THE CONTENT OF OUR DISCONTENT, THE CHARACTER OF OUR STRUGGLE, OUR VISION FOR THE FUTURE
by
Dr. Mobolaji E. Aluko
Washington, DC, USA
February 24, 1995
INTRODUCTION
As a nationalist who believes that the country called Nigeria has tremendous advantage and potential if held together, I now feel constrained to explain to those who would care to read what the content of my discontent about the Nigerian situation is, and what I believe should be the true character of our struggle.
Three themes run through this write-up:
- an exposition of my personal views on how I believe that Man on earth wants to and should be governed;
- a synopsis of the present Nigerian situation as I see it, and
- the position of individual Nigerians and their smaller communities in the scheme of things, with emphasis on the present and the future.
MAN AND HIS DIGNITY
How should Man on earth be governed ? The question really should be: how would I like to be governed, given that it is necessary for me to live in a community of other individuals ? Framed as the second question, the answer obviously depends on who I am, and who the other individuals are.
For me:
- I am first and foremost a Black person, so created by God in his image. Consequently any attempt to denigrate my person on account of that, either by external or internal oppressors or colonizers, is blasphemous and hence subject to God's wrath.
- I am a member of the Yoruba community. Alexis de Tocqueville, that keen observer of American democracy, once wrote that for democracy to work, all citizens must develop prideful attachment to a smaller community.
He termed this "the art of associating". Within the Nigerian context, I certainly have a "prideful attachment" to my Yoruba community.
- I am a Nigerian by British creation, the single artificial, and by far increasingly the most troubling aspect of my being.
I constantly have to contend with this tripartite characteristic of my person, just like most of you, whatever your community. Yet above all, the most important fact is that I am a HUMAN BEING, made in the living image of God, "Imago viva Dei".
Like animals, I need and desire food, drink, shelter as well as self-preservation, the last being the highest instinct. However, what distinguishes me from animals are two inter-related things: first, the desire to be recognized by other men as a human being, worthy of DIGNITY, having SELF-ESTEEM, and secondly, as a religious person, the desire to know God my maker.
People believe that they have a certain worth, and when other people treat them as though they are worth less than that, they experience the emotion of anger.
Conversely, when people fail to live up to their own sense of worth, they feel shame, and when they are evaluated correctly in proportion to their worth, they feel pride. In fact, it might be said that the need to be recognized coupled with the emotions of anger, shame and pride are parts of the human personality that are critical to the political process.
When you allow the instinct of self-preservation to be so overwhelming that you always fear death, then you are bound to enter into a slave relationship to a aster, that person who can bring about that death.
I am sure that nobody reading this posting wishes to be a slave in our country Nigeria. I also know that many of us feel genuine anger at what has been going on in the country, are ashamed of some of our fellow Nigerians who have been raping the country, and wish to restore pride both to the Nigeria people and to our communities of prideful association.
Our challenge therefore must be to channel these emotions in a productive way to regain our pride and purpose.
LIBERAL DEMOCRACY
What kind of system of governance would I strive for ? Many kinds have been tried over several centuries - feudalism, monarchism, fascism, communism, socialism, etc. I declare that what I personally favor is LIBERAL DEMOCRACY, that is the doctrine of individual freedom and popular sovereignty.
Agreeing with Fukuyuma (in his fascinating 1992 book "The End of History and the Last Man"), the last man would be a Liberal Democrat (existing happily or unhappily ?) under a Liberal Democracy.
Liberalism and democracy are closely related but separate concepts. Political liberalism implies the existence of the rule of law that recognizes certain individual rights or freedoms from government control.
There are in particular three major fundamental rights:
- civil rights - that person and his property should be exempt from excessive control;
- religious rights - that religious opinions and practice should be exempt from excessive control; and
- political rights - that private matters which do not necessarily impinge directly on the well-being of the entire community should be exempt from excessive control. Into this category falls freedom of press and rights of association.
Ancillary rights such as right to education, health care, etc. are always arguable depending on the circumstances of a given country, and are best left out as fundamental rights. This recognition in no ways diminishes their importance.
Democracy on the other hand is the right universally held by all citizens to have a genuine share of political power, that is the right of all citizens to vote and participate in politics. A country is democratic if it grants its people the right to choose their own government through periodic, secret-ballot, multi-party elections, on the basis of universal and equal adult suffrage. Elections are the most basic tenets of democracy.
With these definitions, for example modern-day Iran is a democracy but not liberal, 18th-century Britain was liberal but not democratic, and our present-day Nigeria is neither liberal nor democratic. It should of course be noted that either liberalism or democracy can be abused: for example liberalism can deteriorate to anarchy, while democracy can be manipulated by an oligarchic elite.
However, taken together, they represent a bulwark against tyranny and dictatorship.
I will end this section with three quotes relevant to democracy:
"Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but man's inclination for injustice makes democracy necessary"
Reinhold Niebuhr (1944)
"Many forms of government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
Winston Churchill (1947)
"Democracy involves listening to a lot of discordant voices and disparate interests and conflicting points of view...Democracy really comes down to people trying to cooperate, to make common decisions in context where there's great diversity and strong conflict....... the problem is not to come to the most rationally justifiable decision ... it's a problem of trying to come to a decision in which there are conflicting legitimate claims. "
Sheldon Wolin
CITIZENS' RESPONSIBILITY
Selfish as it may sound, the primary responsibility of the citizen is to himself - first to secure food, shelter and drink and to avoid bodily injury and "untimely" death (self-preservation), but also to maintain his dignity.
In a society, the first three responsibilities are primarily economic, but the last two thrust him firmly in the political arena.
Government's role is to ensure that the citizen's tasks are easier for all, or at least for the majority of the citizens. This is in the presence of sometimes conflicting and/or scarce resources. Furthermore, it must ensure that citizens to do not step on each other's dignity, because such events are fodder for social discontent.
Food, shelter and drink can be always be obtained elsewhere, but dignity can only be recovered directly from the victimizer, thereby presaging war. There is an implied assumption that Government is also a corporate citizen, bound by almost the same laws governing individuals, unless there are compelling counter-reasons, in which case extra-judicial acts must be taken (and seen to be taken) most reluctantly, and then only on a time-limited basis.
When citizens truly appreciate the efforts of the government of their nation over a long period of time, and feel a part of it, they become "patriotic", as if appreciative of the services of a father, a patriach.
When there is an opportunity to defend the government and the people against external agression, real or imagined, military or ideological, patriots easily become fiery nationalists, prepared to fight to maintain the common weal or dignity of the country.
Patriotism and nationalism are two sides of the same coin, but while one is inwardly pro-actionary, the other is outwardly re-actionary. Neither can be decreed. A nation must earn both, over time. However, while one cannot be patriotic without being nationalistic (unless one is a coward), one can be nationalistic without being patriotic (e.g. again due to cowardice, dishonesty or a "love" of the national status-quo from which you benefit.)
A BRIEF HISTORY OF NIGERIA
Ever since we achieved flag independence from the British in 1960, Nigeria has oscillated between 10 years of civilian oligarchic rule and 25 years of military fascism, with some military regimes more insiduous than others. During the 1st Republic, we were led by ethnic warlords who never sat down to settle the national question, but rather used historical ethno-geographical divisions to promote self-interests and began to set the scene for the military to safeguard by force certain unpatriotic tendencies.
Shagari's civilian regime was marked by unparalled greed and flaunting of wealth. The earliest military dispensation resulted in a brutal civil war, Babangida's military rule saw corruption and "Maradonic" caprice enthroned as state craft, while Abacha's current stay is a rather demoralizing confusion of good and evil. Many Nigerians still believe that General Mohammed's rule, and arguably the Buhari/Idiagbon military regimes, held some promise, but their tenures were truncated.
In the process of all of these changes, all the ethnic groups in Nigeria have now been angered and shamed at various times, causing severe structural defects in our country that have resulted from:
- the initial unwillingness of the North to be part of the union called Nigeria, and the grand legislative compromise of an implied guarantee to rule or at least to have veto power. Much of the strife in Nigeria today can be traced to attempts by the rest of Nigeria to renege on this compromise, the willingness of the potential losers to use the military to maintain it, and their ability to "divide and conquer" other Nigerians.
- immediate universal suffrage without universal enlightenment, which meant that a large number of Nigerians were able to vote (and continue to do so) without fully understanding the issues, thus becoming susceptible to manipulations by various pressure groups, mainly ethnic.
- personality cultism: for too long, we have considered our country as spoils to be divided by one person (at various times the Sardauna, Awolowo, Zik, Shagari, even Abiola) for the benefit of one select group (Hausa/Fulani, Yoruba, Igbo) to the exclusion of others (the Ogoni, the Tiv, the Ijaw, etc.)
- the Biafran war, and the "no vanquished, no victor" sham. We have a people, the Igbos, who still feel vanquished, and who constantly talk about marginalization" in a Nigeria to which they have been forced back, and others behaving like victors. They seek guarantees or assurances of non-recurrence of an unforgotten nightmare. Several issues have not been addressed about this war; the wounds are still deep, and animosities are still being nursed.
- the Yoruba complex of "leadership denied", that makes the Yorubas say that both Awo (pseudo-legally) and Abiola (illegally) have been denied the ultimate leadership position in Nigeria, and that a line in the sand must now be drawn at the denial of the latter. In Awo, the Yoruba say here was a patently competent man who history conspired against. The link between the Biafran war and this "leadership denied" complex is of course the dead man Awo (ostensibly embodying the living Yorubas).
- the exclusion of minorities from economic gains obtained within their geographical boundaries, or their inclusion in political affairs only when expedient. The Ogoni problem is the epitome of this miscarriage of justice, for which all of us either share the blame or have benefitted.
- religious tensions. How do we allow people to obey their faith without syncretism in a pluralistic secular society ? In Nigeria, how will Islam and Christianity in particular co-exist without rancour, these two religions with common Mosaic roots, subtle similarities yet having many clashing fundamental ideals, particularly in the political realm ?
Does a truly secular government accord all repect to any religion on demand ? At no time have we enunciated the role of diverse religious traditions in a pluralistic society, which I believe is a shared commitment to religious liberty principles by which citizens with deep religious or political beliefs can negotiate their differences with civility and respect.
THE JUNE 12 ISSUE
With such seething animosities, it is therefore not surprising that the very basis for national unity is now being questioned, particularly after the fateful event of June 12, 1993 when Abiola, an establishment Yoruba Muslim, running at the head of a Muslim-Muslim ticket, won a resounding victory and a truly national mandate.
In fact, the ethnic and religious compromises exhibited in the elections appeared to be the seeds for a New Nigeria, making its arbitrary annulment by Babangida, Abacha and others a cruel blow to our nationhood. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that ANY new elections that serves up a new winner - whether it is held one year, two years or ten years from now - would elicit howls of ethnic unfairness, could lead to the presence of two competing civilian governments and consequent balkanization of our dear country, and invite the participation of the military to once again resolve the ensuing anarchy. It is not an issue of political extremism, rather one of common sense.
The cost of miscalculation of the June 12 annullers has been simply too high, and unless a fundamentally comprehensive solution to the Nigerian political problem is based on an accomodation, however brief, of the June 12 mandate, our nightmare, whether economic, social or political, will simply continue. A overnment of national unity should be formed based on June 12, whose mandate should be to convene a sovereign national conference, to which the legitimate representatives of the Nigerian people are invited to consider the national question. Insistence on the current bogus Constitutional Conference as the main vehicle to chart a new political order for Nigeria is simply a recipe for disaster in the future.
If we are not now relentless in pursuit of the correction of an identified injustice, why would we do so the next time ? Because we did not do so the last time around, must we now defer again ? If we defer again, would not a new group of Nigerians then ask again "Why now ?" as many now ask in defence (or understanding) of the annulment ?
THE PLACE OF THE INDIVIDUAL NIGERIAN AND HIS COMMUNITY
So what must we do ? First, each Nigerian must re-emphasise his DIGNITY, and emphasise that the vote is his lowest level share of political power, and that it must be respected, both now and in the future.
Secondly, he must be free to identify without fear or loss of status with his community, that group with which he has historical, cultural and lingual similarity. Nigeria is in fact not a nation yet, but a COUNTRY OF NATIONS, for it is precisely historical, cultural and lingual similiarities which define nations. We must also insist that as part of the country called Nigeria, all communities must be fully part of its ecumene, that is its economic-political territory, its economic, political and cultural life, or else some communities will ever chafe to define theirs.
Thirdly, our collective cause must be based on the twin assertions of DIGNITY and RESPECT for all ethnic groups in Nigeria. We must remember that no one can make us feel inferior without our consent. I am not asking for ethnic fascism nor must we assert ethnic superiority. In fact tolerance, sacrifice and inter-dependence should be watchwords.
But in Nigeria, while everyone must strive to save Nigeria from itself, if it so permits, "prideful communities" must also be ready to save themselves. The deterioration of our schools and social and physical infrastructure, the hopeleness of our youth and the heavy-heart being carried around by our adults can simply no longer be tolerated.
Anger we have, shame we must avoid and pride we must restore. We must build a sense of purpose and consensus which the generation before us has woefully lacked, and we must let that passing generation know that we can no longer tolerate dilly-dallying with our lives. We are merely six years away from Year 2001, and we are in a real danger of being swept aside by history.
Finally, we must also remember our history, much of which consists of numerous avoidable conflicts among ourselves. We can not take our unity for granted, rather we must work purposefully and tirelessly for it. We must, beginning immediately, spend some of our time carefully and unemotionally ruminating on what aspects of liberal democracy is compatible with our various cultures, so that we do not repeat the same mistakes of the past.
Guides
