Ondo as a question

“The secret is to gang up on the problem, not on each other”. Thomas Stallkamp

Now that INEC says the voters in Ondo State have preferred APC’s Akeredolu over PDP’s Jegede, it would appear safe to indulge in a whole pile of speculations that had been waiting to ventilate. After the predictable loss of Edo State a fews weeks ago, Ondo was to settle a number of begging questions  which are at the heart of the  struggles to win and keep some territories before  many epic battles related to 2023.We can dispose of the less speculative questions, such as whether INEC is improving its management of stand-alone elections. Edo was an anti-climax for those who thought all punches will be allowed to settle arguments over the dominant character of Edo politics. It must be true that there are elections that are very difficult to rig, even with the combined powers of a bent electoral manager and a legion of  field influencers. Ondo was always going to be a closer call, Edo having buried a few ambitions long before the elections. In any case, field fixers had a field day in Ondo buying votes, but on the whole, you could say that INEC Chairman Mahmoud has improved his case for a renewal if those responsible for it think he can at best remain substantially neutral in  2023.

There are a few more fairly incontestable matters arising from Ondo. Elections mean a lot more to elected leaders than the security of citizens. Close to 40,000 security personnel spent a few days in the State to create the impression that the government is very serious about stealing mandates. On the day the elections held, thousands of people were marching in towns and cities against police brutality and criminality. In the few days that thousands of security personnel spent in the state, only God knows how many villagers up North were invaded, robbed and raped by bandits, or how many people were kidnapped across the country. It is now safe to assume that power is the only goal of politics for our politicians, not the quality of governance. There is also disappointment for those who had hoped that  an option to PDP and APC can be procured for Nigerians. The votes in Ondo suggest that our people are till captives of two parties that have so little to distinguish between them that governors can change parties a few weeks before elections and still win, and seemingly popular politicians can be rejected if they attempt to ride to power on unfamiliar platforms.

From this point on, we move to the interesting realm of speculation, so feel free to disagree. To start with whose victory was Ondo? No, not the re-elected governor, but the camps that have emerged to make the civil war in the South West APC a low-intensity conflict until Edo. Edo was said to be the prize for the forces that are ranged against Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, and was secured with considerable internal subversion from a region with considerable stake in his failures to be sole landlord. It is a tussle with considerable risks for all parties. How much ground can APC lose to be able to establish that it is not the exclusive playground of the Jagaba? At what point does it become self-inflicted damage to the young(er) turks bent on re-making the political framework of the South West without the footprints of Tinubu? Presumably, both camps will claim credit over Akeredolu’s victory, although some  identifiable hands showed in the  contest. Tinubu will heave a sigh of relief and claim that APC is solid enough in the South West to support his ambition. His internal opposition will be content with a tough  victory, because a loss of Ondo will substantially alter the balance of forces against all camps in the long term. PDP will rue a loss, but its performance will give it the confidence that the South West has preserved its basic character: friendly to APC, but not hostile to PDP.

There are bigger stakes in the outcome. If APC is only precariously balanced in the South West, what are the chances that the region can lay a credible claim to the right to field its presidential candidate for the 2023 contest? Both Asiwaju and his formidable opposition rely on two major reasons why the presidential ticket should go southwest. One, it can lay claim to evident loyalty to the party. Two, it is South, and in all probability, a southern candidate will be fielded by the party. The only question is, should it trust an aging and internally-weakened Asiwaju with the ticket, or go for self-proclaimed  bridge-builders, people who want to change the basic character of Yoruba politics? The latter worry that Asiwaju could fail to get the ticket, and the region could fail to get the number two position as well. Asiwaju would appear to be in a weaker position than this rainbow opposition. He is substantially caged in a fraction of the South West, and in spite of his reportedly stupendous war chest, governors in the region and even Abuja are reportedly matching him and are uncomfortable with the prospect of a retreat  of the Yoruba to a regional island.

Ondo could be cold comfort for Tinubu if the stories that Abuja is contemplating fielding a serving minister from the South East or even President Goodluck Jonathan as APC presidential candidates are anywhere near the truth. His sharpened instincts should advise him not to discountenance the rumour. Sourcing an APC candidate from the South East could be credited as an unusually sharp thinking on the part of the presidency. It could be the seal on a relationship that has not bubbled with warmth recently on the part of President Buhari, and may confirm rumoured disquiet and discomfort by many people close to the President over the prospects of a Tinubu presidency. For those who oppose him in his own backyard, preventing him getting the ticket is a major goal, but the biggest goal is a Yoruba candidate who an unite the South West and convince the rest of Nigeria to trust him with the presidency. The Jonathan angle sounds too much like poor fiction, but it could serve the objective of hinting at how far Buhari’s people want to take the ticket away  from the South West.

The basic question to ask is the degree to which Ondo helps the design of the South West to be substantially involved in post-2023 Nigeria. At this stage, you have to ask how much the  state  of the whole  South West aids the clamour for a southern president in 2023.If it has designs to partner with the other two  southern zones to build a solid alliance that should convince the North to hands-off the presidency in 2023, those designs are not visible. Competing with the South East  and South South for a southern president will leave it open to greater damage and substantially at the mercy of northern politicians and voters. No southern candidate on any platform will make much headway unless he has huge support from the North. The problem is, most  Northern politicians and voters   show no inclination to cede their  right to compete and support a Northerner  for the presidency in 2023. Beyond the polite suggestions from some politicians  that equity and national survival  make a strong case for rotation in both parties, as well as dire threats and frightening scenarios over what will follow a failure to engineer a southern president in 2023, very few people bother to consider the reality that all Nigerian  voters will have substantial freedom regarding who to vote for, and many may not be impressed by arguments that their votes must go to pre-determined candidates.

SARS: From Policing to Governance

“A tree breaks, that takes all the force of the wind”. African proverb.

 President Buhari has been stirred into what are, going his standards, extraordinary activities  by  popular outrage at the activities of the Special Anti Robbery Squad (SARS). He had meetings with the Inspector-General of Police, decided  to scrap SARS, reorganize the police around its mandate and committed  to investigate its activities. The special broadcast over the agitations will resonate far beyond those in the streets and others who have long given up on the idea that President Buhari feels the slightest need to account to Nigerians. As we speak, however, these gestures appear only to spur the agitators and many other interests with their own designs and grievances against his administration. 

It is quite likely that this administration will have to deal with one of the biggest crisis to confront it in its more than six years. It now has to deal with an assortment of opposition that will confront it with a familiar dilemma that many leaders across the world had confronted. It is crisis triggered by  popular anger and driven by inept management resulting in more anger  until it is resolved in a number of many possible ways, depending on the disposition of leaders and the strength of the resistance. It is particularly tragic that the very instrument that the Nigerian state will respond with is also the source of the grievance. The harder the police leans on protesters, the more it validates the original sin that it is basically anti-people and must be resisted with stronger resolve. The administration can offer more concessions, but these are likely to feed the resistance even more. The plural nature of the interests taking on the administration will make it very difficult to negotiate a resolution that will bring these protests to an end. Stronger muscle by the state could tip the balance of sympathy against it even more dangerously, as other interests join in a feast on an administration that has been weakened.

It is not entirely academic to state that this crisis was avoidable. It is important to state this because the failure to deal with policing and security matters with a strong resolve by President Buhari under whose watch national security as a whole took a turn for the worse now make it necessary to look for responses that address past failures and current  challenges. This administration did not invent SARS. In fact, you could even credit it with some effort at improving its severely damaged image, although these efforts were largely cosmetic. Nor should it take blame for armed robbery, cultism, fraud and all manner of crimes that sucked in  an already compromised police institution into the type of muck that make it impossible to tell the criminal from the law enforcer. SARS was the response of choice in communities that had paid huge prices for lawlessness and criminality. Over the years, its tactics became less about good policing and more about achieving results at all cost. In a nation with poor measuring mechanisms, it has always been difficult to evaluate SARS in terms of its mandate. But is was relatively easy to finger it for setting its own standards, operating with shocking levels of impunity and the impression that the citizen and communities as a whole must pay for the existence of criminals, particularly those criminals that showed no mercy or remorse for hurting the innocent.

The truth, however, is that SARS is a microcosm of the Nigeria Police, and it makes no sense to speak about reorganizing the police to handle the original and legitimate mandate of SARS. It is important to remind the nation that it has one and only one federal police with roughly 450,000 men and women serving 200 million people. It is poorly trained, poorly remunerated, burdened by corruption and facing  a formidable array of criminals  who see the police as basically competitors for the benefits of crime, and an indifferent or hostile citizenry that had never believed that the police was its best friend. The policemen and women who will replace SARS personnel will be pooled from the same police, and former SARS operatives will be redeployed into a  police force to disappear and place their experiences and mindsets at their own service, narrowing the margin between police and the criminal.

These protests will demand a lot more than President Buhari is offerring. They will demand the heads of the leadership of the police and more heads of people that are failing to protect the nation. Worse, they are opening up new sources of worry in the misfortunes of communities in mostly northern part of the country who had, in bits and pieces, demanded that President Buhari protected them, particularly in his own home state. The protests, and the reactions of the government to them so far open up deep wounds and they will have different champions in the north to demand higher levels of concern and action against the Boko Haram insurgency, run-away banditry and kidnapping. To ignore northern demands for more decisive action against the bloodletting in many communities will bring out into streets people with little tradition for protesting against power, but it will be unwise to downplay the feelings of a people who were resigning to being locked out until they see a door ajar.

This is the time when President Buhari should act with some decisiveness and wisdom. There are many interests escorting this campaign and protests, and they have smelt blood. Many of these interests have a patently political agenda, and all of them target additional damage to the image and credibility of President Buhari’s administration. His choices in response are severely limited. He needs bold moves to remove the steam from these protests and show the degree to which he understands the fury behind genuine anger and mischief from opportunists. First, he must now accept that the people he had trusted to defend and protect the Nigerian citizen and nation have proved incapable, so he should replace them with others who show a promise to do better. In this instance, it will be difficult to make a good case for the exclusion of the IGP among Service Chiefs who should be relieved of their jobs. Second, the President should set up a judicial panel to investigate operations and complaints against SARS. Three, he should set up a high-powered and inclusive committee to advise on improving the effectiveness and standards of professionalism, particularly accountability, of the police.

Four, he should  accept to work with the National Assembly and citizens to examine the utility of amending the constitution to provide for state police, and how these should work with appropriate standards to serve and protect Nigerians. Five, he should reorganize all government agencies and their operations to make improvements in their impact on youth unemployment. Six, he should bring the ASUU strike to an end immediately and assist tertiary institutions with what they need to resume teaching in the next few weeks. Seven, he should create a forum which will include governors, traditional rulers, policing and security agencies, civil society and other persons with experience and insights into security to advise on how banditry and kidnappings in the North should be brought to an end. Eight, he should change his tendency to create unhealthy distance between him and the horrific conditions under which many communities live. He has to cultivate higher levels of empathy and sympathy for the plight of citizen who suffer because the people he has trusted to serve and protect them have failed to do so. Nine, he should re-visit his standards of accountability and responsibility to the Nigerian people. He cannot continue to govern through people he has entrusted with massive responsibility who are failing him and the nation, but stay on the job because he thinks his responsibility stops at their appointments only.

It is very important that President Buhari does not play further into the hands of these protests. This is an opportunity for him to overhaul his government sufficiently to kill the fire that will rage even more fiercely, as well as address genuine grievances. There are too many jolly riders in his administration, and he is poorly-served by the lack of quality advise on politics and governance. There are interests in the protesting multitudes that want to see an even weaker Nigerian state so that criminality can stretch its legs. What is needed to defeat them is clear-headed thinking and not more force against the protests.

 

 

 

Restructuring: A Rising Tide

“Reforms are less to be dreaded than revolutions, for they cause less reaction”. Justice Darling

There was a hint of exasperation in the Presidency’s response to the rising demands for restructuring and threats at the failure to do so. Media was awash with a warning from President Buhari to ‘agitators’ to cease and desist giving him timelines to either do one thing or another or risk the nation’s breakup. Apparently, Pastor Enoch Adeboye, General Overseer of the Redeemed Christian Church of God’s comment last week hit a raw nerve when he was reported to have said:” It is either we restructure, or we break up. You don’t have to be a prophet to know that. That is certain- restructure or we break up.” Spokesman Garba Shehu said such comments are unpatriotic, unhelpful and unwarranted, and the administration will not be pressured to take a decision when it is dealing with insecurity and a pandemic.

The Presidency did reveal that it has its own designs on dealing with the clamour to re-visit the basic structures of the nation. Malam Shehu said: ”The president as an elected leader under this constitution will continue to work with patriotic Nigerians through and in line with the parliamentary  processes to finding solutions to structural and other impediments to the growth and wellbeing of the nation and its people”. Apparently he is referring to the call by the Senate for public inputs into another attempt to address major weaknesses in the design and operation of the nation’s constitution, a call that has been roundly criticised as a familiar dead end. Presumably, this is the only channel approved by the presidency, and breaches will continue to be punished with press releases that reek of desperation and frustration that these demands are not dying down.

The problem for the administration, and there are many, is that the demand for restructuring are gaining ground from a wide spectrum of groups and interests, and many are literally within reach. Last week, the nation watched a clumsy attempt to launder the Vice President’s message to a Church activity, delivered by the Secretary to Government of the Federation, which made the case for rebuilding the nation’s foundations. As a pastor in RGGC, the same Church headed by Adeboye, his message was couched in biblical language and symbolism, but there was no doubt that he was appealing for greater commitment to address gaping holes in our existence as a nation. Those who thought the Vice President pastor was showing leadership and required levels of responsibility in acknowledging the existence of serious problems were taken aback by the disclaimer and attempt to distance the comments from the rising tide in support of restructuring.

Chairman of the APC Governors’ Forum, Ekiti Governor Kayode Fayemi also insisted the party has not abandoned the restructuring agenda it made a commitment to before 2015.”Nobody wants  Nigeria to break up. They only want Nigeria to work for us….We must confront our reality as a federation. The current structure is supportive of a unitarist model. The state structure for now is problematic. There is need to move towards devolution, not only of functions, but also of resources.” As a sign of commitment, he said the committee they had set up  on restructuring under chairmanship of Kaduna State Governor, Nasir el-Rufai has submitted its report, and it will be forwarded to the legislature as input into its review exercise. Governors are a powerful group in Nigeria, so both their inputs and powers over state legislators who have defined roles in approving constitutional amendments are immense.

By the day, new voices are being raised in support of restructuring, and they range from those which define it in terms of demands to be met or “their people” will walk out of Nigeria, to those who believe a major review of the constitution particularly in areas where the federal system represents major sources of concern and conflict will suffice. Why then, we must ask, is this issue so vexing for the administration? The vast majority of Nigerians will not support  breakup of the nation. They realize that no one’s particular version of restructuring will triumph over all others. No region’s definition of restructuring will be acceptable by all, unless it speaks to the interests of the entire nation. Most of those seriously involved in pushing the restructuring agenda recognize that it will have to involve considerable negotiation and a willingness to work through many strategies. Most groups also recognize that there are many stakeholders who will aid or frustrate the processes of a major review. These include the administration, politicians and groups  that occupy the fringes of political opinion on the future of Nigeria.

Perhaps one answer to the question lies in the possibility that the Buhari administration believes that calls for restructuring are targeted at it as a reminder of its failures. In the event that this assumption is correct (and its reactions to date suggest that this is the case), it stands accused of two additional failures. One is that it is a poor student of history. Nigeria has always been a work in progress, and it has gone through multiple mutations from many sources and motives. Restructuring is in the nation’s DNA, and demands for it will last for as long as the nation lasts. For the records, we are not alone here. Most nations in the world have had to go through major changes in their structures and systems, and even some of the oldest nations are still grappling with basic questions regarding the manner their countries are structured. Nations have fought wars, split under horrifying circumstances, spent decades fighting to settle disputes about identities, resources or systems. A second failure of the administration lies in its failure to distinguish between governments and the nation. Governments are at specific points in history, placed in charge of destinies of nations, but they never replace nations. Criticising administrations is not unpatriotic. Even language that offends the manner governments draw the lines on responsibility is not subversive or unpatriotic.

Virtually all the groups I am part of in this attempt to re-visit our structures and systems have very clear ideas about where they draw lines. They do not include secessionists or groups that threaten the nation’s future as united, working and just. They recognize that options exist for many groups, but some are illegitimate and will be resisted. They are concerned that an obstinate, ill-informed insistence that the foundations of the nation are basically sound, save for the rattlings of elderly noisemakers, will continue to breed desperation and unwarranted hostility from Nigerians looking for answers. Most important, they recognize the imperative of a genuine scrutiny and remedy of some of our basic constitutional and political limitations as the best strategy for caging opportunistic irredentists and latter-day champions of chaos and confusion.

It is important to assure governments and major stakeholders in the future of the country that calls for restructuring represent responsible and constructive inputs into resolving some of the nation’s current limitations and assuring that it rests on a stronger foundation to deal with a future. This is not the same as begging governments to “allow” restructuring to take place. Responses to the clamour to undertake substantial amendments of the constitution, reform of  electoral processes and addressing obvious weaknesses in operations of the Nigerian state need to be mature and informed. By the same token, responsible citizens who desire to achieve genuinely productive goals must recognize that governments have statutory responsibilities that make them major players or spoilers, and they have interests and sensitivities that can make substantial difference in the quest for serious changes in the governance framework.

There is some room for more productive collaboration between those pushing for meaningful restructuring and government. First, though, both sides have to move from their current positions. Hostile and belligerent language and threats are as damaging as name-calling and insults. Second, there must be very clear understanding that all changes must be predicated on a recognition of the legitimacy of the status quo until it is amended; that all organs of government need to be accorded due cognizance in terms of their roles in reforms and amendments; and citizens have a right to organize and demand that those with responsibility also accord them the respect they deserve. The demands for more substantive changes in the manner the nation is structured and functions will not go away. Indeed, they could very well be the basic stuff of the contests to political offices in 2023.That will make them merely opportunistic and extend the nation’s problems and uncertainties to very dangerous points.

While I was away

“Not to know is bad. Not to wish to know is worse”. African proverb.

Loyal readers of this great paper with fairly long memories will remember me as a weekly columnist who took a break. It turned out to be a lot longer than I planned, but I am glad  for the opportunity to be back. I did some research on the our circumstances as a nation between the last time I was here (October 2014) and where we stand today. It is in incredible how much can change in six years. I needed the break to help defeat President Jonathan and make General Muhammadu Buhari President after three previous attempts. Like millions of fellow Nigerians, I believed that the Jonathan administration had run its course, and a lame, confused and rapacious administration that was losing the war against Boko Haram and corruption needed to give way for a tough and clean leader to lead the nation to reclaim its security and integrity of public office.

I did get a front row in a successful campaign, and the euphoria that followed the election of President Buhari was grounded in profound its significance. An incumbent administration was defeated for the first time. The defeated President did not challenge the result. The North was politically united in choosing Buhari over Jonathan, an unprecedented event with huge symbolism. The nation had a seamless transition from fear and bitterness to relief and confidence in our capacity to grow and develop our fledgling democratic ambitions. To be sure, we swept a lot under the carpet. The conduct of the 2015 election was never interrogated by the usual heavy-handed judicial role in deciding the legitimacy of mandates, so there was no opportunity to establish where the electoral process was weak or strong. It was good enough that its outcome did not repeat the 2011 bloodletting on a grander scale. It is very likely that a few behind-the-scene understandings were given and received regarding the future of key persons in the outgoing administration which may have oiled a historic friction-free transition.

So we moved on, flush with confidence that insecurity, corruption and an economy with major limitations were about to get a deserved treatment under a tough President Buhari. We were substantially wrong. Buhari turned out to be indecisive, hesitant and dangerously looking as if power was a end in itself, and governance was all about the personal convenience of the leader. Boko Haram, Jonathan’s ultimate nemesis, was pushed back to its originating base, where it adjusted to a role of a constant threat that would defy Buhari and our beleaguered armed forces even as we speak. Within a year, a few of us in the winning party began to raise our voices at gaping holes between promises and results. By the end of the second year, it was clear that Buhari was not the solution. Indeed, he looked more like the problem. If he could not dramatically improve on the much-maligned standards of Jonathan, in the context of the elections that brought him to power, he could only be worse.

Me, I jumped ship, left the party and resumed a familiar role as a critic. This time, the fightback was a more vicious. People like me, the din from the chorus line will chant, would only criticise Buhari because he did not make us Ministers. We were ignorant of the rot he had inherited. We were closet PDPians, people against whom the tap of corrupt wealth had been switched off. It was particularly louder in the North, until the loud drums celebrating the infallibility of Buhari began to quieten down as the fight against corruption took on a decidedly political hue; poverty and insecurity became more pronounced; a nation that had shown a promise for more quality in the co-existence of its communities began to drift apart owing to incompetence and indifference in managing its plural character; and the nation and the world saw through the false front that advertised the Buhari administration as a solution.

The nation had a chance to retire a tried and failed administration, but did not. Two elderly northerners with huge baggages squared up in 2019.The votes gave Buhari a second term, and an invaluable opportunity to make amends, particularly for northern voters who made the difference with numbers and faith that more time was needed to realize the Buhari magic. The votes were right, the voters were wrong. Everything that was wrong in his first term got worse in his second term. The voices against the failure to stem new threats to citizens, in addition to the survival and even resurgence of Boko Haram, a crumbling economy and a leadership run by people you can count on one hand gave the impression of a leadership that had no plans or intention to change its style or substance. You got the distinct impression that President Buhari  was deeply averse to change of any type, a betrayal of the widespread  belief that the promise to affect positive change in the lives of citizens and the fortunes of a nation fighting on many fronts was singularly responsible for his two victories.

Things only get worse when leadership  does  little or nothing to address serious problems , or locks itself up and governs with tired statements from hired hands. And they did. The nation’s security challenges grew. A pandemic wrought havoc on an economy that was hanging precariously on export of crude oil whose prices collapsed. One or two key players in a severely limited administration died. Bandits, kidnappers, robbers, sundry criminals in urban centers and insurgents took up more space in the lives of citizens. Elderly Nigerians raised voices against each other and began to issue dire threats on the future of the nation unless major changes in its structure are not affected. Groups and regions drifted apart, the young vented its frustrations through social media in such unrestrained manner that saner Nigerians would switch off the possibility of a future of the nation with this generation.

Now I resume at a very sad moment in the life of a country I took a break to help fix. I always had an identity, but now my identity is more pronounced. My name alone determines responses to what I write.I am also more sensitive to the vulnerability of my identity, my region and a nation I still have strong faith in. I am active in geo-politics, the type that allows you to work with elders from all parts of Nigeria today, and quarrel like perfect strangers tomorrow. I am part of an emerging consensus that it is dangerous to assume the survival of our nation only on the say-so of a few people in leadership positions who cannot say anything else to citizens operating under major stresses that make softer options attractive. I am part of many initiatives to re-visit our foundations as a nation; lower the hostility against each other; re-invent dialogue and negotiation as political tools and improve elite cohesion and popular support for serious changes in the manner the nation is structured, governed and secured. I find myself in the midst of a raging debate on what is the right approach to amending the constitution; which part of the country should “produce” the next President;  if there will be an election in 2023 if the nation does not restructure, and other weighty issues.

      Now that I am back, I hope to share these with you.

 

Why the North is failing

 “A large chair does not make a king”. African proverb

By the time you read this, the ancient Emirate of Zazzau may or may not have a new Emir to succeed the late Alhaji Shehu Idris who had been Emir for 45 years. It entirely depends on what the State Governor, Nasir el-Rufai decides to do. The process of selecting a new Emir of Zazzau has a fairly-innocent familiarity to it, although it is activated only rarely. Descendants of former Emirs from the four ruling houses who are interested in becoming Emirs submit themselves for scrutiny and evaluation by four Kingmakers who are known by their offices and the responsibilities they perform. Kingmakers then submit a shortlist to the political authority (in contemporary terms, the State Governor). He in turn chooses who becomes Emir from the shortlist, presumably after further vetting and scrutiny.

This is where the process loses its innocence. The decision regarding who becomes Emir is fundamentally political. From the beginning of the last century when northern Emirs lost out to colonialism, they became essentially its agents and props, serving at its pleasure and providing a cheap and effective mode of control over large populations through the elaborate structures it had used to govern pre-colonial communities. In sixty years of colonial rule, colonial ( political)authority made it clear who was in charge and what the roles of Emirs were, removing quite a few for disloyalty or incompetence in implementing major colonial policies. A few Emirs emerged owing only to tinkering with the process and flexing of political muscles, but generally succession was confined to royalty, and all the outer trimmings of power were preserved. Emirs (and Chiefs) wielded delegated powers and served the purpose of creating the illusion of continuity in periods of great changes.

The political elite that succeeded colonial authority was thoroughly grounded in a system that gave it huge powers largely because the Emirate system had been turned into a major political asset, but only if it served its interests. A few skirmishes here and there reinforced the superiority of the politician over the Emir in real terms. Emirs learnt to submit to political authority and preserve the comforting illusion among millions of peasants that they represented all that was decent and valued under an intensely divisive political system that had no room for neutral power or opposition. There was enough room for both, but Emirs had to learn to be good or even better politicians than the new political elite. The old North was a huge territory that was structured around ambitious politicians, politicized Emirs, a tiny but influential emerging middle class and a peasantry that was content to be left alone once it settled its obligations to the state.

Then the military marched all over a delicate system, carving out political territories that lowered the state’s span of control, the caliber of the politician and reduced the space for maneuver between the fortunes and desperation of the politician and the vulnerability of the Emir/Chief who is now more visible as a rival, collaborator or a threat to the politician. Political engineering resulting in more and more states created multiple centers of power and politicians whose  leadership qualities were constantly decreasing. Local Government Areas, intended to serve as vehicles for faster local-level development ended up as mere shells, deepening  the plunder of state resources and squeezing  lower-level traditional structures into irrelevance. Control of power and resources became the only goals of political competition, and fights for them became increasingly bitter. Most Emirs/Chiefs learnt to adapt to virtual irrelevance except as discreet or prominent cheerleaders of partisan politicians. The North has paid too much for stifling poor governance, its ungoverned portions increasing with a worrisome population size, insecurity  and poverty.

Late Emir Shehu Idris lived through the best and the worst moments in the history of the North. He became Emir on the eve of the infamous local government reforms; lived through the highs and lows of the military’s self-destruct forays against politicians and each other; witnessed faltering attempts to plant a democratic system in a desert of democratic values; watched his Emirate shrink as bits and pieces drifted away with rising influence of ethnic and religious politics in Kaduna State; took cover as Shiism took root and blossomed into a phenomenon in his Emirate; worried over the de-industrialization of Zaria; lived with the  suffocating neighborhood  of Kaduna city; welcomed the influx of educational institutions which formed the backbone of Zaria’s economy; played friends and foes with politicians; missed fellow  Emirs who had shared his fate for decades and one or two who got fingers badly burnt as they stood up to bullying governors; and, in his twilight days, kept his head low as he shared space with a governor who had little sympathy for tradition or even the mildest resistance.

Ordinarily, the people of Zazzau Emirate would have known who is their new Emir a few days after the death of Emir Shehu Idris. Ordinary would have been a situation in which Governor el-Rufai does not have the final say. When you have politicians like el-Rufai, it is advisable to prepare for the unexpected. There is a process in place, but it has no time limits outside those set by the Governor,  and is open to manipulation and even abuse by everyone, including  the Governor. And yes, there are also  consequences, but these do not really matter to the degree that they are what he wishes. He could choose to keep the public informed of the reasons behind the length of time the conclusion of the process is taking, but that would create an illusion that he thinks he is accountable to the public. To be fair, he did say he was reading some books on the history of king-making in Zaria. Other than this, the rumour mills are replete with talks of bribery, new long and shortlists and arm-twisting. And the people wait and fume and lament and quarrel. Someone will eventually emerge Emir, and those who lose and their supporters will choose how they react.

The North has thousands of politicians and very few leaders. Leaders will do the right thing by their people, and they will attempt to convince the people who voted them into power why they chose which options. Northern leaders like el-Rufai give the impression that the public’s opinion of them and their policies are irrelevant unless they are voting. Leaders with power or influence sufficient enough to advise el-Rufai would convince el-Rufai to show respect and  sensitivity to a public that deserves to know. There are a few with this power, but they, like him, think the public is generally a disposable  nuisance. If the process had been subverted before it got to the Governor, he would have been duty bound to deal with it within the law. A sense of propriety would push him to take a decision that can never be perfect.

The North is failing because it is being superintended by politicians whose ego is much bigger than their mandates, and others who have no idea about just and effective governance, so they retreat behind opulence until the next elections or end of terms. The drama over the Zazzau Emir captures the reality that the North must revisit its foundations, rebuild trust around leaders and create alternatives to the system which creates the type of leaders it has today. In the meantime, maximum leaders like Gov el-Rufai need to be reminded that there are consequences to their actions, many of which are out of their control.

 

Teacup in a storm

 

“People fail to get along because they fear each other; they fear each other because they do not know each other; they don’t know each other because they have not communicated with each other” Martin Luther King Jr.

It would have been the height of naivety to expect that President Olusegun Obasanjo’s meeting last week with select groups of elders over the state of the nation and what can be done to improve it, would receive universal acclaim.These are elders who prefer to be identified by their regional, ethnic or religious garments. Predictably, it has run into a storm, the type that leaves a teacup in a storm very little room for survival. Truth be told, virtually all parties involved in this skirmish have lost their innocence a long while ago. Nor are they strangers to each other or to controversies. What is relatively new is the depth to which the nation has sunk, a reality the Buhari administration stubbornly closes its eyes at, and all leaders and elders bear responsibilities for. Nigeria desperately needs to re-invent itself, but it suffers from crippling lethargy, indifference and absence of a leadership that should inspire it to do so.

You have a former President weighed down by a well-deserved reputation for poking fingers at, and issuing red cards to other Presidents, most of whom would also prefer to avoid sharing a room  with him  for longer than an hour owing to his own baggage.Then you have a motley group of elderly men and women who have records for raising voices against this and previous administrations.These groups serve as major irritants to the authorities; provide popular targets for young Nigerians and influence peddlers who see them as  complicit relics  playing well after added time.They bear scars  from  fighting rival groups and each other in a manner that leaves you to marvel at the wisdom behind distinguishing old people from elders. Finally, you have an administration suffering from chronic deficits in governance and pronounced paranoia from prolonged absence of real friends and admirers.Its definition of enemies leaves it in a permanent state of  stressful combat, shooting and widely missing every idea, suggestion or criticism over its record.

It would take a while for the noise generated by this meeting to abate, but its significance will last longer in an increasingly frightening political context.The nation’s Chief Governance Vigilante, President Obasanjo had been surveying the scene for a long while and losing sleep  over widening gulf between communities and regions, a crumbling economy and rising levels of poverty and desperation, creeping encroachment of violent crimes into lives of citizens, seeming absence of any idea By the administration over what to do about the state of the country, and a palpable foreboding that the nation is fatally flawed and headed for destruction unless something serious is done by someone. Obasanjo characteristically stepped forward as the someone, and enlisted the support of others who are just content to let him show his hardened and familiar hand at doing something. He reached out to  groups of elders who own patents for raising their voices at all wrongs, and a record for openly (and unsuccessfully) campaigning against President Buhari’s second term and earning a place as permanent enemies of the administration.

It was either a calculated gamble or the price for  poverty in his options, but Obasanjo went for the elders as the foundations for his envisaged multi-facetted and comprehensive project of engineering a national consensus around a commitment to move from private lamentations and prayers to God, to more active involvement and some kind of a re-discovery of a mission that will pull the nation away from the brink. The elders’ groups themselves washed up from old and new skirmishes with each other and, with bags full of misgivings, they answered his call.

Barely looking at each other, they listened as President Obasanjo went through his opening speech, sparing no element of language to describe the sorry state of the nation and showing no shyness in assigning responsibilities. The elders were his foundational building blocks, and he had been encouraged by an emerging consensus around essentials and rapprochement that hinted at the potentials of closing ranks and answering the clarion call to retrieve the nation from failing. When the delegations of elders opened up, even Obasanjo himself must have wondered if he had not chosen the wrong first eleven to launch his campaign. They were bitter, resigned to the prospect that the nation is irretrievable under this administration (or ever), skeptical over his motives and chances of success or still smarting from recent  fights with each other.

To his credit, President Obasanjo pulled the meeting from the brink. Perhaps the elders themselves had no better options that the Obasanjo initiative, but a room full of very old and angry Nigerians finally settled down commending him, committing to the success of the initiative, proffering suggestions on next steps and congratulating each other for showing requisite levels of maturity and a willingness to look to the future and stop counting past grievances. Against feelings that the initiative could suffer from predictable damaging assaults from the Buhari administration, delegates pressed Obasanjo for assurances that he and they were not alone. Nerves were calmed when he assured them that leaders of Governors’ fora will be in attendance, and a very senior level of persons are part of the support group. He was satisfied that he had met the requirements of briefing President Buhari and leadership of the National Assembly of the plan and expected outcomes.

Two days after a meeting that was attended by three governors, it released its Communique. It said all the things elders should say:  our country is in deep trouble; we commit to work with other Nigerians to find solutions; we  will work with groups and interests to support processes for improving quality of governance, the democratic and  electoral processes and the economy, and contribute to efforts  to amend the constitution and restructure the nation. Not a word about the registered failures of the administration; just a commitment to work with others to fix Nigeria.

The Presidency’s spokespersons are also famous for preferring details to substance, so they could be forgiven for reacting only against Obasanjo’s elaborate prose in lamentation. They reacted with unrestrained venom, pillorying Obasanjo in language only  he would be comfortable with. The Presidency must be running out of adjectives to describe the elders’ groups, because its spokespersons now tags  them    as terrorists for criticizing the plan of the legislature to follow the hallowed path of spending a lot of money for very little in return. The Presidency had a few cheerleaders, but no one offered options to the Obasanjo initiative or what else can be done about insecurity, poverty and rising concerns over the workings of a violence-based electoral process and the elections of 2023.

Then the elders hit back, insisting that they will not be cowed by an administration that lives in deep denial while the nation goes through massive tensions and stresses which could prove fatal to its future. They will meet again and again, anywhere and with anyone who can contribute to moving the nation beyond this stage. Are we dealing with a stand-off then? Not really. Government cannot stop this initiative, although it can hurt it by reducing it to an Obasanjo provocation. The nation does need to close ranks and get the shrinking and hiding elite to re-engineer a consensus around the basics of what needs to be done to achieve key goals.

The Buhari administration will not move near this vital requirement, but it will lose the higher ground if it maintains hostility towards initiatives that can make meaningful inputs into constitutional reforms, improving security of the citizen and communities and electoral reforms. The optics of senior Nigerians working together, not against each other, is very useful. They can reduce the drift, provide secure cover for vulnerable groups and nudge politicians towards actions that reduce stresses and improve inter-communal harmony.

Nigeria should not fail, but it will, unless more Nigerians do more with each other to pull it back from the brink. Obasanjo and the elders lit a fire. This fire will die if others do not keep it alive. It should not die, for all our sakes.

When?

“If a leader limps, all others start limping too.” African proverb.

Tucked deep in this paper two days ago was a report on a group of villagers who are now sheltering at Jibia Central Primary School in Katsina State. Until a few days ago these villagers, now Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) had lived with frequent attacks from bandits, during which young women would be raped, sometimes by a gang, or abducted; men would be beaten mercilessly and those who resisted killed; and belongings carted away or vandalized afterwards. A young lady, Rabi, said eight men were killed when bandits invaded their village, including the village head. “Almost every middle-aged lady was raped in our village that night, either by one person or by a group of the bandits. They have beaten our men including even younger ones and took our foodstuff away...,” she narrated to the reporter. The villagers were quoted as saying, ”We are in a dire situation. We cannot continue to remain here (in the school) and we cannot go back to our former place if the situation remains like that.”

When are stories of villagers that have acquired new status as IDPs after undergoing horrific crimes shock us enough to do something about them, and about  millions of other villagers who are as exposed to criminals as these villagers near Jibia were? Apparently there is no time frame. We hear daily about new and additional deployments of the military and police. At the same time, we also hear of audacious forays of bandits into villages and now,  even into towns and cities. We hear of encounters and killings of bandits from the air and of double-edged activities of vigilantes. Then we hear of chilling stories of atrocities of bandits who have the run of forests, rural roads, highways and entire territories. We hear of positive outcomes of negotiations for payment of ransom and release of kidnapped and abducted people, and of people who are murdered even after ransoms are paid. In truth, we do not hear of majority of kidnappings and assaults on villagers, as citizens have learnt to pay ransom quietly or bury their dead and learn to live with indignities and humiliations without recourse to the state.

When are women in particular going to raise voices against the dehumanization of quite possibly thousands of women who are raped right before parents, husbands and children? Where is the anger that trailed the abductions of the Chibok girls? Where are those voices that were heard all over the world after the abductions? Are they tired, or do they not care anymore? Where are care-givers, people who understand what it is for a woman to tell a reporter that she was gang raped along with half the women in the village in one night? Who is talking to men that ran and cowed before wives and children and are stripped of all dignity before being made to share bits of a primary school with raped wives and daughters? Who speaks to these IDPs, gives them assurance and attends to the sick and the traumatized?

When is all this going to stop? Who supports bandits with cover, communication, weaponry, intelligence, fuel, food, medication, drugs and spare parts for motorcycles? Who should we ask for answers? Do those who know the answers give them to those who need to have them? What do leaders do with answers? Communities are told not to fight back because that will merely provoke the bandit. They can and do raise vigilante, but these get blamed for inviting 200 motorcycles with 600 armed bandits to leave behind stories that will be told in whispers for many years to come. Young men who dare stand up for communities are fished out and murdered, and the story goes round that they were exposed by local informants. So everyone submits. Raped wives and daughters walk around with bowed heads and crushed spirits. Men are shamed and humiliated before wives and children. Villagers suffer wounds that will take many years to heal, if at all.

When shall  we stop asking questions? Would it be when peasants who have born the brunt of poor leadership for decades are pushed hard enough to stand up against criminals in a manner that pits illegitimate violence against illegal use of force? Will it be when citizens are pushed to a point where  they rise against leaders that are comfortable with blaming each other and retreating until there is no further space or excuses to offer? Will young men whose wives, sisters or mothers are raped take up arms against armed criminals, or will they join the  criminals to rape other peoples’ relations and plunder  other communities? When will women stop crying, and men walk with some dignity? When will farmers resume farming, and women stop begging for food to feed crying children?

When will this nightmare stop? Will it be when President Muhammadu Buhari finally figures what he can do differently? Will anybody be held responsible for lapses, collusion, subversion and incompetence? Does any Nigerian in leadership position  feel responsible and accountable for circumstances that leave poor defenceless citizens at the mercy of bandits, kidnappers and sundry criminals. Do leaders remember that they swore to protect citizens, and that they will stand before God to be judged for neglect and indifference over the fate of people they led? Do leaders realize the gulf that exists between them and citizens; the levels of disenchantment with a political process that produces leaders who amass more power and wealth and leave citizens poorer than they were; and the fate of the democratic system that breeds only hate and anguish?

When will the nation hear from President Buhari whether it should resign itself to living with more IDP camps, more raped women and murdered and humiliated men, more gangs of armed criminals and wider spaces available to the criminal? When will he tell the nation what he will do that is new, if he intends to do anything new? When and how can we give governors and citizens powers and responsibilities to protect themselves? How much can parts of the nation tolerate before they begin  to question the utility of sharing the same roof with regions that have suffered from an insurgency for a decade; banditry, kidnappings and armed robbery for nearly a decade; an unstable arrangement to keep a lid on militancy, piracy and kidnappings as parts of routine existence for longer than a decade; crimes that abridge the freedom of citizens to move even outside  homes; corrupt law enforcement that is more liability than asset; and leaders who assume power under thoroughly questionable circumstances?

When will the IDPs at Central Primary School Jibia and many other locations go home and resume the humdrum of wretched existence? When will President Buhari visit an IDP camp, any IDP camp, to let citizens know that he cares? When will the nation raise its voice to atrocities in many villages in the North?

When will bandits be made to stop raping girls and women; stop beating up and humiliating men; stop stealing everything poor communities have kept; and stop behaving as if there are no governments in Nigeria?

When?