By Doyin Odebowale
Nigeria currently experiments with
civil governance after a considerable lull in political activities. The
experience of the people since the resumption of civil rule in 1999 has been
anything but encouraging.
All sectors of the country have been
run aground by the mercenaries in government and their collaborators.
Corruption and all acts connected therewith are actively promoted by
functionaries of state.
Insecurity is now a major issue as
nobody is sure of safety. The geographical space of the polity has been
diminished, substantially, by a more organised and purposeful militia
notoriously acclaimed as Boko Haram.
Party politics in a bourgeois democracy
pretends to promote the concept of ownership of political parties when it is,
in actuality, a veritable means of disempowerment of the people. Political
parties should be the vectors through which programmes on social engineering
are sold to eligible voters, ‘the people’.
The contest should be on the basis
of ideas, and the electorate should be allowed to swim in the ocean of illusion
on possessing the actual power to give life to their preferred wishes on this
basis. In some so called ‘people’s
democratic republics’, such exercise is considered a grand luxury which a
centralist ideology cannot ill accommodate. The expression of preference is
severely limited to what the deluded potentates bring before the people. As
pernicious as this practice appears, it is more honest. Nobody is allowed to
distribute dollars or hire private jets to sell a programme designed to
ultimately dispossess the people.
The collective experience on the
African Continent has been heart-corroding. The Nigerian situation tends,
dangerously, towards the same monolithic approach for which Communist parties
are reputed. There is the laughable and even tragic advertisement of
multi-party presence. The so called parties are nothing but convenient
platforms supported by statutes to seal the fate of the oppressed.
No serious
analyst should waste precious time attempting to discuss their differences.
The fluidity of movement from platform
to another in search of ‘meal tickets’ by party operatives in Nigeria should
cause our political scientists to organise series of symposia, seminars and
workshops. Anyone who is able to come up with plausible reasons, other than the
predilection to perpetuate fraud, as justification for this unabashed display
of moral turpitude by most Nigerian politicians, is a sure candidate for the
Nobel.
It is against this backdrop that I
intend to comment on the creed for service as presented by the candidate of the
major opposition party in the forthcoming presidential election in Nigeria, General
Muhammadu Buhari. Let me hasten to say that I shall be casting my ballot for
him if the incumbent occupier of the office, Dr. Goodluck Jonathan, and the
cabal goading him to perdition allow the election to hold. This, however, is
without prejudice to my observation that his programme of action,
well-intentioned as it may be, appears superficial, although his personality as a man whose life in both public and private
spheres is marked out as exemplary.
Buhari’s redemptive creed for service
is predicated on a false and sinking premise, namely, the dubious presumption
of nationhood in a multi-cultural ambience. The politics of cultural pluralism
does not permit this facile approach to issues. He possesses the necessary
credentials to mobilise the polity for the real journey to nationhood. I have
no doubt concerning that at all. But to leave the question of ownership of the
whole process by the people hanging is naivety as its worst level. In talking
about economy, provision of electricity, agriculture, access to justice,
fundamental human rights, education, insecurity, health, diversity and the
Niger Delta, the issue of the transitional status of the nation-state called
Nigeria cannot be ignored.
Corruption, which has now been elevated
to a national culture under the current political rulership, can only be
tackled effectively and realistically if the question of ownership of the
polity is addressed. The pervasive belief in the ‘turn-by-turn’ process by the
bankrupt elites can only exacerbate the pandemic situation. The monolithic
economy run by the country has encouraged a basically consumptive attitude.
It
is not enough to announce that the economy will be expanded. How well can we
address this problem without resolving the issue of ownership? Will our quest
for diversification also follow the path of continued expropriation of the
commonwealth by a rapacious cabal comprising the politicians, clergy,
commission agents erroneously dubbed businessmen, mercenary academia, civil
society operatives and labour unions?
The general intends to revamp the power
sector to jump start the economy. He would have had no problems were he to rule
as a military dictator. His first assignment would have been to tie some of the
current buyers of the moribund but ‘unbundled’ PHCN to the stake and shoot
them. He will be shooting some of his former colleagues involved in the current
racket. These criminals are dancing ‘Disco’
to the banks for generating darkness and asking the people to pay for
electricity not consumed.
That will not be the final solution. He will have to
present an executive bill to the National Assembly on devolution of power to
the federating units. Why should states wait for approval from the Federal
Government before they can generate electricity for their own people? The
present arrangement is not sustainable. After privatisation, Goodluck Jonathan
has continued to fund the new owners in utter disregard to the logic of the
argument in support of the monumental fraud.
I agree with the general on the need
for massive intervention in agriculture on the part of the government. This
brings us back to the question of ownership. The current government boasts on
its achievement in this sector. There was some talk about cassava bread among
other inanities. There is also a reference on its card to the effect that it
had reduced corruption in the distribution of fertiliser to farmers.
We read of such incomprehensible
stupidities ad nauseam. The solution to this endemic problem does not only lie
in sending many of these phantom farmers to jail. Government, both at the
federal and state levels, must develop a national policy on agriculture. There
were farm settlements in the defunct South West Region. The current interlopers
have sold most of them to themselves and converted them to housing estates.
This retrogressive step must be reversed.
Most people believe that General Buhari
will ensure fairness in the dispensation of justice to the people. It is,
however, simplistic to assume that once a process of ensuring quick
dispensation of justice is put in place, then there will be no problem. Justice for who? The nature of judicial
process in a transitional society is such that two distinct systems operate.
One is for those who control the commanding height of the economy, while the
other is reserved for the masses.
In Nigeria, it is possible for a big
thief not only to bribe judges and prosecutors. He can also dictate the forum
of trial and procure a perpetual injunction against the state from enquiring
into the details of his malfeasance. A felon who gets convicted on the weight
of damning evidence can pay ridiculous fines and walk free. Some serve their
terms in five star hospitals and earn national honours as certified criminals
afterwards. They get state pardon as stealing is not corruption in this clime
and they are called upon for higher service as distinguished senators of the banana
republic.
On the other hand, a miserable thief
who has the misfortune of being caught while stealing a cow may lose his wrist
under the Sharia criminal jurisprudence in a secular state. Some stay in prison
far longer than the time they would have spent as terms if convicted for
prescribed offences awaiting trials. They cannot procure the services of senior
advocates and the media to hasten the process of plea bargaining like the
pension thieves. They are not donors to the prayer empire of commercial
Shamans. They are anonymous and must be so treated. The general will have to
explain still what he means by access to justice.
As a corollary to that, even of more
significance is the issue of education treated perfunctorily in his manifesto.
The education of citizens is the most important function of the state, perhaps,
after security. It cannot be reduced to the acquisition of “relevant skills in
marketing”. Every serious society trains its citizens for development. The
process is structured to derive maximum benefits.
If development is measured in
terms of the extent of the people’s interaction with their natural environment,
the education of citizens of any given society must reflect the challenges
encountered, solutions discovered and applied, mistakes recognised and corrected
as well as projection for the future. Education should not be deployed to
support crass mercantilist ideology. Our people must learn to produce before
they acquire marketing skills.
His background as a trained soldier of
repute stands him in a better stead to discuss security than the current inept
and corrupt leadership of the country. The best form of security lies in the
welfare of the people. His antecedents as a combatant are reassuring. We know
he will not contract out the policing of pipelines to glorified street urchins.
Boko Haram and all other variants of social outlaws will find in his government
a worthy adversary.
He will have to look, seriously, into
the issue of restructuring the polity. Some handpicked jesters, many of whom
have been responsible for the pitiable state of the country, just embarked on
an expensive frolic purporting to deliberate on the challenges we face as a
people.
A handful of them, rabid irredentists but mainly indolent and
conservative elements who have made considerable fortunes fanning the embers of
disunity, even insist that the implementation of their recommendations is the
only way forward for the country. While we will not begrudge them the right to
delusion on exaggerated assumption of relevance, the arrogance with which they
pontificate on the solutions to the problems of the country, coupled with the
combative apostasy of some gerontocratic elements, is symptomatic of the
pervasive decadence in the polity.
Presenting a programme of redemption in
a multi-cultural pluralistic geo-political space without paying due regard to
nationhood is delusory. Buhari must begin to ruminate on strategies which will
be put in place to address this fundamentum.
Doyin
Odebowale, a lecturer with the Department of Classics, University of Ibadan and
legal practitioner is available at doyinodebowale@gmail.com and
doyinodebo@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment