By Bamidele Aturu
Professor
Omorogbe’s paper is a stimulating dissection of the plundering of the resources
of the country by its ruling elite. Her central argument that Nigeria must be ‘founded
and established on the rule of law, with the law operating and performing its
role as the framework for ensuring order in society’ is cogently and masterly
argued.
Without any iota of doubt she has contributed significantly to our
understanding of the crisis of development or under-development in which we are
doubtless enmeshed. While one may not agree with her perspective, it is
difficult not to notice that her contribution is underwritten by patriotic
scholarship and a rare passion and commitment to change.
She exploded,
for example, with concrete statistics the idiocy that confuses growth with
development. One has used the word ‘idiocy’ advisedly as the strand or brand of
economics that engages in that confusion has been long discredited and
discarded. As she poignantly argued ‘Economic growth is
concerned with aggregated figures, whilst development is concerned with
discernible and measurable impacts of monies that have entered the state on as
much of the population as possible’.
Although she
controversially began by stating that she was not interested in criticizing any
government, she ended up rightly counseling us to ‘disregard the cheery news
and figures that are regularly spewed out by the Coordinating Minister of the
Economy’. Her position that we are still far from the true path of meaningful
growth from all available evidence is unanswerable, except by those who deal in
statistical concoctions and fairyland economics.
In spite of
the brilliance of her arguments, there are a number of issues that she threw up
that deserve further probing. First, her perspective that we are poor because
we are all transgressors and that we are all transgressors because we are all
leaders at one level or the other is at once problematic and unnecessarily syllogistic.
The main premise, even by her admission, is that we are all leaders.
The other
premises are: All Nigerian leaders are transgressors, so we are all
transgressors. One does not have to be a dialectician to know that every
phenomenon has essential and non-essential attributes or elements. When one is
discussing the crisis of leadership or of development in a country it is
helpful to identify the layer of leadership that bears ultimate and essential
responsibility for the crisis one is focusing on otherwise one ends up blaming
the victims for the state of their victimization, an obviously unpardonable
error.
If one is discussing the failure or failings of family for example, it
might be wise to go microscopic and finger the father or mother or even go nanoscopic
and examine the role of brothers, sisters et cetera as leaders in society. But
when we are dealing with failure on the macroscopic level of the state, there
is a sense in which one might be fairly accused of trivializing the subject if
one holds responsible the messenger whose entitlement to a minimum wage of
N18000 is still being contested by some Governors for the economic woes of the
country.
We need to focus more on those layers that bear ultimate
responsibility for the acts of omission and commission that have virtually
grounded our country. Even in terms of magnitude, the devastation wrought by
corruption in high places cannot be seriously compared with the indiscretions,
here and there, of the lower rungs.
The
danger really is that when we conclude that all are responsible for the
troubles of the country, then the real culprits escape punishment and because
they are not punished the culture of impunity which our lecturer so detests,
and rightly too, is entrenched. Although somewhere in the paper she makes
allowance for a few Nigerians who are exempted from the rot, her main thesis
robs the exemption of any weight.
Second,
her reliance on the rule of law as a solution for the crisis seems, with the
greatest respect, to ignore the instrumentalist function of the law in
class-divided states. Hence her assertion that ‘In a nutshell, the rule of law
operates [ to enable] the operation of the social contract between the people
and the state, and is simply about ensuring the existence of a society with
laws that protect and enhance the quality and security of life of the people,
which are to be administered and implemented justly, impartially, and without
fear or favour.
Every person is subject to the law, irrespective of rank or
status in society, and one law exists for the same classes and types of people
under the same circumstances’ does not fit our understanding of the function of
the law in states such as ours. The concept of the rule of law has to be
rigorously examined for there are all kinds of law; there are just and unjust
laws; bad and good laws.
We cannot reach a conclusion that a law is just or
unjust, good or bad without entering the realms of politics and philosophy.
This then compels an analysis of the social forces and processes that produce
or make laws. The lecture might have left all this out due to constraints of
time and space, but it is an unavoidable analysis if we are not to engage in
sterile discussion.
Fundamentally,
we conceive the law as the instrument of the ruling class to perpetuate the
exploitation of the masses. There is a passage in
Poggi’s The Development of the Modern State that corroborates this view.
In describing the liberal state he made the point that it was ‘constructed to
favour and sustain through its acts of rule the class domination of the
bourgeoisie over the society as a whole’ and that ‘the equality of all
individuals before the law made sense as a constitutional principle because as
a matter of course the legal protection of private property directed the
order-keeping, law enforcement, and repressive activities of police and courts
to favour the interests of the propertied groups’[1]
Our lecturer’s perspective of the rule of law does not pose
or answer the questions: Which class formulates the laws? What are the
interests protected by the laws?; This
definition which presents the rule of law as benefitting the whole society and which
does not indicate the specific interest(s) which it serves, contradicts our
knowledge or position that society is made up of different interests and
classes.
If we proceed from the premise that the Nigerian society is made up of
different classes[2], as I do,
then one can easily appreciate that the Nigerian state does not exist and can
possibly not exist to protect the interest of all the classes of Nigerians. In
other words, the law fashioned by the Nigerian state is the instrument of the
dominant class, the propertied class, for the protection of the interests of
that class and necessary subjugation of the interests of the working class. The
analytical task before us is to clarify the linkages between the class basis of
society and social domination generally.
Rule of law is
therefore rule of a specific class in a specific kind of state. The character
of the dominant class is reflected in its preferred accumulation mode and in
its law. We therefore need to do more than what dependencists do namely to characterize
the Nigerian state as a dependent neo-colonial state. I think that the Nigerian
state is a rogue state, not in the sense of the original formulation of the
term by American statesmen.
Although the term or concept of rogue states can be
labeled by leftist scholars and critics as an imperialist coinage since those
who popularized its usage were leaders of the United States of America and
other developed capitalist societies, the content that we give to the concept
or term is radically different from the conception of the said leaders.
A
doubtless pro-American characterization of rogue states offers that to be
classified as a rogue state, ‘a state had to commit four transgressions: pursue
weapons of mass destruction, support terrorism, severely abuse its own
citizens, and stridently criticize the United States’[3]. Rogue states are generally seen not to behave
rationally or act in their own best interests[4]. Unfortunately, William
Blum, who combatively, but with compelling examples, depicts the United States
of America as a rogue state did not offer his definition of a rogue state[5].
We conceive a
rogue state as one in which survival or accumulation takes place and is
sustained not by production but by a system of stealing without any form of
pretence and where those who control the institutions of state privatize them
for the purpose of protecting the system of stealing. I doubt if any serious
and decent observer or student of the debauchery that takes place in Nigeria in
the name of governance would contest that Nigeria at the moment fits this
definition.
We may as well add that stealing is not used here in the Nigerian
generic sense of describing the fat allowances that officials (legislative,
executive and judicial) award or rather allocate to themselves or the venal and
‘normal’ kickbacks and bribes received from contractors but the barefaced
taking of unearned public funds from the treasury by public officials for
personal use just like that.
Corruption and the culture of waste
If we apply
the rule of law as a solution to corruption without examining the social forces
and processes that produce laws, we are likely to run into some problems. Let
us look at the most recent of the scandals, the purchase of N255 Million
bullet-proof cars by the NCAA for the Honourable Minister of Aviation, Madam
Oduah.
Let us assume that the purchase was captured in the budget, the
Appropriation Act, let us assume that there was no inflation or over-invoicing
involved, let us assume that she needs more protection than other ordinary
Nigerians that section 16 of the Constitution obligates the state to secure, in
that case the rule of law has been complied with. But that kind of rule of law
contributes to corruption and the pervasive culture of waste.
Let us take a
look at the way the rogue state fights corruption. Those who steal billions of
Naira whether as Governors or pension reformers are arrested and prosecuted
with the attendant razzmatazz in the media. They plead not guilty and are
remanded in prison custody; then they hire a battery of lawyers (there is a
huge war chest as it were to hire anyone available for hiring) who apply for
bail; under our rule of law the offence of official corruption is bailable;
after bail the lawyers bring as many frivolous applications as possible for
adjournments, to quash the charge etc, the trial goes on interminably until the
suspect becomes a Senator or dies in the process or even disappears.
Again, we
have not breached the rule of law. The question then is what kind of rule of
law is this. Certainly this could not have been contemplated by Dicey and his
disciples as they did not write about rogue states. The reproductive logic of a
rogue State is clear: the more roguish you are the higher you go. After all, it
is a rogue state anyway.
One of the
most creative ways the public is fleeced in our ‘rogue republic’ is through the
conduit known as Security Votes. Heads of governments at all levels and tiers
have appropriated to their offices huge sums of money as security votes. These
moneys are spent, as you probably know, not on security or at least not on
public security, but to fund party thugs, girlfriends and for the private
security of the heads of governments. Now the stealing is that, according to
the roguish logic, security votes are never to be accounted for.
They are not
audited. It is only in a rogue state that moneys appropriated by the
legislature can be spent anyhow, again, just
like that. We have challenged the nitwits who peddle this nonsense to show
us one law that states that security votes cannot be audited. They have not
been able to show us one[6], but of course one cannot
be surprised if they have manufactured one for the purpose of rule of law.
Of
course, in a rogue state the only law that matters is that which protects the
institution of stealing. We see then that all our Governors and anyone who
subscribes to unaudited security votes are part of the racketeers tearing the
moral fabrics of our society apart.
Yet in spite
of huge trillions of Naira stolen under the guise of providing security for the
people and the emergence of all sorts of funny security contractors, Nigeria
has become one of the most insecure countries in the world. This insecurity and
the utter incompetence of the security apparatuses to contain regional and
ethnic insurgencies is what some analysts have in mind when they regard the
Nigerian State as either a failing or a failed State. But we need not quarrel
over terminologies. It is a matter of time. A rogue state ultimately becomes a
failed State, and most states failed precisely because they became roguish.
Making the rogue state fail: Imperative of
Political Organising
Conscious
citizens certainly cannot wail over the failure of a rogue state. Indeed, it is
the duty of all such citizens to do all they can to accelerate the failure of a
rogue state. The point, we believe, has
been sufficiently made that the rogue state cannot be brought to its knees
through moral suasion or preachments. The state is a political tool; it can
only be negated and replaced by political means.
Based on the
foregoing premise, there is no alternative to political organizing as the sound
strategy for uprooting the existing rogue state in Nigeria. But what exactly is
political organizing? It is the critical creation of platforms and forums in
society in general to change the way we relate with one another and with the
existing institutions of the state with a view to democratizing them.
This
would be the emergence of the real civil society as opposed to the uncivil and
coopted and state-created society that constitutes part of the hegemonic
structure of the existing state.
The first
element of the new civil society is the attitude of ownership, ownership of our
lives and of the resources within our geographical location. Of course,
attitudinal change must be predicated upon the existence of a conscious cell of
committed change-agents; for there is no such thing as automatic consciousness.
People may be dissatisfied with their conditions and may even be willing to act
to change those conditions. They stand no chance unless they act consciously.
Those who are sufficiently incensed at the comprehensive degradation of lives
and humanity by the rogue state must step forward and volunteer to help create
the Change Cells.
The cells must be established in our schools, public
institutions, professional organisations, political parties, market
associations, security organisations and among peasants.
When people
become conscious that they own all except the lives of others, they would readily
do everything to resist the privatization of social life. Governors will not be
able to spend public funds without accounting for them. Even Vice-Chancellors
will conduct the affairs of their institutions openly and transparently.
It is
this critical culture that can lead to the ultimate weakening, removal and
replacement of those who control political power by means of exclusive access
to and monopoly of the resources that belong to all. While in the process, legal reforms will be
forced in many areas of life, it must be understood that legal reforms without
more cannot destroy the rogue state.
Many of the
existing political parties cannot survive the political awakening that we have
in mind. At the moment they are led by political entrepreneurs who see politics
and governance as their main investments. These overlords cannot survive in the
new atmosphere of democratic culture that we envisage.
There is therefore the need for an existing
Vanguard Party of the People. How the party will emerge is a question that can
only be resolved in the crucible of the struggle by the Cells empowered by the
new democratic attitude and imbued by the loftiest ideal of inclusiveness and
equity.
It cannot be decided upon the fancy of anyone, and certainly not on the
basis of sterile academic treatises. What is clear is that without a Vanguard
Party, the rogue state cannot be defeated. Some wily members of the ruling
class may create the impression that they are different from those who directly
run governments today at different levels, but the truth is that these people
are essentially one and the same.
They are united in the way and manner they
exclude the people from the use of the country’s resources. They are united in
their vision of Nigeria, the vision of privatization of our lives and
resources. This is why they must all be
resisted politically.
We must thank Professor Omorogbe for her
immense efforts, in particular for her inimitable elucidation of such issues as
resource curse, for her passion and for supplying the statistics that show how
backward we are and for her suggestions on the way forward.
[1]
Ibid, p.119
[2]
I adopt the arguments proffered by Claude Ake in Revolutionary Pressures in
Africa, Zed Press, London, 1978. He concluded that ‘class refers to
relation to the means of production and that class membership is decided in
terms of ownership or non- ownership of the means of production-p.59; see also
Oladipo Fashina, ‘Labour and Politics- the Challenges of Social Transformation
of Nigeria, FES, 2009 for a detailed theoretical and practical discussion of
the theory of classes in Nigeria.
[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_state
accessed on 22/4/2013
[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_state
accessed on 22/4/2013
[5]
William Blum, Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower, New Updated
Edition, Spearhead, South Africa, 2002
[6]
In the case of…I challenged the counsel to …provide the law that supports the
contention that security votes are not subject to audit. I was not obliged. The
court had no choice but vacate the earlier order that Mr Ibori should not be
prosecuted by the EFCC. Although, his eventual trial ended in a fiasco, the
vacation of the order was the basis for his arrest and prosecution. Complicit judicial
injunctions forbidding arrest of corrupt suspects did not start with Odili or
Maina
No comments:
Post a Comment