does is to make many Nigerians wonder whether government is losing the battle against terror, in spite of all the checkpoints, barricades, C.C.T.Vs, and thousands of additional policemen and soldiers in and around Abuja and other capital cities.
The objective of terror is to force governments to act out the political agenda of the terrorist. It operates by instilling fear among the wider population through the use of violence, and it generally kills a few to frighten millions. Citizens hold governments responsible for finding solutions to the terror, and governments very often react under pressure. This is not the best position under which decisions are made by leaders. The instinctive and initial response is to attempt to use force to eliminate the terrorist, without, however, addressing the source of the terror. Government becomes hostage to the designs of the terrorist; and citizens become hostages to both. The war against terror is difficult, but impossible to win unless its sources, strengths and weaknesses are understood and appropriate strategies to deal with it are adopted.
Organized violence has largely defined our lives as Nigerians in the last one year. This means that terror has won so far. But violence has only won a few battles, not the war. The war over how we should live is not over yet, and to win it, it is vital that both the administration and Nigerians understand that it entails. It is about whether political objectives can only be secured by groups or interests on the basis of their ability to apply superior force against the opposition or the Nigerian State. All political groups have the capacity to acquire some capacities to inflict violence to protect their own interests; so a war of this nature has the potential to set all groups against each other. Even where groups do not fight each other to finish, as we see in Somalia, they may set standards and precedents for others in the manner their use of terror acquires for them political and economic advantages.
When leaders and governments yield to terror, or create the impression that they cannot fight it, citizens are even more endangered. Worse, others take up the terrorist’s strategy, and the State’s capacity to protect citizens and its integrity is further weakened. A leading tribal leader and a Senator from the South East in already pointing out the linkages between ethnic and regional grievances and the achievement of political goals. He makes the case that the uproar and violence by the Oodua Peoples Congress (OPC) and NADECO which followed the abortion of the 1993 elections in which Chief M.K.O Abiola contested was what created a national consensus around the concession to Yoruba people to produce a President in 1999, which resulted in Obasanjo’s 8-year rule. He also said that the Jonathan Presidency is the product of the prolonged and damaging militancy from many parts of the South-South geo-political zone. Now, he argues, the North is floating the Boko Haram movement as a political weapon to ensure that it gets the Presidency in 2015. Although he did not recommend the militarization of the Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB), he advised Ndigbo as the leading Igbo socio-cultural group to support it towards achieving greater Igbo unity.
It is thinking of this nature which should engage President Jonathan’s administration, and focus its attention towards ensuring that the next one year is not charactinzed by more violence. So far, there is no evidence of any creative thinking or constructive and informed strategy which should isolate and engage the sources of terror in Nigeria. These sources go beyond the manifestation of the threat of Boko Haram, because the outcome of the insurgency and the criminality in the Niger Delta which is being peddled as the benefit of the Amnesty Programme remains vulnerable to manipulation. The search for the sources of the terror which is keeping us behind barricades should focus on massive and unacceptable levels of poverty; the total collapse of the social and traditional structures caused by the unbridled expansion of moral and economic corruption; injuries to human dignity and injustice meted out by agents of the State that appear beyond the reach of the administration, and seeming indifference and manifest incompetence in the management of complex security and political problems. Past administrations at all levels of government bear a major responsibility for this collapse; but the present administration will be held solely responsible for doing little to begin to address the rot.
The period until the next independence celebration will test the capacity of President Jonathan’s administration to provide the most valuable service to Nigerians, which is the security of their lives and property. Everything else will hang on this capacity, including the very survival of the nation. What Nigerians miss this year is not so much the parades and other festivities which they are used to. It is the sense of freedom from fear and insecurity. If this situation cannot be improved by this time next year, the administration will have nothing useful to tell Nigerians about its stewardship. But Nigerians will tell the administration it has failed them at the most critical moment, and on the most important issue.
Nigerians do not need further evidence to tell us that our lives and livelihood have become much less secure since last year’s twin bombs claimed by the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND). This year too, the Movement was reported to have issued threats to bomb the festivities if they held. Government claims that its decision not to hold the traditional parades which Nigerians had enjoyed for the last 50 years had nothing to do with the MEND threat, or the threats of bombs from Boko Haram. Nigerians do not believe the government, which is saying a lot for an administration that is yet to earn much confidence or acclaim from any policy, programme or quarter. It is worse, however, if, as is widely suspected, the cancellation was informed by the fear of bombs. What this does is to make many Nigerians wonder whether government is losing the battle against terror, in spite of all the checkpoints, barricades, C.C.T.Vs, and thousands of additional policemen and soldiers in and around Abuja and other capital cities.
The objective of terror is to force governments to act out the political agenda of the terrorist. It operates by instilling fear among the wider population through the use of violence, and it generally kills a few to frighten millions. Citizens hold governments responsible for finding solutions to the terror, and governments very often react under pressure. This is not the best position under which decisions are made by leaders. The instinctive and initial response is to attempt to use force to eliminate the terrorist, without, however, addressing the source of the terror. Government becomes hostage to the designs of the terrorist; and citizens become hostages to both. The war against terror is difficult, but impossible to win unless its sources, strengths and weaknesses are understood and appropriate strategies to deal with it are adopted.
Organized violence has largely defined our lives as Nigerians in the last one year. This means that terror has won so far. But violence has only won a few battles, not the war. The war over how we should live is not over yet, and to win it, it is vital that both the administration and Nigerians understand that it entails. It is about whether political objectives can only be secured by groups or interests on the basis of their ability to apply superior force against the opposition or the Nigerian State. All political groups have the capacity to acquire some capacities to inflict violence to protect their own interests; so a war of this nature has the potential to set all groups against each other. Even where groups do not fight each other to finish, as we see in Somalia, they may set standards and precedents for others in the manner their use of terror acquires for them political and economic advantages.
When leaders and governments yield to terror, or create the impression that they cannot fight it, citizens are even more endangered. Worse, others take up the terrorist’s strategy, and the State’s capacity to protect citizens and its integrity is further weakened. A leading tribal leader and a Senator from the South East in already pointing out the linkages between ethnic and regional grievances and the achievement of political goals. He makes the case that the uproar and violence by the Oodua Peoples Congress (OPC) and NADECO which followed the abortion of the 1993 elections in which Chief M.K.O Abiola contested was what created a national consensus around the concession to Yoruba people to produce a President in 1999, which resulted in Obasanjo’s 8-year rule. He also said that the Jonathan Presidency is the product of the prolonged and damaging militancy from many parts of the South-South geo-political zone. Now, he argues, the North is floating the Boko Haram movement as a political weapon to ensure that it gets the Presidency in 2015. Although he did not recommend the militarization of the Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB), he advised Ndigbo as the leading Igbo socio-cultural group to support it towards achieving greater Igbo unity.
It is thinking of this nature which should engage President Jonathan’s administration, and focus its attention towards ensuring that the next one year is not charactinzed by more violence. So far, there is no evidence of any creative thinking or constructive and informed strategy which should isolate and engage the sources of terror in Nigeria. These sources go beyond the manifestation of the threat of Boko Haram, because the outcome of the insurgency and the criminality in the Niger Delta which is being peddled as the benefit of the Amnesty Programme remains vulnerable to manipulation. The search for the sources of the terror which is keeping us behind barricades should focus on massive and unacceptable levels of poverty; the total collapse of the social and traditional structures caused by the unbridled expansion of moral and economic corruption; injuries to human dignity and injustice meted out by agents of the State that appear beyond the reach of the administration, and seeming indifference and manifest incompetence in the management of complex security and political problems. Past administrations at all levels of government bear a major responsibility for this collapse; but the present administration will be held solely responsible for doing little to begin to address the rot.
The period until the next independence celebration will test the capacity of President Jonathan’s administration to provide the most valuable service to Nigerians, which is the security of their lives and property. Everything else will hang on this capacity, including the very survival of the nation. What Nigerians miss this year is not so much the parades and other festivities which they are used to. It is the sense of freedom from fear and insecurity. If this situation cannot be improved by this time next year, the administration will have nothing useful to tell Nigerians about its stewardship. But Nigerians will tell the administration it has failed them at the most critical moment, and on the most important issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment