So, Who Speaks for Nigeria? 24 Sep 2014 THE HORIZON BY KAYODE KOMOLAFE kayode.komolafe@thisdaylive Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, who is billed to formally declare this morning his intention to seek the ticket of All Progressives Congress (APC) for next year’s presidential election, once made a statement that should resonate in all political quarters. Asked earlier in the year if his return to APC was solely to pick the presidential ticket, the politician said something to the effect that the concern should be on how to keep this nation together; there must be a nation first before any one could contest for any office. It is a matter for another day to examine the issues to know if indeed this nation could be said to be well kept together now for any one to seek the office of president. In other words, has the condition set by Atiku few months ago been met for any one, for the matter, to seek the presidency of the country that is increasingly divided along the fault lines? The purpose here today, however, is to interrogate the theory and practice of nation -building by the various factions of the ruling class seeking power. For the statement made by Atiku months ago is a huge challenge for all members of the political elite. A deeper reflection on this challenge should inform their rhetoric as well as political steps. Before the fall of the Berlin Wall, Marxist theorists laboured to explain why liberal democracy flourished in the West while it was difficult to get it rooted in the neo-colonial setting of Africa. One of the reasons given was that whereas in the West, the ruling class was able to accomplish a “national democratic revolution”, in the neo-colonial nations such a revolution never took place. In what is now usually referred to as the “advanced liberal democracies”, the political elite across many generations strove to build the foundations for their respective nations with organic institutions. Leaders emerged at various times that spoke and worked for their countries. They fought wars and made sacrifices to build solid political parties. They established national traditions in politics and promoted values. Take a sample. Giuseppe Garibaldi emerged as one of the Italian “fathers of the fatherland”. The fathers of the nation fought to put together many parts that today make the whole called Italy. Institutions such as the justice system and public service were developed to make the nation function. That is why a character with a huge moral and political deficit such as Silvio Berlusconi could be president without the nation collapsing. Long after a tragic civil war in which thousands of lives were lost, the unity of Nigeria is repeatedly called to question in virtually all situations of crisis and even controversy. It is as if politicians sometimes forget that the slogan of the federal forces under General Yakubu Gowon as the Commander-in-Chief was that “to keep Nigeria one is a task that must done”. The proposition being made here could be illustrated with the current controversy engendered by the creation of additional 30, 027 poling units by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). An inter-regional controversy was, of course, expected when INEC announced that 21, 615 units would be in the North as against the 8, 412 in the South. The picture is made more spectacular when you hear southern voices in the controversy comparing the 7, 900 units of the unit slated for the Northwest to the 8, 412 for the whole of the south. From the controversy the regional fault line is so patently on display that technical arguments are glibly dismissed. An otherwise technical issue has been politicised beyond recognition. The two sides of the debate are hardly talking about the real purpose of the exercise. All that matters to them is the politics. Yet in the heat of this controversy a few reminders might be necessary. The points should, of course, be obvious. First, INEC has not invented new names on the register of voters. The creation of additional polling units does not mean additional names on the register of voters. That is not to say that more polling units would not be good for the logistical convenience of the voters. Secondly, if you have more polling units in the North, it does not mean that only voters of northern origin would make use of the additional units. All qualified voters resident in the region would vote in the new units. After all, the other day there was a gathering of “representatives” of a southern group resident in the northern states endorsing President Goodluck Jonathan as the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) for the 2015 election. Thirdly, all the candidates for the presidential candidates (from South and North) would seek votes that would be cast in these additional polling units. Nonetheless, from the controversy, which generates some so much heat and no light, it is as if all the votes from the additional polling units in the north are destined for northern presidential candidates. Fourthly, INEC is by law a commission comprising of Nigerians from North and South. The INEC officials of southern origin are definitely not daft. Yet, some southern “leaders” are calling for the removal of the INEC chairman, Professor Attahiru Jega. As a counterpoise, some northern “leaders” have taken it upon themselves to defend Jega as if INEC means Independent Northern Electoral Commission! In a way, the controversy on polling units has again brought to the fore the utter failure of the various elements of the bourgeois ruling class to grapple with the National Question. This failure to resolve an urgent contradiction explains why it seems an impossible task for them to create a nation that is democratic, as it has happened in the West and parts of Asia. For instance, it is remarkable that the voices of the major political parties that will actually fight for votes in the elections – APC and PDP – are hardly audible in this controversy. The PDP apparatchik that has endorsed Jonathan, (a southerner), for the election is headed by Alhaji Adamu Mua’azu, a northerner. The main contenders for the APC’s ticket (General Muhammad Buhari, Atiku, Governor Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso etc.) are northerners; but a southerner, Chief John Odigie-Oyegun, leads their party. So it is probably understandable why neither PDP nor APC could speak for either north or south in this matter. It is also intriguing that the neither of the two parties is loudly speaking for Nigeria in this polling unit controversy. Who has heard the voice in defence of logistical convenience of all voters in Nigeria? Conveniently, the national political parties have abandoned the stage for regional advocates and defenders. Meanwhile, these regional champions have no platforms to present candidates for the elections. The tone and tenor of the reckless pronouncements of these regional and ethnic “leaders” are inimical to nation- building. The political parties should be conscious of the strategic danger these regional leaders pose not only to national integration but also the future of the parties. For example, the other day, the Ijaw leader, Chief Edwin Clark, elected to make egregiously uncharitable statements about the governor of Jigawa state, Governor Sule Lamido, whom he saw as challenger to his kinsman, Jonathan, for the PDP’s presidential ticket. Now, the PDP family has resolved the issue in favour of Jonathan and Lamido is part of his party’s decision for the cohesion of PDP and national unity. Lamido was an actor when PDP was founded in 1998; Clark was hardly on the partisan radar then. Now that PDP has resolved to give Jonathan the ticket, it is not Clark, but Lamido and other PDP members in Jigawa who would work for Jonathan’s victory in the state. This is another dimension of the contradiction the ruling class will have to resolve ultimately. To be sure, the task of speaking for Nigeria is not only for PDP, APC and other national organisations. It is also morally imperative that individuals who have had the privilege of managing the affairs of this country and taking decisions on its behalf at various levels and circumstances of power should always speak up for Nigeria. It is a sad commentary when former service chiefs, heads of the police and other security agencies become ethnic champions soon after retirement. These are people who once swore to lay down lives for Nigeria and were once in position to take steps with profound implications for the whole nation. Similarly, it is incongruous listening to former ministers and heads of strategic agencies of the federal republic now making disparaging remarks about other parts of the country. They seem to forget that once upon a time they were entrusted with responsibilities and resources on behalf these other parts of the country. There is something wrong in those who once designed policies affecting the whole of the nation turning round in later years to blame a section of the country for the predicament of their areas of origin. Former Presidents and Commanders-in-Chief have a central role to play in this regard in interest of national integration. They should collectively constitute a force of example in nudging the political elite towards trans-regional and supra-ethnic perspectives on issues. In their attempts to resolve the contradictions in the National Question, Nigerian bourgeois politicians should borrow a leaf from their counterparts in the United Kingdom. The National Question was eminently thrown up by the referendum on independence for Scotland last Thursday. To start with, the debate was robust and structured. It was not an improvised national conference to fulfil all righteousness. In the unprecedented debate before the votes were cast, the two former British Prime Ministers of Scottish origin – Tony Blair and Gordon Brown – spoke loudly for Scotland to remain a part of the United Kingdom. Other prominent politicians from Scotland who had held crucial positions in the UK such as former finance minster, Alexander Darling, all wanted Scotland to remain part of Great Britain. They recalled the great roles of prominent Britons of Scottish origins such as the political economist, Adam Smith, and the philosopher, David Hume. From the other end of the pole, the leader of the independence lobby, First Minister Alex Salmond, accepted the verdict in good faith even though he resigned on the announcement of the poll results. Significantly, the English man in the saddle, Prime Minister David Cameron, did not tell off his Scottish compatriots who wanted independence. He made emotional appeals to them to remain in the union, spelling out the drawbacks of separation. Indeed, conservative Cameron adopted the formula of Gordon Brown of the Labour party, for a greater and speedier devolution power to Scotland in the post-referendum Britain. The victory for the unionists may not mean the end of the agitation by the separatists. But that is a way to tackle the National Question by a ruling class with a sense of historic mission. Listening to the arguments of the advocates of regional agendas in all parts of Nigeria, it is obvious that they have not seriously considered the full implications of the break-up of this country. Those who fancy some models of disintegration elsewhere should realise that there is no neat way of breaking up this country because of its specific history and development. In the circumstance, the only viable option is to work harder on integration of a democratic nation defined by social justice and not ethnic or regional ego. To bring about such a united Nigeria, the voices of the forces of integration must be louder than those of regional and ethnic champions.
Posted on: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:50:31 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015