THIS TIME LAST YEAR

          It is difficult to recall that this time last year, our nation was at major crossroads, and had a chance to sink deeper into decay and hopelessness, or rise above its limitations and challenges. So much has happened in the last one year to change the nature of our political system, that a visitor will hardly recognize the nation’s political terrain today. It is difficult to recall a year in our nation’s history in which much was promised and premised; and so much was wasted. 1966 will come close to the last one year, but it is important only because it marked our descent into the political abyss, and did not reflect a single flicker of hope that things could get better. This time last year, Nigerians were full of hope and expectations. The year is ending with bombs, looming crises over economic policies and bitter disappointments that our democracy has made us more insecure and unsure of our future as a nation of civilized people.

This time last year, the nation was full of hope that the new leadership of INEC was going to give the nation a substantially free and fair election. Professor Jega’s task appeared daunting, but the nation was assured that he was up to the task. President Jonathan was fighting for a ticket on his party’s platform against a formidable opposition which said he had breached party rules and could not be trusted. He was rallying PDP Governors around his cause, and as captain, he was threatening to sink the ship if they abandoned his ambition to run. The northern consensus contraption was ranting and raving, and raising primordial sentiments around its cause. The Nigerian political elite which had maintained a tenuous hold over the political system had lost that control, and the elections looked as if they will be held in the midst as massive controversies with religion and region playing pivotal roles. President Jonathan’s campaign was raising sentiments around his origins, his religion and the appearance of a northern resistance against a southern candidate. Spirited efforts were being made to tinker with the Electoral Act and secure some advantages for sitting legislators. General Babangida was threatening to quite the PDP unless it stood by its zoning policy. President Jonathan was threatening to deal with former Vice President Atiku Ababakar for quoting Frantz Fanon who said those who made change impossible, were making violent change inevitable. He said the statement was treasonable, and a threat to the security of the nation. Atiku Abubakar in turn accused Jonathan of ill-advised ambition which was threatening the polity. General Muhammadu Buhari was threatening not to go court if he lost the election again; and thieves had stolen the DDC machines which INEC intended to use to build up a good register of voters. Our churches and mosques had become arenas of bitter political contest, and text messages were inflaming passions and scaring many people who just wanted to vote for new leaders. On the whole, this time last year, Nigerians were in the throes of an election campaign that was unprecedented in terms of its levels of bitterness and dangerous polarization of the nation around historic faultlines.

          In the last one year, we held an election that was hailed by some sections of the country and international community as free and fair. It was also the trigger to widespread violence in many parts of the north. Some of the victims of that violence are still camped in refugee camps; the bitterness and pains it caused is still fresh in many lives. Deep suspicion and resentment created by the cynical manipulation of faith pushed many communities further apart. Old flashpoints and battlegrounds came to life, and old wounds were opened. Nigerians scurried back into primordial holes, and began building barricades and walls around limited and limiting objectives which demeaned all of us. The north became polarized along ethno-religions lives, and paid a huge price for mismanaging its pluralism. The west rediscovered its pan-Yoruba formula, and retreated to consolidate as an ethnic group. The east built up UPGA as its tribal front, and supported Jonathan to reinforce its dominant role in its relationship with the south south. The south south built itself around its new-found economic affluence and a chance for more under a presidency of one of its own.

          The 2011 elections produced winners, but not leaders. The Jonathan presidency was a victim of the circumstances of its own creation. The violence which predated it and provided the context of its emergence haunted it from the very beginning. The panel set up to establish the causes of the election-related violence made vague references to the need to address poverty and meet the yearnings of Nigerians for genuine change. Nothing has come out of it. Unable to rally the nation and galvanize it towards his transformation vision, President Jonathan resigned himself to the management of a nation which is being dragged down by widening violence, corruption and massive alienation from the democratic processes from many parts of the nation.

          This time last year, the nation was poised for a possible renaissance. All we needed was a credible election which will provide solid support behind leaders. The elections failed to do so. The leaders it produced could have found the courage and the vision to steer their ways around the hostility and indifference of much of the citizenry. They did not. The citizenry could have moved beyond the 2011 elections and waited for 2015. It did not. Nigerians became convinced that the democratic process benefits only successful politicians, while it exposes them to much danger. Then, in the midst of all this cynicism and dejection, Boko Haram raised its levels of hostility. It attacked agents of the Nigerian state almost at will, and put forward demands that are virtually impossible to meet. It repudiates the Nigerian state, the constitution, and the democratic process. It attacks security agents and christians and their churches, as well as fellow muslims. And it says it will not stop its campaigns. Token gestures such as the Galtimari Committee have said poverty and injustice are behind Boko Haram, and that government should negotiate with them. As we speak government plans to spend over N900 billion on security, and has little answer to questions over how much it will spend on the causes of the widespread insecurity in the nation.

          Wise counsel would have prevailed on President Jonathan to limit the number of issues which will pitch him against mainstream Nigeria pubic opinion at this time. That counsel would have advised against embarking on the removal of petroleum subsidy in the face of the huge security challenges which the Jonathan administration has to deal with. Apparently President Jonathan had no access to that counsel, or has chosen to ignore it. The Christmas day bombings, and the ill-advised reaction of the President in his reported statement that the nation has to live with these bombings for some time have made matters a lot more complicated for the President. Perhaps for the first time in his presidency, muslims and christians, northerners and southerners alike are united around some issues, one of which is their condemnation of the state of security in the nation. There is widespread suspicion that an attempt is being made to get christians and muslims to fight each other in an unending and pointless war; and the government’s responses are not giving citizens much comfort. The President is also providing a rallying and uniting platform and opposition around the issue of removing subsidy, a plan fro which the nation has clearly been ill-prepared for. The nation will be shaken to its foundations by the resistance to this plan, and the atmosphere which it will generate will be the least conducive to dealing with the escalating threats of violence. A hostile public opinion and pervasive sense of insecurity will unite the nation against President Jonathan’s administration.

          This time last year, the nation had a historic opportunity to more beyond its basic limitations and launch itself on the path to regeneration. Now it is obvious that the opportunity has been lost, or frittered away by incompetence and the absence of a strong political will to break new grounds in meeting new challenges. President Jonathan is uniting the nation in its opposition to his seeming inability to give them security and pursue their economic well-being. If he loses the subsidy removal battle, his administration would have been dealt a fatal blow in terms of his credibility to lead. If he wins, it will be a victory that will be difficult to justify by its gains, in an environment where most Nigerians feel abandoned by the President.

­

KADUNA STATE ASKS FOR MORE SOLDIERS

          While receiving the House of Representatives Committee on Emergency and Disaster Preparedness, the Deputy Governor of Kaduna State Alhaji Mukhtar Ramalan Yero appealed to the federal government to build additional military and police barracks in the southern part of the State in order to beef up security in the area. The State government specifically appealed for mobile police barracks across the state, but particularly in the South, where it takes securitymen hours to get to places of crises, as a result of which casualties tend to be high. The Deputy Governor lamented the high cost of maintaining security in the state since the post-election violence in April and May, and subsequent crises in the southern part of the State. He appealed to the federal government to devise measures to assist states which have security challenges.

          The security situation in Kaduna State should indeed be a major source of concern for the nation, and specifically for its citizens. The state is quite possibly the most strategic in security and political terms, so much so that it used to be said that when Kaduna sneezes, Nigeria catches cold. In spite of the seeming shift of political power away from the north and its current relative weakness in the federal arrangement, Kaduna State remains a major nerve center for the nation’s politics. It is the old battleground and the frontline for the many conflicts between christians and muslims. Many of the ethno-regious crises, including the last election-related violence, started from Kaduna State and spread to other parts of the country . It is the historic base of the leaders of all the major sects in Islam, and northern Christians see events and developments in Kaduna State as the yardstick by which to measure their success in the perennial fight for ascendancy against muslims.

          The State links the north substantially with the South, so conflicts in and around Kaduna tend to tense up the entire region and the nation. It is home to just about every Nigerian community; so Nigerians everywhere tend to have an intense interest in what happens in Kaduna State. The state  accommodates almost the entire training capacity of the armed forces, as well as strategic facilities for the nation’s defence. It is home to the cream of the northern political and economic elite, or what is left of it; and northerners see it with nostalgia as the spiritual headquarters of the old north.

          Yet this state is quite literally a battleground. Its citizens have fought so many battles against each other that they now live largely in segregated areas. Kaduna city is basically segregated in residential terms, with majority of muslims in Kaduna North, and christians in Kaduna South. In times of crises, people are slaughtered in each section literally for their faith alone. The southern part of the state is dotted and occupied by many security checkpoints; yet villagers are shot and killed or injured with alarming frequency. During the election-related conflicts, hundreds of people were massacred in Zonkwa, Matsirga, Kafanchan and suburbs of Kaduna. Kafanchan, the largest town in the region has now been economically crippled, and much of it burnt down during recurring crises. A drive through the southern Kaduna region will scare even the bravest, owing to the visible presence of security personnel on roads and around towns. Yet the citizens of the towns and villages live with the fear of night attacks. They frequently protest for their pound of flesh from the people they suspect attack them in their sleep, and they insist that these are Fulani. They are frustrated that the security agents and the law are unable to protect them. The Fulani community are also frightened that they are being scapegoated, and they also live in fear of being attacked by every community they come across, or live with.

          On the very day the Deputy Governor made the case for more barracks for soldiers and mobile Policemen, text messages went out to tens of thousands of people warning them not to travel to or from Abuja through Gonin Gora in Kaduna because people were being killed there. This was not the first time this type of message was sent to the public, and its effect set panic among the population. It was, as was the earlier message, a hoax, presumable sent by people who recognize that in a state of general insecurity, it is easy to spread rumours and get people to react with fear and panic.

          The people of Kaduna State do not feel safe or secure, but it will require a lot more than the construction of military and police barracks to give them the levels of safety and security they desire and deserve. By all means, the federal government should assist Kaduna State with funding for security operations, and construction of accommodation for personnel in areas of need it also needs help to resettle its refugees from the last conflict. But peace is more than just the absence of conflict. Soldiers and policemen may keep the peace during conflicts, or discourage those who want to keep  the levels of tension as high as it is. Real and sustainable peace however can only be attained if the communities are willing to work towards them. At this stage, the initial and exploratory discussions going on between the communities should be encouraged and sustained. Traditional rulers and the clergy in the area need to consult and engage young people and women in their communities towards establishing frameworks and building bridges for peace. The elite from southern Kaduna are vital in terms of manner the issues are discussed and resolved in Southern Kaduna communities, and it is also important that their inputs are sought for in all-embracing discussions. The government of Patrick Yakowa is being blamed for much of the laxity of the security in villages. In many respects, this is unfair to the Governor and his administration. True, it does appear that the sheer magnitude of the breakdown of law and order and trust among the communities and the resultant rise in prolonged tension is overwhelming the government of Kaduna State. But it has no option than the continuous encouragement of the communities to find lasting peace. It must regain the confidence of its communities, all of which blame it for its woes. Building barracks will give some confidence that citizens are safe, but building sustainable security and peace must involve difficult, yet potentially productive steps towards getting all the communities to engage each other in serious discussions about their own peace and security. Everyone in Kaduna State is hostage to its insecurity, and Nigeria will be only as safe and secure as citizens are in Kaduna, Jos Borno, Yobe and Bauchi. Building barracks may discourage fights; but building peace in hearts and minds will eliminate the reasons for the fight.   

RELUCTANT COMBATANTS.

    The bombs that went off on  Christmas Day at Madalla in Niger State, in Jos Plateau State and in Damaturu and Potiskum, in Yobe State appear to have many purposes. One was to send a signal that whoever the Boko Haram bombers are, they plan to sustain their terror campaign. Two, the bombs were intended to further expose the vulnerability of the Nigerian State and its citizens, in spite of elaborate security arrangements to ensure a relatively safe Christmas. Three, the bombs may have been intended to trigger widespread conflicts between muslims and christians. The first two objectives obviously succeeded. The third appears to have sought to deepen inter-faith suspicions and hostility, and possibly trigger another round of mayhem involving innocent muslims and christians. So far, both groups have remained largely restrained, although there is justifiable anger among christians, and fear of undeserved reprisals among muslims. Someone, somewhere is attempting to pitch millions of muslims against millions of christians in a war where both will be reluctant combatants, and losers.

          The gruesome images and the pains of the losses and injuries from the Christmas day bombings will shock and offend every civilized person. The deliberate targeting of churches by people who claim that they are avenging the killing of muslims last year will naturally inflame passions, and offend muslims who recognise that their faith does not sanction the taking of innocent lives. The anger and bitterness which is felt across the land over the mass killing of people whose only crime appears to be their faith is only a step away from violence against those suspected as supporters of the killers or those who share their characteristics. The helplessness of the victims in Madallah, in Jos and Potiskum and Damaturu reminds the nation of the victims of Jos, Zonkwa and many other areas and conflicts where innocent people were murdered for their faith alone.

          The disclaimers by prominent muslims traditional rulers and clerics will have some effect in terms of calming nerves, but they will also raise more questions than answers. People will ask what influence these leaders and clerics have over the muslim community they speak for, if they cannot limit or eliminate the threats and the dangers posed by the bombers. The bombers of Christmas day who claim to be Boko Haram say they bombed churches in retaliation against the killing of muslims during last year’s Sallah celebrations in Jos. They claim that neither the Muslim leadership nor the Nigerian state took steps to protect the muslims in Jos or bring their killers to justice. In this manner, they undermine the credibility of muslim leaders and the Nigeria state. A logical question to ask is who is speaking for the Muslim community in Nigeria today? Is it Boko Haram, which both fights the Nigeria state and places bombs which kills innocent christians and muslims alike; or the mainstream leaders who denounce their goals and tactics as un-Islamic? When Boko Haram bomb churches, they expose millions of innocent muslims to retaliatory attacks, which traditional leaders and Muslim clerics cannot prevent, or protect them from. Attacks on muslims far from the theatre of conflicts will trigger more attacks from muslims, and the vicious circle will be complete.

          If the strategy of Boko Haram, or whoever is hiding behind its name and grievances is to bring the Nigerians state to its knees, it could not have found a better tactic than one which touches muslims and christians where they hurt most, and mobilizes them in their largest numbers. No christian will fail to feel anger at the killing of whole families who were just leaving a church service on Christmas day. Their killers will remind the nation that muslims were equally slaughtered at a mosque in Jos a few months ago on Sallah Day, an event which angered all muslims. When the state fails to assume a firm control over the situation by limiting anger after these killings, or apprehending perpetrators, communities will be tempted to take revenge. Muslims have no monopoly over bomb-making know-how, or weapons. They congregate five times daily in millions of mosques across the nation, and are therefore even more vulnerable to attacks. There are millions of muslims in every nook and cranny of the nation, many living in isolation in communities far from their homes. They are exposed, and vulnerable to attack from people who may think their faith alone qualifies them for being murdered.

          At this stage, it is clear that there is a plan to cause massive crises along religious lines in Nigeria. It is time to ask some uncomfortable questions as well. Could the scenario painted by a United State agency of the failure of the Nigerian state be playing out? Is this attempt to push the Nigeria state to fail being engineered by external forces? If so, what are the possible objectives behind the plan? Is there a plan for a relatively crisis-free break-up of the nation, or is the plan simply to cause massive and prolonged crises between and within ethnic and religious groups? Is Nigeria’s considerable oil and gas resource a factor in this attempt; and could some interest out there be targeting exclusive control of this resource by alienating the rest of the nation from it?

          Even more sinister, it is legitimate to ask whether Boko Haram now merely provides a cover for stronger and more sophisticated interest which is fighting targets such as the U.S, Nigerian christians and the Nigerian state, using Nigerian muslims as hostages. Is there some credibility to the suspicion that Al Qa’ida in the Sahel has taken over the local grievances of Boko Haram, and is now fighting for its own agenda, which has little to do with the real interests of Nigerian muslims and other citizens? Or again, is there some credibility to the suspicion that some sinister forces are milking the security situation in our country for financial gains, and are sustaining the current levels of hostility and fear using the cover and modus operandi of Boko Haram?

          Tragically, there appears little effort towards identifying exactly what the nature of the threat is. If there is one, government appears determined only to throw technology and money at it. Hard political and security intelligence is always difficult to come by in conflicts of this nature. Yet, hard intelligence is precisely what the government needs to deal with this major threat, and it has very little time to acquire it. The most imminent and dangerous fallout of the Christmas bombings is that they will raise the levels of fear and anger among most Nigerians. Many christians will be tempted to adopt a simple position which links Boko Haram with all muslims, and will hold all muslims responsible for Boko Haram’s atrocities. Muslims will reject the linkage, and will in turn, claim that they are even more victims of Boko Haram than christians. They will resent their religion being used as cover for un-islamic activities, and will in turn claim that muslims are being killed in many parts of the nation  for being muslims alone, and the Nigerian state is unwilling or unable to bring their killers to justice.

          The most serious threat to the current situation, however, is the possibility that the Nigerian state will lose its credibility as the protector of our collective security. Whoever is behind these bombings and killings has succeeded in casting major doubt in the minds of citizens over the ability of this administration to protect both muslims and christians. If we cannot feel and be protected, we may be tempted to protect ourselves. In a situation where christians and muslims feel threatened by each other, it takes very little to trigger a disastrous chain of events. In these days with so much anger and passion, it is difficult to convince all Nigerians that muslims and christians are all victims of this frightening wave of terror. The plan may be to get them to engage in an unending blood-letting, but it it will be a war without a victory.  If they fight, they will be reluctant warriors. They do not need to fight, it muslim leaders act and show even more openly that Boko Haram is condemnable. They do not need to fight if Christian leaders do not make capital out of the genuine grievances of their flock and urge them into a senseless confrontation. But above all the nation does not need to take up arms against itself if the government and leaders can take bold steps to plug the many gaping holes around our security.

BLOODY DEMOCRACY.

          Annual budgets are important policy instruments which do more than just inform citizens of the priorities and plans of administrations and the resources which it plans to mobilize towards achieving them. They reveal an administration’s basic philosophy, challenges and opportunities. Budgets reveal the state of the nation, the disposition of leadership towards competing priorities, and the long-term implications of economic policy on political developments. Budgetary estimates also reveal capacities to tap into resources available, or failures to do so. They are important yardsticks for judging performance of administrations, and the transparency of a system which links citizens with the State in many important ways. Revenue estimates in budgets tell citizens where the administration hopes to mobilize resources from, and its efficiency in terms of the management of resources and the responsiveness of its key institutions involved in mobilizing resources. Expenditure outlines inform citizens of priorities, and levels of commitment to expand the economy as opposed to maintenance of the system. On the whole, budgets are political instruments of governance and they provide standards for assessing whether an administration is committed to one of the two basic purposes of governments, which is the pursuit of the welfare of citizens. The other is the protection of the rights of citizens, including their right to life, security and basic freedoms.

The budget proposals submitted recently by President Jonathan reveal many of these elements of a budgetary process. In the context of the raging debate over the removal of subsidy and the security of the nation, they fail the test of standard openness, and raise serious concerns over the nature of our democratic system. While the proposals do not mention removal of subsidy, the radical improvement in the revenue estimates say loud and clear that it will be removed. Where else will a difference of more than a trillion Naira come from? The claim that the administration is still consulting over the removal of subsidy is even more hollow when the figures are scrutinized more closely. And it does the administration little credit when it submits proposals which make no provision for payment for subsidy, and then informs the nation that it has not made up its mind over the issue.

But a far more worrying issue which the budget raises is the alarming amount set aside for security. The budget estimates propose an allocation of N920 billion Naira for security, an amount bigger than that of many sectors combined. This amount is being budgeted in time of peace; or at least peace without a war. It will amount to almost one-quarter of the entire budget, and this is for the federal government alone. All States will also budget huge amounts for security, and their decisions over the amount they budget will be substantially influenced by the federal governments standards. When the federal government spends N920billion on security, State Governments will guess that something is seriously wrong, and they will also set aside large chunks of their resources for security.

Spending these amounts around security at this time will give the impression that the nation is at war. Those who will say we are not at war will be wrong. We are at war against endemic violence which is intimately linked with our political system. We are at war against the violence which has dwarfed our democracy, and corrupted our capacities to develop our human and material resources. We are at war against a political system which is founded on blood and guts, and skeletons of many innocent people. We are at war against terror which is deeply rooted in our politics, and we are at war against greed and corruption which have made it impossible to organize credible elections.

The frightening amount being voted for security in the next one year is evidence that violence has overwhelmed our political system. The history of the linkages between overt or covert violence and key political developments in our nation is long. Violence in the form of military coup truncated the new administration democratic governance which was bequeathed after colonial rule. More coups followed, and a civil war which cost over a million lives had to be fraught to keep the nation together. But the damage had been done. The continued stay of the military was violence against the right of Nigerians to live under governments of their choice. The longer it remained, the more violence came to define our political system. Coups attracted more coups, until the military found itself almost at war with itself and a nation which had become weary of its limitations and corruptive influences. Violence defined the abortion of the 1992 elections which could have produced Abiola as President; and violence which followed forced the military to engineer a process of handing over power to a Yoruba man.

Our democratic system since 1999 has never been far from underlying violence or threat of it. Our electoral process has been characterized by increasing violence and the more elections we organized since, 1999, the more violence they became. In 2002, former President Olusegun Obasanjo organized a conference on violence and the electoral process, because even in those early days, the spectre of violence was threatening to become the defining characteristic of our democracy. High profile assassinations of politicians, and the emerging linkages between political competition and increasing spread of arms around political gangs in the Niger Delta and the South East were threatening the 2003 elections. The conference was revealing in terms of the manner it exposed the widespread use of force as a political asset, and the existence of armed groups in many States of the federation under the control of governors or the opposition, or both.

The 2003 elections marked a new benchmark in the intimate relationship which existed between political activities and organized violence. It marked the beginning of widespread criminal activities in the Niger Delta, when thousands of young people, armed and funded by politicians, suddenly found themselves demobilized but heavily armed. They turned their attention to kidppings, sabotage, and thinly-veiled criminal activities ender the cover of political militancy around genuine community grievances.

In the north, shortsighted opportunism played into the hands of groups mobilized around religion and economic progress. Young people looking for some glimmer of hope that tinkering with the laws of the land will given then value systems which will limit the damage of corruption and the impunity of leaders were bitterly disappointed. Sharia failed to create better societies, and leaders who promised it retreated behind the security of Government Houses leaving behind armed and bitter young people, who then turned away from the law, and against the democratic process. Across the nation, citizens became increasingly disenchanted with a democratic system which came to life only during elections. Elections assumed the same dimensions of wars in many areas, and created massive bitterness and alienation among the people. Politicians used symbols and tactics which were almost certainly guaranteed to create violence in and between communities. Armed enforcers became better at guaranteeing elections victories than campaign convoys; and politicians became hostages to the violence they organized. More and more, they retreated from the people who supposedly elected them; and communities on the whole became more prone to violence. Where the State is unable or unwilling to mediate or intervene in intra or inter-community disputes, citizens settled issues themselves. Huge pockets of endemic violence emerged in the Niger Delta, in parts of the Middle Belt and the North East. Violent crimes spread where security agencies became stretched beyond their capacities or by corruption; and highways and residences became equally unsafe. The South East began to look like an occupied territory, and the South West began to tinker with do-it-yourself internal security.

A Nigerian State severely weakened by a political system rooted in violence is now having to confront another threat from Boko Haram insurgency. The huge expenditure on security, most of which will go into the purchase of expensive and sophisticated weaponry and logistics is an admission that the political process cannot process and neutralize this threat. The option of arming the nation against this threat to the exclusion of all others is very dangerous. It appears to be informed only by panic, which makes the situation for the Nigerian State even more dangerous because its enemies can see this. It closes up other options which may be less costly, but more effective. It is difficult to assess as a security strategy, because it requires time to prove its effectiveness and time is a very rare commodity under these circumstances. It ties up resources and the security assets of the nation around one issue or one threat, and exposes the nation to the emergence of other threats.

The amount of money the federal and state governments are planning to spend for security will scare Nigerians even more. Citizens are likely to believe that the threat they face is monumental, and may not even have the courage to ask how all these expenditure can be verified and assessed as useful. How, for instance, are we to evaluate the utility of all this expenditure? In the immediate cessation of violent acts? In the reduction of their numbers, damage and frequency? Are we likely to spend the same amount next year? What else is being done by government to deal with Boko Haram; with the stranglehold of crime in the South East; with the ever-present threats of resurgence of violence in the Niger Delta; and with the burning fires from ethno-religions conflicts in Plateau and Kaduna States?

Our political process has many things wrong with it. We spend billions to organize elections, which produce winners and widespread violence. Every election shrinks our democratic process further, and there is no guarantee that 2015 will produce a better election. Our politics breed more violence in our homes on our highways and in our hearts. The intimate relationship between our politics and organized violence is responsible for the state of insecurity in Nigeria today. Our leaders have failed us, and they will fail us even more if they see the solution to our problems only in terms of spending huge amounts in their personal security. 

FIGHTING TERROR: PROBLEMATIC SOLUTIONS.

          The National Assembly is reported to be planning to procure full body scanners, which are equipment used to detect bombs and other weapons on people, but only by exposing a person’s full nakedness. The equipment had caused much controversy in Europe and the United States when it was first introduced, despite the overwhelming clamour for better security from citizens. The main grouse against the equipment is that it violates the fundamental privacy of people, which is the sanctity of their bodies. The same equipment is already being used in our airport in Lagos and Abuja, so a public outcry against its installation will have little effect. Legislators and persons visiting our legislature will have to surrender part of their dignity and privacy in exchange for the hope that the equipment will prevent bombers from passing through gates and scanners to harm them.

A few days ago, the Senate President assured the leadership of the Armed Forces that the Senate will support the case for improved funding for additional activities and challenges, such as the massive deployment against terror and ethno-religious activities in the country. This support for additional funding will shield the normal and routine funding of the Armed Forces which is made annually, and which, under the present circumstances, is being diverted to new or additional activities. These additional funds will pay for allowances, purchase of equipment and will provide improved logistics. Nigerians are therefore likely to pay a lot more for the involvement of the military in the war against terror.

Two weeks ago, the National Assembly decided that it will probe the controversial expenditure around the installation of Closed Circuit Television (C.C.T.V) Cameras in and around Abuja. The arguments over the absence of transparency in the procurement of the equipment; its reliability and utility have been public knowledge since some competitors apparently lost out in the lucrative deal to install C.C.T.V as a weapon against terror in Abuja. Although it is difficult to ascertain the motive and genuiness of the criticisms against this high-tech weaponry against a human enemy, the complaints against it say it is far too expensive for its value; its deployment and installation is not informed by considerations of quality and safety; and that it is the wrong equipment for the purpose.

It is safe to assume that there are other measures, expenditure and strategies being adopted by the government and security agencies, most of them involving equipment, which are being undertaken at great cost to the public, all in a bid to stem the tide against spreading terror, principally from Boko Haram. Certainly, the visible expansion of detection equipment in the hands of our security agencies, the massive deployment of military personnel and police on highways, in and around major cities and vital installations must be costing Nigerians many billions.

These solutions threaten to be worse than the problem. Nigerians have a legitimate right to demand proof or evidence that these massive expenditure and severe restrictions on our movements and privacy are yielding, or are likely to yield results. At this stage, they do not show evidence that they can stop the threat from Boko Haram, or other crimes suspected to be committed with its modus operandi. The cases of bombings, shooting of security personnel and selected civilians, robbing of banks using explosives and attacking police stations are not showing signs of being contained. Not a day passes without some sensational violation of our security and peace, and the new dimension being added is the suspicion that armed robbers now adopt Boko Haram tactics and invade entire towns without resistance due to the sophistication of their weaponry and huge numbers.

A cynic will argue that there is a correlation between the rising expenditure around security equipment and level of deployment of security personnel, and the levels of violent activities from Boko Haram or those who operate like it. Those who are less cynical will ask how this present strategy of throwing technology and erecting checkpoints against terror will bring an end to the threat of the Boko Haram insurgency. What is clear is that Nigeria has now become a huge market for all sorts of security equipment, and many countries which specialize in reaping benefits from conflicts are laughing all the way to their banks. And they will sell more of the same; or even sell more sophisticated equipment if we need them. But ordinary folks in Borno, Yobe, Bauchi, Kaduna, Jos, Delta or Lagos are not necessarily going to feel their effect. The enemy against whom all these equipment and weaponry is being ranged is not lending himself to their effectiveness. So the nation arms itself against an enemy, who however, can see very clearly that it is poorly defended.

In one respect, it can be said that terror has already won two battles against the Nigerian State. The first battle it won was to put the nation on notice that it is capable of hurting it. It did this times without number, and this, in a way, is responsible for this panic response which is in part, the basis for this frenzy around high-tech defence. The second victory of terror is to sustain this initial success and induce permanent fear and a sense of insecurity among the population. Perhaps unwittingly, the leadership has fallen into the trap: its highly visible and intrusive reaction frightens the population as much as it is frightened by terror. The deployment of equipment and personnel around many parts of the nation creates the impression that the enemy is always just around the corner. Terror has succeeded in tying up the State’s extensive security assets around its objectives; and has induced fear among the population which may actually be unrelated to its actual capabilities. A small band of citizens with a grievance has been transformed into a formidable enemy by the Nigerian State through a combination of ineptitude and insensitivity. Foreign nations looking for markets to dump security equipment are milking the situation. Nigerians are no safer than they were six months ago, and Boko Haram is still a major threat.

An enlightened strategy to contain the threat of Boko Haram will involve a number of tactics, but none will make a case for spending hundreds of billions in high-tech equipment alone. One tactic will involve an intensification of the search for genuine access to the leadership of Boko Haram, and engaging it in a dialogue. Its demands from the distance, and its public posture may appear difficult or impossible to meet, but it is vital that it is engaged. It says its members in detention should be released. It wants the killers of its members prosecuted. It wants to see the application of shari’a in Nigeria. These are not issues that cannot be discussed, but it requires evidence of genuiness to negotiate with some levels of sincerity on both sides. What both sides need are trusted mediators. This is where government needs to focus its attention and search upon.

The second tactic should be to address the massive poverty and hopelessness which pervades the Borno-Yobe axis. A President who comes from a region where only massive infusion of funds and the application of a policy which pardons known criminals succeeded in bringing peace in the region should know how much massive investment in schools, hospitals, roads and jobs will shift the ground away from Boko Haram. As things stand, the citizens in this axis are under threat from three sources: Book Haram, the overbearing weight of security operators, and crushing poverty. The battle for hearts and minds will be won by the side which makes a tangible difference in the lives of the people. If Boko Haram consistently uses the peoples’ poverty and the traditional grievances over an unjust State, it will limit the access of the Nigerian State into the lives of ordinary citizens. If, on the other hand, the Nigerian State adopts a policy which addresses poverty, and an open-ended attitude to discussing residual issues around which Boko Haram builds its case, it is likely to limit its damage. Without a doubt, even half of the amount being spent on the C.C.T.V in Abuja will make a huge difference in the lives of citizens of Borno and Yobe States if it spent on providing potable water, building good schools and opening up rural areas. If this amount was spent on the people by the federal and state governments, substantial portions of the population would have been enlisted in the fight against terror that uses poverty of the people as one of its weapons.

The strategy of throwing sophisticated technology at the Boko Haram insurgency and other criminal gangs who copy its tactics is expensive and ineffective. It shows no tangible evidence that it will eliminate terror, although it gives leaders and other V.I.Ps some level of comfort. It plays into the hands of perpetrators of terror who seek to tie up security and other resources of the State around their activities and objectives. President Jonathan needs to move beyond the search for physical security for leaders, to a genuine search for a comprehensive resolution of this problem. What we have at present are solutions which could be worse than the problem.

THE FUEL SUBSIDY DEBATE: ISSUES OF CLASS

The President appears set to remove the subsidy on petroleum products from the beginning of next year. The opposition to the removal is digging deep trenches in preparation for the battle ahead. This battle will be bruising and long, or may end abruptly with neither victory nor defeat for either party. If it is won by either the President or the opposition to the removal, it will be an empty victory, one which would have cost more than a defeat. A victory by the opposition will reinforce its weakness, and serve as an impetus for the President to pursue more or different policies which will make up for his failure to remove the subsidy. In the end, the Nigerian people, particularly those being put forward as the potential beneficiaries or victims of the removal, will be worse off. This is the outcome of an issue being fought by people who have very little linkages with 75 percent of Nigerian citizens who live on the margins of existence, and who are likely to be completely unaffected, irrespective of the way the battle is settled. The interest of this class is not being championed by leaders who represent them, and who will ask how the poor will be affected by either the retention or removal of the subsidy, and who, if necessary, will negotiate the best  deal for them either way.

The tragedy over the controversies over the subsidy removal is that it is being championed on both sides by elites, people who have massive cushions propped up against the effect of the retention or removal of the subsidy. The hundreds of millions of Naira being spent by faceless groups with curious titles putting out advertorials in print and electronic media at a small elite to convince it that subsidy is wasteful and corrupt, is wasted. The urban elite is largely unaffected by government policies, because it adjusts its living conditions by automatically securing more resources from governments. People who own three, four, five or more vehicles will not panic because the cost of petroleum goes up from N65 to N150. Extremely large take-home pays, and rampant corruption in both private and public sectors will absorb this increase. The urban poor will absorb increases in pump prices by adjusting the prices of their labour, petty commodities, or inventing new tactics to live on the boundries of criminality. Prices of everything will go up, and those with nothing to sell will fall through and join the widening bracket of Nigerians who have no means of livelihood at all. Rural populations will shrink, as the cost of their agricultural products cannot match the cost of production, or produce margins that will sustain the circle of reproduction. Urban areas will expand as more and more people, particularly young people, drift into them in the hope of finding jobs, or sources of living, which are extremely limited.

The leaders that are selling the   subsidy removal argument will not feel its effect. They will not take a pay cut as a symbolic gesture to demonstrate to Nigerians that they share the pains of the removal, at least in the short-term. They cannot authoritatively tell Nigerians at what stage the benefits of the removal of subsidy will be felt, and in what form. They will not say what they will do about abuses and corruption which they identified as the reasons for the removal of the subsidy in the first place. And they will not tell Nigerians who is paying for the hundreds of millions of Naira in advertorials making a case for the subsidy removal. They may attempt to put forward tired and discredited initiatives aimed at reducing the hardship of the poor, but these will be absorbed and wasted by a corrupt bureaucracy and incompetent leadership.  

The opposition to the subsidy removal is itself weakly-rooted in the genuine interests of the Nigerian people. Organized labour has taken up the gauntlet from day one on this issue, but its entire position is weakened by crass opportunism and a failure to critically assess the entire issues around the subsidy controversy. When government predicated its case for removal of the subsidy on the existence of widespread corruption and waste, labour should have demanded that government identifies and prosecutes those who perpetrated the corruption. On waste, labour should have demanded strong evidence that the subsidy is wasted, and who is responsible. Labour lost another propaganda battle when it allowed government to single out fleet-owning elite in cities as beneficiaries of the subsidy, instead of the poor. It failed to nail government through its failure to police and ensure compliance with the regulated pump price across the entire country, as a result of which less than 20% of the nation’s consumers buy petroleum at N65. It failed to make capital of the failure of government to stop large scale smuggling of products, re-cycling, bunkering and illegal storage and marketing, all of which add cost to the consumer. Organized labour failed to provide the Nigerian public with detailed analyses, or simple projections and implications of the removal of subsidy. It’s scare tactics and threats to shut the country down if government goes ahead with the removal only succeeded in getting a few elderly Nigerians to advise against it, while its traditional journeymen, the students, threw in their contributions. With Universities now closed because of ASUU strike, this traditional support may not come to labour early next year when it needs it most.

Another potential source of opposition to the subsidy, which is the National Assembly, is not likely to be counted among the most steadfast, or as consistent as labour. President Jonathan says he does not need the approval or consent of the legislature to remove subsidy. Experts he say he is right. So the most effective weapon the legislature possesses to influence the subsidy issue is to delay the passing of the 2012 budget, which is both a risky, and ultimately, a self-defeating strategy. If the President digs in as he well might, and insists on his right to remove the subsidy, he will marshall all the resources on his side, including the awesome powers of Governors, who have long concluded their calculations on what to do with their shares of the removed subsidy. They in turn will lean on the legislators, who are very likely to put up a token resistance in the form of a demand for some symbolic palliatives, and then buckle under. Anyone who puts much store in the capacity of the federal legislature in resisting the President on budgetary matters has not read its history well. If anyone needs further evidence of the posture of the legislature, its recent endorsement of the President’s huge virement with a few weeks to go to the end of the financial year will be a useful reference point. A continuous delay in passing the 2012 budget will also hurt the legislature, and it is more likely to demand a huge allocation around constituency projects from the removed subsidy, than risk a very lean first quarter next year.

A combined resistance to the removal of the subsidy should take the form a resolute obstruction from the national assembly, and a careful and informed engagement of the government by labour and civil society. The strategy should be predicated on a number of demands. First, persons, officials or groups who have been identified as corruptly enriching themselves around the subsidy must be named and prosecuted. Second, government must inform Nigerians what the removal of subsidy will entail. How much will petroleum cost, and why? How will the price of petroleum without subsidy differ from the current high prices of diesel and kerosene whose subsidy had long been removed? What will be the effect on other essential consumer prices? Third, government should say what it intends to do with the removed subsidy. Will it build more refineries to bring down the cost petroleum? Will it build and rehabilitate more roads and power plants; more schools and hospitals; equip and improve our universities? Will it make our lives safer and more secure? And in specific terms, what and where and at what cost will it do all these? Since the proceeds from removed subsidy will go to States, what do they intend to do with the increased funds? Above all, why should Nigerians believe that removed subsidies will not move from bank accounts of the subsidy cartel into bank accounts of leaders and government officials?

The Nigerian poor is being dragged into a fight over which it knows very little. If government wins this fight, the people have very little knowledge over what it will do with the spoils. It says it would have stopped corruption and waste; but the people suspect that corruption and waste have merely changed locations and masters. If government loses this battle, it would have cost billions of public funds in its execution; and government will say Nigerians prefer corruption and waste around the subsidy on petroleum; so let it be. It may even then look into other areas to make substantial improvements in its revenue, since it says the economy will collapse unless the subsidy is removed. Those opposing the removal of subsidy are very likely to lose this battle, but the nation would have paid a very high price in losses, strikes, disruptions and hardships. Worse, the opposition would have failed to pin government around putting forward specific activities or projects which it will undertake with the removed subsidy.

The class of the poor in Nigeria will soon go through another harrowing experience. Its elected leaders say it will have to endure some more hardship, but is not saying when it will end, or what the long-term benefits will be. The opposition to the leadership is fighting a losing battle against the combined forces of a Presidency used to having its way; a legislature weakened by its structural dependence on the executive; and the intimidating powers of State Governors who have smelt huge revenues. Before the battle is over, there will be many casualties. But the biggest will be the real interests of poor Nigerians who simply want a government that protects them and improves their welfare, and is not behaving as if it intends to.

RELIGION AND PEACE

          At the end of its meeting in Ilorin, Kwara State, the Nigeria Inter-Religious Council (N.I.R.E.C) warned religious preachers against inflaming passion and provoking their followers and feed the current levels of violence and insecurity in the country. The Secretary of the Council read a communiqué which noted that reckless preaching ignites crisps, and calls for dialogue as a tool for building and sustaining peace in Nigeria. NIREC observed that traditional and religious leaders have a major role to play in building peace among and between communities.

The communiqué of NIREC said nothing that the government-funded religions and traditional rulers forum has not said before. The plea of religious and traditional rulers to preachers or clerics who ordinarily should be within their sphere of influence to lower their profiles confirm what has long been suspected by most Nigerians: they have lost control over those who are most intimately involved in linking Nigerians with their faith and politics. The leadership of NIREC will not accept this, of course, and the Federal Government which sees NIREC as a major avenue for mediating relations between Nigerian muslims and christians will persist in its assumption that enduring peace between major religious and communities will be secured by people who are largely responsible for the problem. N.I.R.E.C’s Communiqué make a mockery of the standing of traditional rulers and religions leaders because once outside the forum, the apex of this organisation routinely engages in inflaming passions around faith and politics. The public quarrels over the operation of Ja’iz Bank, the tendencies to take pre-determined positions around ethno-religious crises; blatant incursions of religious leaders into the partisan political space as foot soldiers of politicians, and the many unreported but dangerously divisive preachings and other activities which occur daily in our churches and mosques all erode the credibility and capacity of religious leaders in the minds of simple christian and muslim folk. In most instances, leaders say one thing during meetings of NIREC, and completely the opposite when they talk to people of their own faith. It does little justice to their positions when they do this; and the general perception is that NIREC is merely a forum where religions and traditional leaders say what governments want to hear.

The current levels of mistrust and hostility between muslims and christians in many parts of Nigeria, particularly the north, will not be solved by periodic meetings of NIREC. The intimate relationship between faith and political partisanship in many states of the federation is a major source of insecurity and a threat to long-term economic and social development. Many political bases are being erected on the alter of religion; and many members of the clergy have built large followings around patently political activities. At this stage, it is obvious that demands that religion and politics should be separated in Nigeria are both ill-informed and hypocritical. Nigeria may be operating a secular constitution, but Nigerians are very religious people who see their faith in everything they do. Competition for scares resources and political power has used faith very much as a vehicle, and the problem is more acute in plural north, which has multiple religions and tribes. Once relationships between religious and ethnic communities break down, it is difficult to rebuild them, unless the leadership is able to stand above the divide which, unfortunately our current leaders are unable to do.

The damage to social cohesion and security done by clerics who inflame passions around religion and region is immense. The political space, unfortunately, has been take up by this group, and it is not likely to yield ground which gives it much power and little responsibility. The Nigerian state can mitigate the damage by effectively mediating relations between muslims and christians with more effective methods. It will need to raise its levels of vigilance and responsiveness to grievances and potentials for conflict around issues which provide the sources of conflict. It needs to identify inherent and endemic sources of these conflicts, and establish a machinery for their resolution. Issues in the constitution relating to indigene and settler status; settlement patterns; traditional rulership and cultural issues; access to employment and economic resources and treatment of persons who are responsible for breaches of peace or violence must be taken up with more seriousness. Poverty, rampant corruption and unemployment among the youth particularly feed frustrations, and create easy targets and available enemies, since leaders who are responsible for them are beyond reach.

If the federal government believes that N.I.R.E.C is a useful tool for creating religious harmony in Nigeria, it should continue to support and fund it. But it should demand higher levels of responsibility and commitment to genuine inter-religions harmony from leaders who should set standards of behaviour. It should measure the effectiveness of the Council by the degree to which it succeeds in reducing inter-religions conflicts and tension; and it should create some distance between itself and the Council. This way, when traditional and religious leaders set benchmarks or standards, both lower-level clerics and faithfuls will comply.

THE NORTH LOOKS AT ITSELF.

On the 5th and 6th of December, the Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF) organized a Conference around the theme of “Peace and Unity” in Kaduna, the political and spiritual heart of the North. By any standard of judgement, the meeting was well attended. The Vice President, a former Governor of the State, the Senate President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, all northerners, were there. So were General Yakubu Gowon, Vice President Atiku Abubakar; an assortment of former Chief Justices and Presidents of the Court of Appeal, former Inspectors-General of Police, former Governors, including an impressive turnout of former military governors who are now politically active; traditional rulers and the clergy led by the Sultan; a sprinkling of Northern Christian elite, including Bishop Mathew Kukah; northern captains of industry and intelligentsia; active, inactive and undecided politicians, and many young people who turn up at these occasions for some pickings. Significantly, a large number of Northern Governors and Deputies were also there. There were hundreds of heavily armed soldiers, policemen and plain cloth security officials with enough arms to form a small army. It is fair to say that the beleaguered city of Kaduna has not seen a gathering of this nature for a long time; at least not since its political and security volatility chased away many people, businesses and groups, including the periodic meeting of Northern Governors. A most notable presence was the large number of elderly northerners, not just those who have made Kaduna their homes, but many others who travelled long distances in the hope that they can find out some explanations, or offer some, over the state of insecurity, disunity and increasing underdevelopment of the north.

The Conference could have provided a good opportunity for the North to undertake a critical self-assessment at a time of rapid changes, and in the face of new challenges, all of which are placing it at a great disadvantage in a federal arrangement in which it had firm control of the political process, until the last decade. It was obvious however, that the ACF had been aided by substantial injection of funding from political sources which wanted a predetermined outcome. The audience could easily see this, and although many people stayed until the end of the poorly-handled Conference, this unseen hand took much its credibility away. In a region where faith has become a major player in politics, the selection of three Christian and one Muslim speaker also caused substantial ripple. But by far the biggest blow to the credibility and integrity of the Conference was the virtual absence of Northern Governors for most of its two days. Perhaps many thought they had played their roles when they contributed in funding the Conference, but in walking out with the Vice President and staying away, they showed how little they thought of the state of the North, or the acute problems of security and poverty in their States. The few that stayed behind took much of the virulent criticism of Governors and other current leaders, and they would have left the Conference with a deafening endorsement of the view that Northern Governors represent the biggest problem of the north.

Perhaps the lamentations over the failure of the North to preserve its tenuous unity and limit the damage from the multiple threats to its security were being made at the wrong forum by the wrong people, to the wrong audience. The Arewa Consultative Forum is a collection of generally well-meaning but ineffective northerners who have little claim to anything of substance in the contemporary disposition of the North in Nigeria. This, indeed, may be the reason why the Presidency and the Northern Governors felt safe to support it to organize a talk shop with this level of sensitivity and importance. The Forum had been used extensively in the past by Northern Governors who can find no other platform to maintain some visibility. The effect has been poor because the Governors’ agenda had been unpopular, and the vehicle of the ACF is weak and marginal in terms of the fortunes of the north. The political disunity of the north was largely engineered by the roles which northern governors played in the run-up to the general elections in April this year. The ACF was a by-stander in the high stake manoeuvres of the Governors, and could not have mediated their roles with the core interests of the North, even if it wanted to. The ACF was turned into a virtual cheerleader when governors called in those days, or wanted one position or the other supported. The Forum watched as the ill-fated consensus candidate project decimated the remnants of northern power and cohesion, and northern governors decided the fate of northern candidates and the emergence of Goodluck Jonathan as President. The Forum watched the effects of the destructive politics which used faith and ethnicity as prime instruments to engineer the emergence of the Governors’ candidate, as substantial portions of the north went up in flames. The Forum watched the damaging distance being created between the far North and the middlebelt, largely as a result of the elevation of religion and region as key elements in the quest for power by Governors and the President. The Forum watched Northern Governors retreat behind secure walls and road blocks as violence spread and became a permanent feature in the lives of northerners.

And then the ACF reaches out to the Presidency and Governors to organize a Conference on Peace and Unity in the North. But there was little mention during the Conference about how the North came to its present position as the beggar region, wrought by poverty and insecurity, and led by people with little respect from their people. The Conference couldn’t blame Governors because it is, in many respects, their Conference. It cannot blame the federal government for its inability to engage the sources and consequences of insecurity in the North, because it is, in a way, its own Conference. It cannot put toward options and strategies for building bridges between and across Northern communities, because governors in Plateau, Kaduna, Borno and Bauchi have created enclaves and no-go areas for anyone else, including fellow governors and other northerners. It cannot mention the linkages between rampant corruption and gross ineptitude at the levels of northern leadership, and the economic poverty and political alienation in much of the north. It cannot invite attention to the danger of the total reliance by the north on proceeds from the sale of petroleum and gas, when its endowments of a large population, rich and vast agricultural land and abundant solid minerals could make it a very rich region.

The ACF Conference on Peace and Security in the North could not put forward options for the North in the rumoured attempts to re-engineer the Nigerian federal system and isolate the north even further. It did not have that capacity; and it could not risk annoying the Governors. It could not invite attention to the emerging unity between the political elites of the south east and the south south around a strategy to further reduce northern political influence. This is likely to offend some strategists in the Presidency. It cannot raise alarm at the increasing tribalization of south west politics, and the efforts to build political and security infrastructure that will give the south west the paraphernalia of a quasi-state. It cannot raise the danger of a resurgent northern Christian and ethnic minority mentality which sees northern Muslims as the enemy in every facet of its existence, and which defines faith and political activity largely around fighting Muslims and Islam. And it certainly cannot raise the danger of increasingly militant Muslim sects which demand the creation of an Islamic State.

Significantly, the Conference will not mention the unacceptable failure of the President and the Governors to find some solutions to the threat of Boko Haram insurgency because the audience and participants are actually the source of the problem, and cannot therefore be its solution. Bad governance and a political process that does not producer leaders but office holders under dubious credentials has largely alienated young people from elders, and the resort to violence is being elevated to the level of a credible Plan B in communal conflicts, and as a means of settling frustrations around unemployment and poverty. The Conference will nibble around the issue of massive corruption of the electoral process; people who rule with questionable mandates; the alienation of the population from the democratic process and the collapse of older values of service, loyalty and hardwork. But it will not raise the linkages between endemic corruption and the absence of respect for constituted authority, and the emergence of an entire generation of young Nigerians who believe that they have no obligation to respect the law or follow rules and regulation in their lives.

The Conference on Peace and Security in the North will go down as a missed opportunity by elders and politicians to take stock of the strengths and weaknesses of the north. It could not have achieved much because the organizers and participants are the problem, and cannot therefore be the solution. If any good has come out of the Conference, it is the glaring evidence that the real poverty of the north is that of good leadership. It also lacks time to reorganize itself, in a context where the rest of the nation is moving very fast, and away from it. The most critical requirement of the North today is that of a new leadership which will give it new energy, focus and a position in modern Nigeria in which it will be respected by its own people; and be respected by the rest of Nigeria.

PRESIDENT JONATHAN SPEAKS OF REVOLUTION.

          President Jonathan was widely reported to have warned of an impending revolution in the country he leads, unless the current rate of unemployment and level poverty is severely curtailed. He was speaking at a rally organized by his party the People Democratic Party (PDP) on the eve of the gubernatorial elections in Kogi State. Even given his unenviable record for putting his foot in his mouth on the most important of occasions, the prediction of a revolution from a democratically elected president will raise the bar for President Jonathan. No one would have quarrelled with the President if he had said his administration is on the verge of revolutionizing the nation’s economy, so that the crushing burdens of insecurity, poverty and corruption will be lifted. But he did not. And he did not say he will lead a revolution against hopelessness and a sense of drift which pervades our psyche, so that we can reclaim our faith in our nation; and the confidence that our leaders will find solutions to our many problems.

Perhaps Nigerians should not be unduly worried that President Jonathan is predicting a revolution without stating how it can be avoided. We have two options in responding to his prediction. One option is to say the President knows what he is talking about; and we will have a revolution unless a miracle happens which will change the fundamental structures and values of Nigerians in the next few years for the better. The other option is to say that the President is literally abdicating his position by identifying a problem and failing to assume personal and primary responsibility for finding a solution for it. Neither of the two options will give Nigerians any comfort.

A revolution is a process which involves fundamental changes at the political, economic and social levels, and almost invariably involves a repudiation of the legal basis of the status quo. This is one of the reasons why our constitution prohibits a revolution, or any change of government which is not prescribed by the constitution. An uprising triggered by massive economic problems will sweep away Nigeria’s young democratic experiment, and the leadership which it produces. It may involve a class war, a situation which will set the poor against the rich, and the population against the regime. In the Nigerian context, tragically, it is unlikely to ape the Arab spring, when entire population rise up against regimes. In our case it is likely to take ethnic and religious dimensions, among many others, and will be difficult to be concluded as a national revolution. So it will be an unending war that will destabilize the entire West African sub-region, and affect the entire African continent very badly. It will carve out areas for religious groups who want faith-based governments; tribal leaders who want to be small fish in small ponds; opportunistic leaders and communities who may want to keep national resources all to themselves; and all of them will fight each other in a terrain which will be difficult to control. It will bring in the ambitions of China on the African continent; the greed and desperation of the US and its allies to secure sources for oil and gas; and disparate groups which are already fighting the West will find new opportunities and frontlines.

What President Jonathan foresees is not a revolution, but the failure of the Nigerian State. A revolution will usher in a new order. The failure of the Nigerian state will end a bad old order, and usher in a worse state of affairs. No one will win in the event of a failed Nigerian state, but history has recorded many successful revolutions which gave nations new energies, focus and purpose. The President should know the difference between the two. He had, himself, said on a number of previous occasions that he does not accept the thesis that Nigeria will fail in the next few years. But the President is guilty of more than just poor conceptual clarity. Millions of Nigerians will have their current levels of fear over the future compounded, when their leader says things will get worse, without assuming responsibility for the situation. Six months into his elected term, the nation is today a lot more insecure than it was before he was elected. The nation is earning more than it ever did from the export of crude and gas; yet the President says the economy will collapse unless petroleum subsidy is removed. Most Nigerian say the President should remove corruption and greed around the subsidy, and not the subsidy itself. But it is obvious that the president has made up his mind. And Nigerians do not trust that the removed subsidy will be insulated from the corruption which has cost them the subsidy. And they do not believe that the removed subsidy will be invested into areas of the economy and managed well enough to guarantee jobs and a functioning economy that will grow, and not just produce a few more billionaires.

The prophecy of a revolution from a President who promises the nation transformation is curious. But President Jonathan is right in one respect. He puts his finger on one of the most explosive issues which threaten the nation: the unacceptable levels of poverty and political alienation in most parts of the country. We run a political system cornered by cult-like political parties that produce politicians who cannot and will not lead. Most citizens equate our democracy only with elections; and they do not see any roles for themselves beyond being mobilized by money or fear to vote along prescribed lives. So the people do not own the process, and don’t see it making a real difference in their lives. Young Nigerians, even those who acquire the very poor quality of Nigerian education have no jobs, no faith in the future; and no power to change their circumstances. Democracy cannot be defended by people who have no stake in it. It can only have relevance and utility for those who will exploit its weaknesses to acquire political power and wealth.

Perhaps President Jonathan intended to alert Nigerians over the sheer magnitude of the challenges facing the nation. But he close the wrong language. Even if he was carried away by the sense of occasion, he most know that Nigerians will ask him what he will do to head off a revolution in Nigeria. If he wanted to say Nigeria has problems, he should tell his fellow citizens what he will do about them. After all, he asked for our mandate to govern a democratic, secure and prosperous nation. When he mentions revolution, he simply compounds our fears that he has no solutions to our problems.  

NIGERIA: WARNINGS AND BAD NEWS

          On Monday 28^th of November, 2011, the 12^th Annual Colloquium of the Michael Ajasin foundation was held in Akure under the theme, “Is Nigeria a Failing State?” The tone of the Colloquium was set by the chairman of the Foundation, the Right Reverend Emmanuel Gbonigi when he said the indices of a failed state, such as socio-economic decline as well as political, moral, religious and environmental corruption are all present in Nigeria. Therefore, the argument whether Nigeria has failed or is failing as a state, is irrelevant, because all the signs are that the nation is heading towards failure. He said the Nigeria state has shown no capacity to assume responsibility for the poverty and powerlessness of its citizens, and the blame is entirely that of its leaders. Using the example of Libya, he said if the Libyan people can still put a bullet through the head of Muammar Ghaddafi and kill him in spite of all he accomplished in terms of their welfare, one has to wonder how many bullets Nigerian leaders deserve for their responsibility in the rot and decay all around Nigerians. Many speakers after him warned of dire consequences unless some major overhaul of our attitudes as leaders and followers are undertaken, and our federal system is radically restructured.

One day after the colloquium in Akure, an international conference on Islam, Peace Building and Political Engagement was organized by the Bayero University, Kano. The Sultan used the occasion to lament the death of over 800 muslims during the post-election violence of April and May this year, and also drew attention to the fact that the leadership in Nigeria is fast losing the confidence of the population it leads. He said that corruption, greed and injustice are threatening the corporate existence of the nation, and advised religious leaders to work together to build bridges across people of different faiths. The representative of the Christian Association of Nigeria also regretted the killing of over 200 christians during the same post-election crises and the burning down or vandalization of over 700 churches. He also said christians are not being allowed to build churches in the north. Sheikh Ahmed Lemu, who chaired the presidential committee which probed the causes and consequences of the post election violence also regretted that the Nigerian society has lost its moral values due to greed, injustice and absence of good governance. General Yakubu Gowon on his part blamed the battle for political supremacy and contest for power as the reasons behind the failure to build a united and peaceful Nigeria.

These two events will add upon the worrying spread of lamentations around some fundamental weaknesses of the Nigerian state today. Even more worrying, however, is the fact that these concerns and alarming projections are coming from the very sources of the problems: the clergy, traditional rulers and politicians. And they offer little new in the way they present Nigeria problems. The religious leaders lament the decay around values such as piety, tolerance, justice and humility, but they also tolerate many among them who build their following purely around the exploitation of ignorance and fear of people, as well as greed for worldly possessions for which they co-habit with politicians. Traditional rulers have became instruments in the hands of politicians to use in pursuit of partisan interests, and they have been more of the problem than the solution. Politicians have little respect for the people once they get into offices, by fair or foul means. They treat the public as a nuisance to be tolerated or avoided; and they treat public resources as spoils of the office.

The Nigerian political system breeds politicians who are increasingly distant from the people. The people themselves are becoming increasingly disillusioned and bitter, and at the slightest excuse, people resort to violence to settle scores or express a grievance because they do not trust the law or institutions of the state to give them justice or relief. Mediating mechanisms or values in the event of conflicts have disappeared; so communal and social conflicts tend to assume proportions and frequency far in excess of their real significance. The nation earns more from natural resources; yet the people are poorer. Democracy producers leaders who earn huge salaries and allowances, and have massive state resources to plunder; and the people wait for elections to be mobilized in their support. The bonds of unity have weakened, and even young and adventurous Nigerians now will not venture into other parts of their country to serve it. Groups are taking up arms in Borno, Yobe, Bauchi, Kaduna, Plateau and in the Niger Delta to fight the Nigerian state, or each other. The Nigerian leadership is retreating behind barricades, checkpoints and sirens; and the entire nation appears to be under siege.

The Nigeria state has certainly failed to provide the most basic requirements of any state, which are to protect citizens and pursue their welfare. Its most profound failure is in the quality of its present leadership which appears to have no clues or solutions to the problems of security, corruption or even basic governance. The nation is bleeding from its weaknesses and failings, and it is time for a new generation of leaders to step forward with courage and vision to turn the tide. The Nigerian state must not fail, and it will not fail if enough Nigerians resolve to work for real change, starting from everyone’s decision not to allow it to fail.