PDP’s SOMERSAULTS ON ZONING

In the build up to President Jonathan’s candidacy for the Presidential elections, the zoning and rotation principles of the Party came under the most intense and destructive disputes. Although they are enshrined in the Party’s constitution, their status and applicability became widely available for interpretation, depending on which narrow political interest was looking at it. In the end, the triumph of Jonathan as PDP’s candidate, even over a most formidable opponent raised by powerful interests in the north in support of the rotation and zoning principle, effectively put paid to any pretence that the rotation and zoning policy of the Party is still alive. The PDP and President Jonathan paid a heavy price for this seeming violation of a major pillar of governance, and even non-PDP northerners, right up to the elections, have not forgiven Jonathan for insisting on running on the PDP ticket in 2011.

Now, as the PDP prepares to rule for another four years, its zoning policy is under scrutiny once again. This time, however, the PDP wants to retain the old zoning policy irrespective of the massive changes in the political terrain which have occurred in the country. Not unexpectedly, this is raising some serious concerns in many circles, and it appears at this stage that the leadership will once again impose its will, and many sections of the country will try to resist this. The manner this dispute is resolved will tell Nigerians whether the PDP leadership has learnt any lessons from the recent past, or it will continue to govern as it had done in the past, irrespective of regional sensitivities and its need to demonstrate a transparent respect for its own rules.

The quarrels in the PDP over rotation and zoning will have a profound impact on the capacity of the government to achieve effective control of the nation’s competing interests and regions.

The most immediate impression which the quarrels in the PDP over zoning is creating is one which suggests that for the PDP leadership zoning is only relevant and applicable when the leaders say so. The attempt to force down upon the Legislature a leadership which is the making of the Executive and sections of the PDP leadership is in keeping with PDP traditions, and has been criticized over and over again. But the efforts to zone key offices without due considerations for history, tradition and current disposition of the PDP in all the six geo-political zones will be even more actively challenged, and will further undermine the value and efficacy of the zoning policy as an effective tool for integration and governance. It will give credence to the widely-held view that President Jonathan merely wishes to favor specific individuals, such as the President of the Senate, David Mark and former President Olusegun Obasanjo in return of their support for him. Conversely, it would also strengthen the view in some quarters that the leadership places much lower premium on the interests and loyalties of some zones, such as the South-East and the North – East. Finally, the insistence that some zones must have some specific offices, irrespective of their contributions to the current fortunes of the PDP, such as the case being made for zoning the Speaker of the House of Representatives to the South West in spite of the fact that the zone has no PDP Governor or Senator, and has only three Members in the House of Representatives will confirm the suspicion that the zoning principle is merely a source of patronage for the President to dispense on his personal whim.

What will be even more damaging to the PDP is the impression being created that the President is unable or unwilling to chart his own course as the leader, in spite of his fresh mandate. To insist that the old zoning formula must be sustained, even in the face of major shifts in the political ground, is to appear to choose the path of least resistance. The President will please the South South, which is already solidly behind him, and offend the South East, which feels it deserves more than a Deputy Senate President given its weight of votes. He will please the North Central zone which is substantially PDP and loyal anyway, and offend the North –East which believes that despite all odds, it did much better than the position being zoned to it, which is Deputy Speaker. He will please the South West which voted for him, but rejected his Party at all other levels, and further offend the North West which many in his Party feels had no interest in his candidature and political fortunes anyway. In all these calculations, there is nothing new, and even a superficial tinkering with the posts and the zones would have suggested a willingness to operate off the beaten track.

But by far the most serious problem for President Jonathan and the PDP is the impression being created that the values of leadership with honor, and respect for constitutions and laws are secondary to political expediency. President Jonathan and some leaders of the PDP who said the zoning and rotation principles are not sacrosanct will now attempt to force them down on many reluctant sections. Many party members who labored hard to get the President and the PDP will have to answer many awkward questions from Nigerians on why the zoning policy should be applied by President Jonathan today, when he rejected the rotation principle last year for this year’s elections. Many Nigerians will raise major concerns regarding the explicit criteria of religion in addition to geo-political zoning by the PDP, at a time when the nation appears to be paying a heavy price for politicizing religion.

The arguments around rotation and zoning will be won in the end by President Jonathan and his supporters in the leadership positions of the PDP. They will, because they already have the power to have their way. The rest of the Party and the nation will watch as key positions are zoned by the leaders as they wish. Many Nigerians will say that is how the PDP has always done things. But many Nigerians will also lament the loss of historic opportunities for President Jonathan to chart a new course for the nation that will effectively address its current challenges and allow him to govern as a President who has vision and courage to demolish old barriers, and build bridges in their places.

RETREAT INTO PRIMORDIAL HOLES

The April 2011 elections have provided some deep insights into the nature of political relations between major groups and sections of the polity. To move on from the current problems and challenges which the elections exposed, it is vital that Nigerians understand the nature of these relations and their implications for the nation’s survival as a unified and secure political entity. The leadership in particular needs to be sensitive to contemporary dispositions of major groups and sections, and build its strategies for governance around the visible and relevant manifestations of the political outlines of the sections and interests of the nation.

Fifty years into political independence, Nigeria has come full circle, with its politics bearing an uncanny resemblance to the immediate pre-independence era, as well as the period of independence before the military coups of 1966. Broadly speaking, the Western Region, now the South West geo-political zone was firmly in the grip of the Yoruba party, the Action Group. The Eastern Region, now the South East geo-political zone was securely under the control of the N.C.N.C, the Ibo party. The southern minority groups, now the South South geo-political zone lived under the multiple domination of the NCNC, the AG and the might of the Northern Peoples Congress (NPC) which exploited their weakness to build alliances with them, thus limiting the power of its rivals, the AG and NCNC. Even at that, the people of the South South showed periodic resistance, and demonstrated a desire to break free from the dominance of the major groups and their politics. The Northern Region, now represented by three zones, the North West, North East and the North Central was largely under the dominance of the Northern Peoples Congress, a largely Hausa Fulani-led Party with substantial minority participation. But the NPC also faced serious challenges from the minority groups in the middle belt and the North East, as well as a radical party in the heartland of the old caliphate, the N.E.P.U.

The elections of 2011 appear to have recreated the old order in a nation desperately searching for evidence that its unity is resting on stronger foundations, and that the ruling party’s 12 years in power may have created a framework for integration. Today, the Action Congress of Nigeria, ACN is virtually a mirror image of the old Action Group, and it speaks loudly of the retreat of Yoruba people into their old roles of providing political opposition at the center while keeping a firm grip on its region. The complete routing of the PDP in the South West is sufficient testimony to this, while the region’s overwhelming support for a Jonathan Presidency appears to be a reincarnation of the old Western and Northern Region rivalry. The surging force of the All Peoples Grand Alliance (APGA) in the Ibo territories which is threatening to obliterate the PDP is evidence of the Eastern Region’s return to the old NCNC days. The dominance of the PDP in the South South is evidence of the return of the politics of security and survival through alliances with the strong and powerful, a strategy perfected long ago by leaders of the minorities of the South South. In the old North, the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC) is looking more and more like the old NPC, while the dislocations between the far North and the Middle Belt suggests the reinvention of the old, tenuous relations between them. The dominance of the PDP in northern minority areas and the survival of the ANPP in the North East and some parts of the North reminds the nation of the days of the United Middle Belt Convention, the Borno Youth League and the NEPU as political groupings which gave the old North its heterogeneous and fairly advanced political character.

These are, of course, rather broad categorizations, but they do represent some factual and disturbing evidence that the Nigerian people are retreating into tribal enclaves. This, for a nation which has raised the pursuit of political survival and unity to the highest levels of its priorities, and even had to fight a civil war to preserve them, says much about the failure of political leadership in the past. We need to look for answers to the difficulties and challenges which have resulted in the fragmentation of the political terrain around primordial loyalties. We need to build bridges to these political enclaves which our recent political experiences and conduct have created, but we need strong, enduring political material and leadership to do this. First we need to ask whether Nigerians have lost faith in the Nigerian project, an endeavor which requires considerable trust and faith from citizens, and political maturity and competence from the leadership. Second, we need to scrutinize the quality of the leadership, and establish whether we only have leaders who can wear small shoes, and have therefore broken up the larger shoes left by our great leaders of the past in order to govern us. Third, we need to ask if our federation has a future as it is, or whether we need to re-visit our federal system to reflect contemporary dispositions of the Nigerian people. Forth, we need to ask whether, in the manner the PDP has governed this country in the last 12 years, it has not contributed to the emergence of primordial sentiments and loyalties. If we find the answer in the affirmative, the nation needs to hold the leadership solely responsible for the political crises we face, including the manner we seem to be drifting apart, and demand that it finds answers to these problems through purposeful, effective and all-encompassing governance strategies.

The current political tendencies which have exposed the nation’s structural weaknesses must be addressed boldly and comprehensively. The elections and the post election violence we witnessed are both the cause and the consequence of our weakening political foundations. Thousands of Nigerians are victims of this weakness, even as we speak, and many hundreds have lost their lives as a result. We cannot continue to live like this, with caricatures of each other in our minds, and tribal leaders calling the shots when we should be a stronger, and more united nation. If we are largely where we are today because of the 2011 elections, Nigerians have a legitimate right to fear what will happen before or after the 2015 elections. Those who have ears to hear should do so. Politics has brought Nigeria to its knees. We must not allow it to destroy our nation for ever.                      

CPC GOES TO COURT

On Friday 6^th of May 2011, the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC) asked the Court of Appeal, which is sitting in Abuja as the Presidential Election Tribunal to compel INEC to undertake some very sensitive tasks which have a direct bearing on the validity and credibility of the elections and which will be crucial to its position that the Presidential elections have been massively rigged. On Monday May 9^th, the CPC will file its petition challenging the validity of the elections, in conformity with the law which stipulates that all election petitions must be filed within 21 days of the poll.

In the ex-parté application filed by CPC’s lawyers on Friday 6^th of May, the CPC indicated its intention to examine the Direct Data Capture machines which INEC used for the registration of voters, and the ballot boxes and ballot papers used by INEC to return President Goodluck Jonathan as winner. The CPC also listed INEC itself and its Chairman, Professor Attahiru Jega, President Goodluck Jonathan and his Deputy, Namadi Sambo and all the 37 Resident Electoral Commissioners as respondents. The CPC told the Court that it had made unsuccessful efforts earlier to get INEC to release many sensitive electoral documents and equipment to it, hence its recourse the Court to compel the Commission to comply with its request.

It now appears that the CPC will challenge the Presidential elections in all the States of the Federation, and will raise issues around every element of the electoral process, from the registration of voters to the ballot papers and collated results. This will be the most comprehensive challenge to an election, and will involve a very detailed examination of biometric data to establish whether the elections were rigged through multiple voting as well as; an investigation of the entire balloting processes and  the appointment and deployment of all election officials. CPC plans to demonstrate, using the most comprehensive analysis of all voting processes, including forensic examination of ballot papers, that President Goodluck Jonathan did not win the Presidential elections.

General Muhammadu Buhari has kept his promise that he will not personally challenge the elections in court, but there is little difference between him and his party. The CPC’s challenge of the elections are therefore General Buhari’s challenge, and there is nothing wrong with the Party’s exercise of its right to challenge the election. What is significant is that the CPC, whose candidate, General Muhammadu Buhari received more than 12 million votes from Nigerians according to INEC, feels sufficiently aggrieved to challenge the Presidential elections result. In taking this step, the CPC is protecting the rights of all those who voted for the Party to establish to the last detail, and through the exploitation of all the avenues available for judicial redress, whether its candidate lost the elections fairly, or was rigged out. The Party is also strengthening the foundations of the Nigerian democratic system by ensuring that the electoral process is challenged to operate on the basis of the rules of fairness, transparency and credibility. It is also important to note that the Party’s decision to challenge the Presidential elections when its candidate has declined to do so is a welcome evidence of some level of its autonomy from General Buhari, even though its opponents will say that it is one and the same thing.        

When, in December last year, General Muhammad Buhari told a foreign media that he will not seek legal redress from any Court in the land in the event that he loses the elections, many people felt that the decision was the wrong one. Even while appreciating the frustrating experiences of the General in the Courts following the 2003 and 2007 elections, many Nigerians felt that to forfeit a vital step in the electoral process in advance, which was what the decision implied, was to short-change the electorate and the candidate himself. General Buhari’s decision, even before the elections, not to challenge a loss in court also portrayed him in a negative light for a number of reasons. If he, as an individual chooses not to go to Court, his supporters and party members have a right to challenge his loss if they feel it was undeserved. To draw the line at the declaration is to treat his candidature and the mandate of his party members as personal to him. For someone who says he is a democrat, this is wrong. The decision also reinforced the view in many quarters that General Buhari and the CPC are one and the same thing, and the views of millions of its members and supporters did not matter in crucial decisions he and his kitchen cabinet took. There was also the concern that without challenging a declared loss, the Party and the candidate could lose a major opportunity to win a victory at the Courts, no matter how badly Nigerians perceive our judicial process. Finally, many people were worried that General Buhari’s decision not to go to court could be interpreted to mean that his supporters should seek justice in any manner they chose. Some of his detractors have insinuated that some of the violent reactions of his supporters, which he condemned, may have been informed by their understanding that his declared loss was the end of the road for their  hopes that the elections will give them victory.

Now that the CPC has gone to Court to challenge the elections, and intends to do so in a most comprehensive manner, the nation can be assured that the electoral process will be thoroughly scrutinized as it should. The millions of people who voted for the CPC and General Buhari will have an opportunity to establish whether their candidate lost fairly, or was rigged out. All Nigerians will be assured that the April 2011 elections reflect the popular will or not. And our democratic system will be the better for it; while INEC itself may learn some valuable lessons in terms of its performance.

Now that the results of the elections are in the judicial domain, the Nigerian judiciary must rise to the occasion and do justice to the legitimate expectations of Nigerians that it will deal with all election petitions fairly and expeditiously. The nation is still counting the cost of the riots and mass killings which followed the Presidential elections. The general perception of the judiciary in the mind of the Nigerian public is not one it should be proud of. Now we have a very good opportunity to improve that image in the manner election petitions, not just the one involving the CPC’s Presidential candidate, are handled.   

BUILDING BRIDGES WITH THE FAR NORTH

The maneuverings within the PDP for positions and patronage are revealing some interesting trends which will have direct impact on the manner President Goodluck Jonathan intends to deal with various sections of the nation following an election that has thrown up new challenges for governance. There are reports that the PDP is involved in very intense negotiations and spirited jockeying for positions under its zoning principles, with two basic positions seeking to triumph. One position rests its case on the argument that President Jonathan’s victory was achieved without the far north, represented by the North West and North East zones, and therefore the plum positions, available to the PDP and government should not be allocated to the zones. Instead, due cognizance and reward should be accorded zones which substantially voted for him, that is, the South South, the South East, and North Central. The other position makes the case that the allocation of key positions should not be predicated on voting patterns during the Presidential elections done, as this will compound the problem of the President in terms of his ability to govern a nation which has shown palpable evidence of major divisions around his candidature and victory. This position argues that the far North needs to be effectively re-integrated into the political process by the manner in which the leadership rises above partisan divides and opportunistic pressures that will further alienate a vital section of the polity. It also makes the case that the far North actually substantially voted for President Jonathan, and gave him not only aggregate votes, but also the percentages he required to be declared winner by INEC. 

These debates within the PDP are pointers to a more complex issue which is at the heart of the problems which the national leadership needs to deal with in the next few weeks. This is the manner in which it intends to handle its electoral victory, and transform it into an effective tool for governance. The arguments about which zones should receive which positions under the PDP’s zoning principles are only symptoms of a deeper problem. This is the problem of building bridges between and within Nigerian communities in such a manner that the rifts which became obvious and visible after the elections are managed with maturity and very high levels of responsibility. Most Nigerian politicians see politics only in terms of reward and punishment. Winners, who would have invested virtually everything in a contest, take all; and losers not only lose everything, but their supporters are also punished for disloyalty to the victor in the elections. Particularly in the far north, many prominent PDP members and people perceived as their supporters are seething with anger and indignation over the attacks, losses and humiliations they received in the hands of mobs, most of whom appeared to have been supporters of the CPC. Many of these victims in the PDP now want their pound of flesh, not only in insisting that the authors and perpetrators of their indignity must be brought to book, but also in insisting that they receive no political largess in the dispensations which the Jonathan Presidency is in a position to make. In spite of the fact that in most of the States in the North where General Muhammadu Buhari defeated President Jonathan in the Presidential elections, we now have PDP Governors, there are hawks who see the zones in the far North as hostile to President Jonathan. In the political pecking order, they will argue therefore that these zones receive the least in patronage and the dividends of Jonathan’s victory.

In the South-South and the South East, as well as the North Central, there are strong pressures for commensurate rewards for support and loyalty to President Jonathan. These zones will claim to have been responsible for his victory, and will point to the riots and the mayhem which followed his declared victory in parts of the North as evidence of deep hostility to his Presidency, which should not be rewarded. Even the South West, which has no single PDP Governor, will claim that it facilitated the emergence of President Jonathan in the manner it sacrificed its own ACN Presidential candidate, Malam Nuhu Ribadu, so that President Jonathan can beat General Muhammadu Buhari in the South West. It will demand requisite appreciation and reward in the manner key positions in the Party and government will be disbursed.

At the centre of all these pressures, President Jonathan and his colleagues at the helm of affairs of the PDP will have to take some major decisions. They will have to decide how far they will go in acknowledging and rewarding loyalty; and how they intend to treat parts of the nation which voted against the PDP, and then went on rampage when it was declared winner. The setting up of a Panel to investigate the pre-election violence in Akwa Ibom State as well as the civil unrest in some States following the 2011 Presidential Election will hopefully settle the issue of dealing with the perpetrators of the destructions and the killings which followed the elections. But a Panel cannot provide political solutions to political problems, even if it addresses adequately the need to investigate and provide a basis for some action towards justice, law and order. The real work of rebuilding political bridges has to be undertaken by the political leadership. And this is where President Jonathan will decide whether he wants to be remembered as a Statesman or a politician. President Jonathan as a Statesman will resist the temptation to run a government strictly on the basis of votes cast for his victory. He will recognize the imperatives of re-integrating many sections of the country, and assuring the vast majority of the citizens who were, in fact, all victims of the mayhem that followed his election, that as Nigerians, they will form part of his constituency. He will resist the hawks who will argue that the far north will be best dealt with an iron fist, and that the free exercise of the rights of citizens from that part of the country to vote for candidates other than President Jonathan amounts to disloyalty which should be punished. 

The politician in Jonathan may attempt to build his administration around areas and zones which had supported his candidature and which voted for him. He will be tempted to consolidate, and hope to weaken the resistance around regions which voted against him. He may have his eyes on the next election, not on the next generation. He may achieve some immediate, short-term goals among a small clique of political appointees, but he would have lost a historic opportunity to turn the tide against him, and reclaim the lost ground in terms of the unity and survival of a democratic Nigeria. He will rule with the agenda of another political party, because if he treats the far north as a region undeserving of equal and adequate treatment, he will merely strengthen the opposition, and even punish the millions of PDP supporters in the region.

The recent elections, unlike any other in the past, have created massive problems which will require very delicate handling to solve. These are times requiring deep reflections on the genesis and nature of the problems which the elections have thrown up. Even as victors celebrate, they will do well to remember that while they contest for offices on partisan basis, they are elected as leaders of all the people. The areas where President Jonathan needs to accord the highest priority in terms of attention and resources are the very areas which appears to have turned their backs to them. Getting them back on board in terms of governance and securing the future unity of Nigeria may be the greatest challenge for President Jonathan, and the best legacy he could leave behind.     

THE FATE OF NATIONAL YOUTH SERVICE CORPS (N.Y.S.C)

The deliberate targeting of young Nigerians serving as National Youth Corps members in the north in the riots which followed the presidential elections is condemnable, but the nation should be wary of reacting in a manner which will amount to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. At the very least, the nation should review the events of the past which led to the death of young Nigerians whose only crime was that they answered the clarion call to serve their fatherland, in a sober mood that will do justice to their lives and the value of their service to Nigeria.

          The events which followed the presidential election of the 16^th of April will be permanently registered as symbols of the failure of our nation to manage complex developments which have major bearings on our lives. Within a few hours, many major towns, cities and even villages and hamlets went up in an orgy of mass killings, arson and unspeakable forms of violence, including rape and the burning and destruction of places of worship. Even before the results of the Presidential elections were announced, mobs, made up of mostly young people, went around beating up and burning residences of people identified with the PDP, or seen as sympathetic to it. Within a few hours almost the entire far north was aflame, and hundreds of innocent people, including those serving in the NYSC in Bauchi were killed. In Kaduna State the riots took a deadly and traditional pattern, with Christians and Muslims turning on each other and their places of worship. Hundreds more were killed in this State alone in an orgy of killings, the details of which will shock the nation and the world.   

          The young Nigerians who died in the service of their fatherland died alongside hundreds of other Nigerians whose only crimes were their political views, their faith or being in the wrong place at the wrong time. They died in service, and the nation should acknowledge this and treat them as heroes. They were involved in an exercise which is meant to secure the foundations of national unity and the development of democratic values and processes. Those who killed them in cold blood have achieved nothing, and they will be judged by God Almighty for their deeds.

          Since the death of the NYSC members, there have been calls from many quarters for the scrapping of the scheme. In the heat of the conflict, many State Governments made a public issue of the plight of many NYSC members who had not been hurt, in the manner they facilitated their evacuation. This further compounded the sense of loss and apprehension felt by parents and the communities which had young men and women in service in the northern States. It is beyond doubt that the fear and insecurity of these young men and women was politicized beyond the bounds of decency, even while accepting that all governments had a duty to protect citizens. 

          At the moment there are possibly thousands of NYSC members in their home states, having relocated on the instructions of their parents or their State Governors. We are yet to hear of any Governor from the north who has volunteered to transport these Corps members back to his State, and give them guarantees of their safety and security. The longer this situation subsists, the more the service will be damaged, and those advocating for its scrapping would have won the argument.

          The NYSC must not be allowed to be scrapped. Its ideals, in spite of massive political, social and demographic changes since its inception, are still valid. It represents one of the genuine avenues for fostering national unity, and securing from young Nigerians a commitment to serve their fatherland for one year in their lives. It allows young men and women from diverse backgrounds to live and work together in environments and cultures far removed from their own. It provides essentials skills and competence to many parts of the country which they will otherwise lack. It is a tool for creating employment opportunities and inculcating discipline and a sense of sacrifice among our young citizens.

          For these and many more reasons, the NYSC scheme should not be scrapped. Those who make the case for winding up the scheme fail to appreciate the fact that just merely scrapping it will amplify the signals that the nation cannot survive because citizens from some parts are unsafe in other parts. If young citizens cannot server their fatherland in every town and village far away from home and be assured of their safety and security, then other citizens will begin to question whether they should venture out as well. The fact is Nigeria has not degenerated to that level.

          These are very trying times for all leaders in Nigeria; but they are also times when bold steps should be taken to reclaim the grounds we lost. The Federal Government should make it clear that it has no plans to scrap the NYSC. The lives of all Corps members should henceforth be insured, unless they choose otherwise. All State Governors should assume direct responsibility for transporting back all Corps members who relocated from their States, and give them firm assurances and guarantees for their safety and security. Governors who are milking the misfortunes of these young people for political reasons should stop, because they are eroding the foundations of our national unity. If all governments cannot protect the lives and livelihood of a few thousand young men and women in national service, it will be legitimate to ask what the future is for a united Nigeria. But it does not have to reach this level, if steps are taken to save the NYSC.

WINNING THE PEACE IN KADUNA STATE

The sheer magnitude of the problems thrown up by the riots and the mass killings which followed the Presidential elections in Kaduna State will intimidate the bravest and most clear-headed leadership. Yet they have to be confronted and dealt with, because every day they live with us, they compound the difficulties in the search for short and long term solutions. These solutions will not be easy to find, given the complicated nature of the conflict, and in particular, given the fact that a solution in one area is quite likely to trigger a problem in another. This, unfortunately, is the lot of Governor Patrick Ibrahim Yakowa and the Federal Government, who are expected by the millions of citizens of the State and other Nigerians to find solutions to these problems which have very deep roots and very sensitive dimensions. These moments are what leaders exist for: to find the courage and wisdom to lead the search for solutions and lasting peace in times of crises. Every citizen who means well for this country will pray that answers are found quickly to the many problems confronting governance and the citizens of Kaduna State.

          The biggest casualty of the recent elections in Kaduna State is public  security and peace in the State. The biggest challenge is therefore to win them back. In immediate terms, government must focus on reducing current levels of tension, and improving the standards of security of life and property. The State government may need to consider lifting the curfew, or substantially reducing it, if for no other reason, than to test whether there is indeed a security threat which the curfew is meant to eliminate. Security agencies now know flashpoints and other areas which are vulnerable to security breaches and failure; so security personnel could be deployed there. The point is that the curfew compounds the siege mentality among the population and reinforces the fear that there are still major threats to security waiting for the curfew to be lifted, to strike.

          The government also needs to deploy all its resources, and in addition requires massive support from the Federal Government to address the problems of the refugees sheltering in many camps across the State. It is important that as many of them as possible are resettled or assisted to relocate from the refugee camps in the next few days. The continued existence of these camps is both a drain on government resources; as well as evidence that government is unable or incapable of dealing with the symptoms of underlying insecurity in the State. The people in these camps have suffered horrendous losses in lives of loved ones, or possessions. No amount of compassion or resources deployed  to them will be wasted. Government needs to actively engage them, and the many communities into which they may relocate or locate back into, to settle them without delay.

          The issue of detainees from the riots and the mass killings also needs to be addressed with some flexibility and firmness. It is safe to assume that there are hundreds of people, mostly young persons, being detained in police stations and military barracks awaiting trial. The stories of torture and death among these detainees, and the delays in arraigning them or taking other decisions on their fate is likely to gain them sympathies in many quarters. Already the clamor for some sort of general amnesty is gaining ground; and yet the same people demanding for pardon for young people who burnt down houses of people who belong to a particular political party may oppose the same treatment for those responsible for the mass killings in Zonkwa and other parts of the State. This is the danger in allowing narrow public opinion to pre-empt a firm and fair decision from government. Perhaps it might be useful if government considers releasing many of the detainees on bail to responsible citizens pending a decision on their fate. This way, it will limit the damage being done to its determination that people who kill or maim or destroy other people’s property must be made to answer for their actions. In any case, government needs to be sensitive to protecting the rights and privileges of all detainees, including their rights to be protected against torture and illegal detention. 

          There is also the very difficult decision on whether government intends to inquire into the immediate and remote causes of the riots and the mass killings and who did them  or instigated them or participated in them. It will be difficult to see how government can avoid some sort of enquiry into how the riots were triggered, and who is responsible for the killings in Zonkwa, in Kafanchan, in Zaria and Kaduna, in Soba and many other parts of the State. With every new day, communities are likely to retreat into protecting their own in these shameful deeds; and hearts will harden. Yet many people will want to know who targeted their homes for destruction and why; who attacked and killed them in hundreds and why; and how an entire State can be caught up in a frenzy of killings and arson within twenty four hours. The magnitude of the conflict is such that it cannot be swept under the carpet. Yet either an administrative or judicial inquiry is likely to be swamped in the same source of the conflict: distrust and suspicion and a pervasive sense that no justice or fairness can come from the other side, and that the government always has an agenda against a particular community. In the next few days, the State and Federal government need to make public how they intend to handle the issue of finding answers which have been asked by many who lost lives and limbs, by the loss of  hundreds of millions worth of destroyed property; by the thousands of refugees or displaced persons; and by the heightened  levels of distrust and hate in the hearts and minds of ordinary citizens. Whatever decision the Governments arrive at, it must meet the most minimal standards of acceptability and transparency by all sections.

          In the longer term, Governor Patrick Ibrahim Yakowa must rise above partisanship divides and win the peace for the people of the State. It is obvious that the pattern of voting has reflected the very deep divide between the north and south of the State. He must be a statesman, not a politician, and resist the temptation to satisfy a section of the State which voted for him; or his partymen who worked for his victory. There are many PDP people who want their pound of flesh after a hard-fought battle against an opposition, and many days  in hiding after they were chased out of their burning houses. There will also be many people from the southern part of the State who may want a government that will reward their support and loyalty for Governor Yakowa’s election; and who will make the case that the north does not deserve sympathy or support from the Governor. There are yet others who will be scared away from assisting by the intensity of the bitterness and rancour which is likely to characterize the jockeying for the attention of the government at this time. Whole sections of the State are likely to stay aloof, and thus reinforce the dangerous divide in which citizens presently live.

          Governor Yakowa can win the trust and confidence of the bulk of the citizens if he does not allow the hawks to hijack his government. He should be a strong leader who should reach out to every citizen and community; who should build bridges across communities and heal wounds; who should be compassionate without being weak; and a leader who will be his own man, and not the product of a partisan divide.

          The task of rebuilding the trust, peace and security which the citizens of Kaduna state and the government worked so hard to achieve in the last seven years will be made easier or more difficult by the manner Governor Patrick Ibrahim Yakowa handles his new mandate in the next few days. He has many difficult decisions to make, and in spite of a lot of goodwill from many quarters, they will be his to make. Of all the decisions to make, the most important one which will help him to earn the trust and confidence of most of the citizens of the State is how he deals with the issues which have been thrown up by the post-election violence. To make it more difficult, he has no luxury of time to make some of the most difficult of these decisions. But he has to make them; and in making them, he will be sending a signal to the people of Kaduna State in terms of what type of Governor he is going to be.        

THE WORLD WITHOUT OSAMA BIN LADEN

The US Government says it has killed Osama Bin Laden, and has thrown his body into the sea. Until there is evidence contrary, it has to be believed that this is the end of the life of a man who, perhaps more than any other in the last twenty years, has changed the nature of international politics and security, and whose impact will continue to be felt across the world for a long time. The world after Bin Laden will continue to be structured around his vision, mission and activities, and the international community will benefit immensely from a deeper understanding of the conditions which made it possible for Osama bin Laden to emerge and wield the type of influence he did. 

Osama bin Laden represented different symbols to different parts of the world. For the US and its allies, he represented a deadly threat and a potent challenge to their dominance of the world. He represented a violent alternative of international diplomacy and maintenance of a world structured by massive inequality in power and economic resources. He represented naked use of violence on a large and extensive scale to achieve political ends. He represented an insidious and dangerous threat to the lives of ordinary citizens, to their livelihood, and to their lifestyles. He represented the sacrifices of countless young men and women who were willing to die while killing hundreds or thousands of other people, the vast majority of whom are only guilty of being citizens of countries over which he declared wars. He represented the trigger to the war in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and the tensions and skirmishes in most of Asia and Africa. He represented the unfamiliar face of Islam which defies the West, and defines it categorically and openly as an enemy to be fought as a duty by every Muslim.

In the Muslim world, Osama will represent a major paradox. His religion of Islam defines clearly the conditions for waging war or killing people, particularly those who are innocent. Yet almost the entire Muslim people live in countries that are among the poorest in the world, and are substantially victims of a world in which the western powers did as they wish, and the poor nations suffered as they must. Islam and Muslim nations are dominated by non-Islamic forces, and these forces will not allow a fair and equitable resolution of the middle-east situation, or the removal of corrupt and compliant leadership which oppresses people in the Muslim world. Burdened by poverty and political impotence, Muslims, according to Bin Laden, could only achieve salvation if they fought the Western powers, or, more specifically, the United States. The image of a potential victory was imprinted on the minds of many young Muslims through the spectacular impact of events such as the bombings of the Twin Towers and other violent acts targeted at high profile objects and people.

For the world’s poor, Bin Ladin represented a serious dilemma. His message of the use of terror to achieve political ends satisfied a small minority which felt the pains of the arrogance of the rich and the powerful, and the hopelessness of a life without prospects for change. Yet the bulk of humanity abhors violence, whether it is the violence of the oppressor or the oppressed. The world of the weak and poor also appreciated the futility of taking on a powerful enemy by killing its citizens indiscriminately.

For billions of other people across the world, Osama Bin Ladin represents the reasons why life became less secure; why traveling became a very hazardous and tedious affair; why virtually all governments spend more and more of their resources on improvements in security; and why there is greater distrust between the world’s Muslim and non-Muslim community. For every young Muslim who saw a hero in Osama, there are many more who swallowed the stereotype of Islam as an intolerant religion, a threat to all non-Muslims; and of all Muslims as potential or actual terrorists.

Whatever lessons different parts of the worlds derive from the life and times of Osama Bin Ladin, it will be a great mistake to assume that the world will find lasting peace and security because he is dead. The failure or refusal of the West to fairly and decisively resolve the middle east situation on the basis of justice for the Palestinian people and security for Israel will continue to feed the anger of the world’s Muslims. So long as this issue remains unresolved, the Muslim world will have an uneasy relationship with the West. The poverty in much of the Muslim world, and the existence of corrupt and unrepresentative leadership supported by the West is also a major source of anger and resentment. It must be addressed by supporting the current mass uprisings sweeping across the entire Arab and Muslim world. The West needs  to re-engage the Muslim world as a respected equal in a dialogue on co-existence, and not as a conquered enemy which is both feared and despised. Muslims across the world need to look deeply at the sources of their weaknesses vis-à-vis the non-Muslim world, and identify strategies which will allow Muslims to live in this world without threats to their faith and without having to sacrifice their young people to perpetual conflicts.

Osama Bin Ladin is both loved and despised by many millions of Nigerians. With his death, we should expect to see both sadness among those who  saw in him a symbol of resistance against anti-Islamic forces, as well as joy among who saw him as representing intolerance and terror on a grand scale. Muslims will know that every life will taste of death, and Osama will be judged for his deeds by Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta’ala. Non-Muslims will be well advised to work with Muslims to understand why Osama bin Ladin represents hope and inspires many people to give their lives and take those of others, because our nation and the world will be a better and safer place only if we all work to create an environment which encourages mutual respect and a holistic development for every citizen.