May 18, 2002
Election year is usually a period of serious deliberations on issues that border on the progress of any country and as the next elections draw close, the unity of Nigeria has once again taken center stage on the discussions. Though some of us have not visited the country since the onset of the present administration, the sophistication of the new global information technology enables one to follow events in Nigeria with minimal hassles. The opinions are expectedly varied but have been largely balanced.
This contribution will therefore reflect my original thoughts but it is informed by personal experiences while growing up in Nigeria as well as by media and individual reports from people who are more in touch with current practical realities in Nigeria. I must admit, however, that it will lack an objective assessment of the issues on the ground, which can only derive from personal observations. Let me also state ab initio that my interest in these matters does not exceed the boundaries of a legitimate and patriotic concern for a united and progressive Nigeria.
A brief appraisal of the present administration is followed by suggestions on the way forward and the quest for Igbo presidency.
The Present Administration:
Predominant and widespread opinions from different parts of the country seem to be utterly dissatisfied with the performance of the present administration. Undoubtedly, Nigerians deserve a much better deal from their leaders and cannot be blamed for expecting such, irrespective of who is in-charge. Nigerians travel around the world and watch TV everyday. They just cannot understand why things seem to be different in Nigeria. At the advent of this democratic process, the military was blamed for everything (with a lot of merit, though) and democracy was taunted as this wonder-working system of formal state governance that will end all problems for the country, in a rather magic wand kind of way.
While not seeking to excuse their failures, any thorough analysis of the achievements of the past and present Nigerian governments must, necessarily, control for the predominant world order under which they operated. Some of them may have nursed the ideas to do well along the line but the economic and social aims of some of their foreign mentors run contrary to such intentions. Leadership is, by and large, an individual attribute but ultimately, the leader must function within a given internal and external environment. Most of the so-called “third world countries” suffered similar fates and some of them had worse outcomes.
For the present administration, there is an obvious dichotomy between expectations and results, a scenario that seems to be admitted by both supporters and opponents of the government. A few reasons may account for this dichotomy. First, the problem with Nigeria goes far beyond a single leader or administration. Nigeria has a deep-seated systemic problem and the roots of those problems date back many years and are anchored both within and outside the country.
Secondly, it appears that a lot was expected of an Obasanjo led government over a four-year period. Apparently, the messiah rhetoric sank into the psyche of many Nigerians. Having suffered so much over the years, the hope for a quick turnaround is understandably pitched on a miraculous intervention by the Almighty God. This mind frame of distraught Nigerians collided with a self-confessed born-again Christian in the person of Chief Obasanjo who, in addition, was assumed to have been humbled by his prison experiences. I do not discount miracles and I know, with all certainty, that miracles do happen. With Almighty God, all things are possible.
Thirdly, the government apparently dived into the problem without thorough pre-intervention assessment, which should ordinarily constitute informed bedrock for realistic goals and expectations. Chief Obasanjo may have set out to do well but he is surrounded by some wrong sets of people. There are a lot of examples but a ready one is the President’s promise to end power outage by December 2001. As it later turned out, that promise represents an incomprehensible case of poor analysis and unrealistic expectations; a clear case of muddled treatment interventions consequent on poor initial diagnosis. One also wonders how he had planned to overcome the contradictory aspirations of some of his affiliations, especially outside Nigeria.
That said, there is no doubt that the government has inexcusably squandered some excellent opportunities that could have been translated into monumental legacies for the country. The administration’s performance on the vexatious issues of corruption and security is terribly below expectations. In his inaugural speech, Chief Obasanjo made it clear to Nigerians and indeed the whole world that, with him as the President, there will be no sacred cows in Nigeria. The death of Chief Bola Ige, very sad as it is, provided Chief Obasanjo with a rare opportunity to leave a legacy for Nigerians by permanently severing one of the cords that had been strangulating Nigeria. The recent brown envelope story finally completed the abysmal picture of the anti-corruption program. Among the many excellent comments by other Nigerians, two aspects of that whole case continues to blow my mind - the fact that Professor Jerry Gana is also the minister of national orientation and that Nigerian journalists actually came out to defend the indefensible. There are indeed many other windows of opportunities that a courageous and transparent President Obasanjo could have utilized more productively to jump-start a painstaking nation-building process.
Anyway, on the balance of the opinions, it is obvious that Chief Obasanjo and his men are aware that the party is over. He may not even get his party’s nomination. While there are some mind-boggling developments such as the party membership of the recently appointed INEC commissioners, Chief Obasanjo knows that rigging the election will not be worth the trouble. His recent declaration should be seen in two lights - failure to declare his intention to re-contest, especially given the barrage of criticisms, will mean an open acceptance of failure of his administration. Remember, he is a retired general! Secondly, the president is apparently seeking to, yet again, insert his name into the political history books of Nigeria as the first incumbent civilian president to loose an election and freely hand over government. That should be a befitting cap to an essentially eventful political career.
The way forward:
My suggestions on the way forward are predicated on few facts and assumptions:
- A multi-ethnic and culturally divert country such as Nigeria should be seen as a family with the Almighty God as the head of our family. And just like in a natural family, different members of the family may have different resources and talents but African culture makes it mandatory that every effort should be made at all times to carry all members of the family along in its affairs. A divided household cannot stand for too long. Therefore, no member of the family should be allowed to feel alienated from the stock.
- A solid foundation for a peaceful, democratic and united Nigeria is a situation where the supreme constitutional mandate for equality of all citizens is backed by a psychologically derived self-assurance of that right. Unfortunately, the status quo is progressively undermining the convictions of Nigerian citizens from certain parts of the country on their continued relevance to a united Nigeria.
- The socio-political dynamic of Nigeria has led to a situation where the presidency of the country is psychologically associated with ethnic self-assertion and acceptance as equals in the political equation of Nigeria. This does not necessarily translate to economic and social gains.
- While human beings may be limited in their abilities to achieve true justice - only the all-knowing God is truly just - they can definitely achieve a reasonable level of fairness, if they are honest to themselves.
- The events of the past have left a terribly traumatized citizenry. As it were, Nigerians have suffered repeated soft tissue injuries, which resulted in masses of dead tissues. Over time, these dead tissues have gone through all the stages of inflammation and left well-organized pockets of pus. In the medical profession, it is known that an empirical or blind antibiotic therapy, irrespective of its potency, will have minimal effects on the pus. The pus must be evacuated.
The point here is that attempts to brush over the social and psychological injuries/scares of the past will continue to haunt any meaningful efforts to rebuild Nigeria. These psychological and social wounds are real - some sections of the country feel grossly marginalized. The repeated ethnic clashes, the insurrections in the Niger Delta region, incessant threats for secession, and calls for sovereign national conference are just some of the symptoms of this malaise.
- There is nothing cast in stone about democracy. By this I mean that there is no such thing as a standard and advanced democracy that every other nation in the world should look up to in designing their system. In fact, I contend that there is no country in the world now where democracy is practiced in the pure theoretical understanding of that concept. A workable system for any particular society should be based on an honest and calculated appraisal of the internal and external dynamics of that country. Such a system can also change over time.
Based on the above points, it is important that Nigerians, as a family, make practical efforts to carry every part of the country along. The citizens of Nigeria from some significant parts of the country are progressively drifting to a dangerous state of psychological alienation from the nation. The so-called “restive youths of the Niger Delta” have a lot of very legitimate concerns, which the rest of the country can never successfully afford to sweep under the carpet, as it is has been and is still doing. The Nigerian civil war, despite what anybody claims, remains largely unresolved in the minds of some people.
I propose that each of these sections of the country be allowed to field candidates in an election for a four-year government and the rest of the country vote for these candidates, similar to what happened to the southwest in 1999. Lets dub it Twelve-year rotational civilian government for national healing and unity. Theoretically and ideally, in a democracy, such issues should not be mentioned at all as any Nigerian is qualified to contest for the presidency and the candidate with the best program should be given a collective mandate to do the best for the country. However, the real issues in Nigeria will make a mockery of such theoretical arguments. To my mind, it will be more dignifying if the rest of the country accepts to do this without being seen to succumb to threats of secession.
Secondly, it may be theoretically convenient to group the southeast into one political block. Again, an honest consideration of certain pertinent questions especially resource control/Nigerian economy as well as historical and socio-cultural factors will expose the shallowness of such theoretical arguments. It is therefore imperative that the Niger delta with the former midwestern region be considered a separate entity in this nation-healing exercise.
This is definitely an abnormal situation and it will not account for all the important ethnic nationalities that constitute Nigeria. However, this ‘abnormality’ should be viewed in context - the soothing effect will be worth the period and it will go a long way to healing some of the wounds of the past. It is important that the lingering discord of perceived ill-treatment of the previous generation are eliminated at this early stages of what should be an enduring democratic governance in Nigeria. Laying a solid foundation aimed at unifying the country may, after all, be the major legacy this generation may leave for that country before they finally bow out of active partisan politics.
A few other abstract but real achievements might also be recorded within this period. Nigerians would practice and experience peaceful handover of civilian governments, arranged, as it may seem. Over this period also, the political parties would have ‘matured’ and gravitated towards ideological leanings rather than the present situation essentially devoid of political principle and where party membership is often determined by the quest to be close to the corridors of power.
Additionally, it will help to expose the leadership potentials (positive or negative) of other parts of the country and dispel the rather scathing insinuation that perceived failures of any given administration (military or civilian) mean innately poor leadership qualities of the whole ethnic group of the head of that government. Who knows, the best ruler Nigeria may know within this generation may be hidden in Niger delta. Moreover, there will still be human, infrastructural, and other developments with each succeeding administration and the legislative arms of government will hopefully limit the, sometimes, perilous problem of discontinuity of policies and programs by succeeding governments.
It may be argued that this transient rotational program would not guarantee an end to ethnic politics after 2011. While only the all-knowing God is unequivocally sure of what will happen in the future, I will argue that, in the next nine years, Nigerians would hopefully be approaching the ideal state of affairs where issues are meritoriously discussed and ethnic considerations are not allowed to operate beyond their socio-cultural boundaries. Also, agitations for two terms for each of these sections of the country may unnecessarily prolong this ‘abnormal’ period and we may risk loosing its intended benefits.
The Igbo Question:
I feel obliged to comment on the ongoing ‘search for an Igbo candidate’ for the forthcoming elections. By now, the reader would rightly guess that my inclination to this subject would have a strong bearing on the premise of my arguments above. To the extent that the political travails of Nd’Igbo in Nigeria cannot be dissociated from the civil war, any meaningful attempts to re-integrate them into the mainstream body politic of Nigeria in a national healing process should take its roots from there. The living symbol of that war from the Biafran side is Chief Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu. In addition to my afore-stated interest on these matters, it is pertinent to further point out that I have never met Chief Ojukwu personally. I am also not from Nnewi town or local government.
My suggestion goes beyond Chief Ojukwu as a person, though I am personally convinced that he is very qualified as an individual. Chief Ojukwu’s presidency will be the closest signal from the rest of the country that the Nigerian civil war is over for good. On the other hand, refusal to field Ojukwu by the Igbos, or to accept him by the rest of the country, based purely on civil war sentiments literally amounts to a one-sided apology for the war. Such a unilateral apology, or anything that would suggest it, is absolutely unwarranted for two obvious reasons: first, it will continue to make a mess of the post-war ‘no-victor-no-vanquished’ policy; secondly, it might, albeit subtly, undermine the whole objective of this national healing/transition exercise. The civil war was a mistake on both sides.
A few sentiments such as Chief Ojukwu’s age and ethnic inclinations seem to be making the rounds with potentially negative interpretations. However, like many issues, there may be positive sides to these factors in the Nigerian context. Most important considerations for a Nigerian president are his/her state of mind and physical health as well as his/her ability to articulate the fundamental but complex issues that must be addressed to re-engineer the country. Insisting on the so-called detribalized leader is shadow chasing for now. There is simply no such living Nigerian in their generation. Those who used such sentiments to “sell” Chief Obasanjo in 1998/99 are now singing a different tune.
To address the question of his ethnic inclinations, I would like to draw some valuable lessons from the political lives of the late Chief Awolowo and Mallam Aminu Kano. Unfortunately, the forces that benefited from a perpetually under-developed Nigeria, and indeed sub-Saharan Africa, made sure they kept these two fine leaders (and others like them) out of the system. For Chief Awolowo, even his worst critics would agree that he stands out as one of the best minds among Nigerians of his time.
For example, as early as 1959/1960, Chief Awolowo knew that a viable post-independent Nigeria would need reorganized Armed Forces. But he was relentlessly frustrated and the rest is history. The Yorubas, either by intent or default, accepted him as their leader and reaped the rewards. Without a doubt, Chief Awolowo led them well. My honest belief is that if Chief Awolowo had cause to see the whole country as his constituency, his record and indeed Nigeria would have been different.
Equally, the robust encomiums consistently showered on the late Mallam Aminu Kano by all those who knew him well lay credence to my claim that his political marginalization (to the extent that his leadership qualities were essentially limited to the northern parts of Nigeria) was a loss to the whole country and represents some of the practical manifestations of the collective mistakes of the past.
In similar lines, the rest of the country has persistently refused to look beyond the civil war. For the Igbos that apparently recognized his leadership potentials, Chief Ojukwu has proven himself to be a caring, responsible, courageous, and visionary leader who would go to any legal limits to protect his own (which will become the whole Nigeria if he is elected president of Nigeria). Another positive way of looking at his relationship with Nigerians who share his ethnic nationality is that the man has grassroots support - he can deliver his family, kindred, ward, local government, state and indeed region. Or isn’t that one of the many alleged sins of Chief Obasanjo?
Drawing insights from other cases can further emphasize the above point. It would have been inconceivable to argue that Nelson Mandela of South Africa, Sam Nujoma of Namibia, or Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe should not aspire to be presidents of their respective countries simply because of their roles in the “conflicts” or their inclination to certain populations of their countries.
While there are fundamental differences in the details of each of these cases from the topic under discussion, the point here is that, over time, these individuals have come to wield an appreciable measure of the collective consciousness (positive or negative) of the different parties to the real or imagined conflict. Furthermore, a living, willing, and healthy Chief Moshood Abiola would have been the natural choice to assuage the southwest for the wrongs done to them following the annulment of the June 12 1993 elections. Admittedly, these cases are different in some ways - Chief Abiola (RIP) got significant number of votes from other sections of the country and efforts to de-annul the election was framed as a struggle for democracy and became a national cause. However, to the extent that one of the themes of the struggle became the perceived undermining of the political significance of the Yorubas in Nigeria, any attempts to reconcile the Yoruba nation following that annulment must also take part of its bearings from there.
While Chief Ojukwu’s age has become an issue that is frequently floated as a potential negative factor to his candidacy for the president of Nigeria, I beg to proffer a different viewpoint. Chief Ojukwu’s age may actually be an advantage - it might limit the tendency to fly all over the world at the slightest excuse. The Nigerian president should spend time in the country and confront the issues on the ground. Moreover, from his recent interviews and comments from individuals who interact with him personally, the man’s mind is as sound as ever.
The oft repeated or perceived fear that he might resurrect the Biafran story does not hold grounds in my mind. First of all, he will be operating within a democratic set up with all the checks and balances. Secondly, a lot has changed since 1967 and I am certain that Chief Ojukwu is fully aware of that fact. Those who could potentially “resurrect the Biafran experiment” can effectively undertake such projects, if they wish to do so, without Chief Ojukwu or any other former “Biafran” as president of Nigeria. Chief Ojukwu is too intelligent to know that the “Chief Ojukwu as Eze gburugburu Nd’Igbo” will be temporarily suspended if Nigerians, through a free democratic process mandates him to lead the country for four years. I believe the man will excellently utilize, to the benefit of the country, an opportunity to erase the unfounded and rather malicious label of a “trigger-happy, secession-preacher Biafran war-lord/rebel leader.”
The above argument should not be wrongly construed to imply that Chief Ojukwu is being “begged or compelled to contest and save Nigeria” because “he is the only qualified candidate” out of over 80 million adult Nigerians. It is within his natural and constitutional rights to decline. He has been in public life long enough to understand the demands of the job and honestly assess whether his physical health can withstand the rigours. Similarly, his party or political groups can decide not to nominate him and, of course, the final decision lies with the Nigerian voters. However, such decisions should be based on more compelling lines of reasoning. The habit of opportunistically whipping up bathetic sentiments of a civil war that ended more than thirty years ago whenever it suits individuals and groups, as was openly used against Chief Alex Ekwueme in the last PDP primaries, will not contribute to building a united Nigeria.
On the other hand, there are strong indications that organizations such as MASSOB may witness a remarkable surge in membership if Nigerians are not seen to take decisive steps towards honest national reconciliation. And the recent reports of ammunition stockpiles by Ogoni Youths deserve to be noted. History is replete with examples of the gross inadequacy and shortsightedness of unrestrained use of state instruments of coercion and intimidation to enforce unfair laws. You can only kill so much before the gun turns around to hunt you. Just as in 1999, 2003 and 2007 present good opportunities to continue the process of national reconciliation. In the Igbo context, a willing and healthy (in mind and body) Chief Ojukwu remains the fairest bet for that process.
Conclusion:
As the title reads, these are suggestions based on personal convictions. I welcome constructive criticisms, outright dissensions, and additions. However it is imperative that a peaceful, progressive, and truly unified Nigeria will benefit from bold and transparent efforts to address some thorny issues. Nigerians should learn to look at the big picture and avoid, when appropriate as in this case, the imperious immediacy of results or satisfying exclusive personal or group interests, especially when those results/interests appear to be detrimental to the common good. That will form the basis for building an exemplary, human-centered, truly civilized society victoriously led by the invincible and unfailing hands of our immortal Almighty God and Father.
Guides
2003 and Beyond: Some Suggestions