Arriving in Atlanta on that cool Friday morning at 6am, September 8th, 2000, everything seem so normal. But that will change later that afternoon around the Georgia International Convention Center. From the activities inside the center, one cannot but be impressed with the sense of importance attached to the dialogue among Nigerians present.
It was as if, this unique event is an opportunity for those of us abroad to be part of the changing political landscape in Nigeria. I felt it and I am sure there were others who felt the same way.
The commitment and the desire to contribute to the dialogue became immediately apparent from cordial atmosphere outside the registration area and the willingness to overlook some of the nigerianesque handling of the registration (a tendency which continued throughout the two days- maybe we have been used to the usually organized American styled orderly and prompt programing but we were quickly reminded that this is a Nigerian organized event).
The pre- dialogue consultation with the President's ministers, advisers and ambassadors was rather light and devoid of substance. We were all eager to get to the committee meetings and was glad when all the attempts at "stand up comedy" by Ambassadors Aminu and Cole ended. It took us about another hour to really get started at the committee on sustaining democracy, because of confusion concerning the location of the room.
The initial committee experience was frustrating.
The consulate in their piousness pre-selected the facilitators and for many, the way these individuals handled the committee debates became fractious and down right unacceptable. The most explosive discussion surrounded the question on national conference. A few of the participant did not think it was necessary to include it as a recommendation by the committee and in fact a couple of the facilitators argued against its inclusion just because they disagree with the premise of such a conference and therefore suggested a compromise that it should be called "national dialogue".
This action led to a near rampage in the room, with up to twenty people speaking at one time, some hijacking the microphone and others calling for the impeachment of the facilitators.
A fellow Nigerian from Japan was so disgusted with the way things were being handled that she called the attempt to prevent the inclusion of a national conference " outrageous"and was appalled that in this darn age, anything should be consider a "no-go area". We eventually put the issue to a vote and a national conference was included in our recommendation with a note indicating that its inclusion does not in any way question the existence of the Nigerian state.
The committee continued its work late into the night and well after all the other committees have concluded their work, without any break until about 10.45pm.
This is quite interesting given the nature of the debate and several "near-fight"experiences but we gradually put together what would eventually be considered the best proposal put forth by any committee at the summit.
I can understand why the committee was very explosive, there were more professors of political science and attorneys in this committee than any other and each trying to engage in intellectual debates on every single item. There were also others , who could care less and others who were unprepared such a dialogue.
Many of us submitted position papers ahead of the meeting but majority of the people were not ready to listen to them. There were also suggestions that we break up into sub-committees to discuss these issues thematically in order to deflate the explosive situation in the room, but to no avail. With over 25 people pre-registering to present a paper, we have to listen to everyone but with little or no time to discuss their recommendations.
The day ended with many participants criticizing the management of committee work and were hoping that things will be better the next day. Before the end of the day and thanks to quick thinking on the part of the facilitators, a report on the deliberations and recommendation of the committee was read back to all the members.
It was quite an eye-opening experience for me because we were able to reach the same sets of goals despite all the "near-fight experience" . A little order here and a little patience there and a little leadership there, who knows, we might have been able to reach even better conclusions. Is this a microcosm of the Nigerian deliberative problem ? If it is then we know what the problem is -a lack of effective leadership, capable of channeling all our outstanding resource for the benefit of all.
With this in mind, the second day started rather smoothly with the President arriving on time and an hour ahead of some on the high-table. He was well received and he presented his vision of Nigeria effectively.
Although sometimes labored, President Obasanjo was able to make a case for a Nigerian nation.
His goal to create a better Nigeria was well received by all in attendance and I was impressed, because for the first time, we have a leader with a vision- "a better Nigeria" and "for all Nigerians". This is a very important step for the country- to be able to articulate a vision for the leadership.
The energy was positive and everybody was impressed by his inclusive proposals. The idea of a foundation serving as a data-bank for Nigerian human resources was welcome and hopefully will provide a link between Nigerians abroad and home- Nigeria. It felt really good to see that a Nigerian President could take command of some of these issues and articulate it while integrating it in a common agenda for a better Nigeria.
We had hoped that the morning segment will continue into committee meetings with the President but as usual, it was too good to last. The President was side tracked. He excused himself , to enable a meeting with Andrew Young and the CNN. Ambassador Aminu was asked to continue to lead the dialogue but he immediately dismissed the gathering and adjourned until about four hours later. Many of us were disappointed because we did not come this far to do nothing for the period in question.
We tried to reconvene our committees but to no avail.
The disruption in the agenda was clearly a reflection of the problem in Nigeria. It showed a lack of commitment and the desire to see what we are doing through to its end. As a Nigerian, I am not simply going to be thrilled and then satisfied because the President evoked some attractive ideals . I want a follow through. I want a change in the way we do things. It is about time. We cannot afford to continue to baby-sit our leaders and to give them a pass every time they show their incompetence.
The signs are there and if we do not change finally for the better, even those who try to take us forward but could only do it half way and are unable to establish a feasible agenda for the attainment of pre-set goals, may in fact be contributing to the problem. Nigeria cannot afford half- hearted commitment on the part of our leadership. To lead Nigeria now, we need total dedication, open -mindedness and a clear tolerance coupled with a vision to provide that better Nigeria for all Nigerians.
We eventually returned to the committees at 2pm that Saturday afternoon and our committee(on sustaining democracy), seem to have learned a lot from the previous evening and our debates became more tempered. We were able to re-examine our proposals and polish our recommendations for a later presentation before the President.
We actually expected the President to come to the committees but the agenda was changed at the last minute only to reconvene as a town hall meeting.
The President seemed his bubbly self and with his usual sense of humor (which was just a little too much sometimes) began the town hall, reiterating his earlier presentation. The question and answer session that followed was quite interesting because it showed to some extent that there exist some wrinkles in President Obasanjo's leadership.
The most important of which surround a question by a fellow Nigerian on what was credited to have been said by the President by a Nigerian newspaper, that the "Ibos were lucky to still be in Nigeria". The President reaction was abrupt and he told the man and the newspaper to go to hell.
It was an unfortunate situation. It was unfortunate that a President seeking to bring all Nigeria together could show such a level of intolerance. Some of us were shocked while some applauded. There was no reason to applaud because a leader must be ready to answer all necessary questions, some may be unflattering and some may be down right stupid but it is the mark of good leadership and his or her communication ability, to be able to respond appropriately.
The response of President Obasanjo indicated the inherent contradiction which continue to plague the current Nigerian leadership.
Some have tried to excuse the President for some of his spontaneous gaffes but for how long ?.
If it is difficult for even the average Nigerian living in the United States- the land of freedom and liberty to engage in a dialogue without any tirade from the President , what would the fate of an average Oyingbo woman or an Uyo farmer be. Do you think they could freely dialogue with the President ? What type of example is the President setting for others in position of authority with regard to respecting the average Nigerian.
This is part of our problems and President Obasanjo should realize that he is expected to lead and he must adapt his militarist persona to his new role as a democratically elected President of Nigeria.
I was happy that the entire hall reverberated with the word "No" when he referenced his military training as a quality later that afternoon.
From my observation, it must be difficult for any of his advisers and or ministers to effectively advise him. There is so much deference to him as the father who knows all and have solution to all problems.
While I am ready to give the President some spaces for errors, I am unwilling to risk a continue decay of our socio-political process. Leaders must elevate their people and must be conscious of their position as the bacon of hope for the restoration of prosperity and integrity to the nation that they lead.
While the report of the committee for sustaining democracy captured the day because all its recommendation was received with applause, what bothered me the most is , what would happen to those recommendations. The recommendation included a call for the review of the Nigerian constitution, the increase in security within Nigeria through increasing the size of and improving the training of Nigerian police. The committee also called for improving the rights of women in order to increase productivity and equal participation.
The President and the legislature were urged to amend the provision of the constitution on dual citizenship which deny Nigerian with dual citizenship the right to seek elective office( A member of the House of Representative, Hon Ugokwe came before the committee to solicit support for the amendment because it dis-enfranchises Nigerians living abroad).
The committee also submited proposal for effective federalism with more autonomy for the states and a more judicious allocation of resources thereby benefiting appropriately the locale of extraction.
Other recommendations addressed:
- effective separation of power,
- the democratization of the military,
- the political education of the Nigerian citizenry so that they can understand their responsibilities and the obligations of their leaders,
- increasing the penalty for electoral malpractice,
- combating corruption,
- stemming the brain drain and
- independent judiciary.
Many of us were however concerned about the post-dialogue options available to us as we want a continued evaluation of the implementation of these proposals by the Obasanjo administration.
Although it was uncanny to see a President confess that he is oblivious of the amount of debt owed by his country, I do think that the President should have established within his first hundred days in office the exact amount the country owes before engaging in any other expenditure that might continue to drive our economy further into the red. And to also find out if there is a possible collusion or incompetence on the part of the world bank or the IMF on the disbursement of any of the loans, so that Nigerian government could take appropriate steps to contest such a loan.
On a final note, there were other issues which was interestingly down played during the entire dialogue and one of this is the issue of the Sharia.
While it was recognized that the Sharia was implicitly acknowledged by the constitution, the formal declaration of Sharia in some northern states can only be construed as a challenge to the constitutional unity of Nigeria.
The President does not see this as a big problem- as it is expected to fade away.
This, au contraire, is a deeply divisive action on the part of those northern states and the federal governments' inaction is simply a dereliction of its duty to uphold the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Will it go away ? I do not think so. Neither do Bariya Ibrahim Magazu, 17.
She probably wished that the President had done something , when she received 100 lashes for engaging in pre-marital sex and 80 lashes for making unsubstantiated claim against three men.
The same is probably true of the two motorcycle taxi riders in Zamfara state who were lashed for carrying female muslim passengers.
Are these not Nigerians ?
Shouldn't their rights be protected under the Nigerian constitution, which in case of conflict with other laws should prevail. Nigerians should have their rights protected under the Nigerian constitution and not to be subjected to uniquely prevailing local ordinances, which violates the stipulated fundamental human rights, under which we are all protected. In this regard the States that have declared Sharia are in essence seceding from Nigeria.
Finally, I am calling on every Nigerian to play their part in helping to change Nigeria for the better.
While I credit the President for at least having the gall to initiate the dialogue in the diaspora , I sincerely hope that he will take the dialogue to market women, teachers, workers and average Nigerians in all corners of our nation.
Without bringing everyone aboard , it will be difficult to make the requisite change in our country.
The President must be tolerant and wear his politician hat. He must inspire and be able to bring people aboard as we move forward in Nigeria. And to the rest of Nigerians abroad and in Nigeria, I say this country belong to us and our children, we must not let a few , plunder and destroy our future why we stand by in disgust and sometimes disinterested. It is time for us to rise to the call.
God bless you all. God bless Nigeria.
Bamidele A Ojo PhD
School of Political and International Studies
Fairleigh Dickinson University
Teaneck. NJ 07666.
Guides
