INTELLECTUAL MILITANCY On unarmed struggle: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” – Mahatma Gandhi Intellectual militancy is based on the balancing of the consequences of armed struggles (heinous massacres, area destruction and degradation, major humanitarian crises, famine, unspeakable poverty etc.) against the “romance of war” (heroism, conquests, masculinity, fame, booty, gained territory etc.). No matter the outcome, the consequences of war, as a rule of thumb, always geometrically outweighs the romance. Has that not been the case in the Niger Delta crises until amnesty? Dr Altug Yacintas purports there are four permutations of events and consequences that should guide human action (a) small events with small consequences e.g. the breaking of a pencil; (b) big events with small consequences e.g. Nigeria being a middle income oil-rich nation but little to show for it; (c) big events with big consequences e.g. costs of waging war and its devastating impacts and (d) small events with big consequences e.g. writing a letter or document that changes the cause of history. It stands to reasons that any rational person would prefer the costs and effects of permutation (d) to any other, however, this permutation is the arena of human intellectual and creative function. There have been famous icons of rebellious armed struggled in the past century or so. Che Guevara, Jean Paul Sartre, Frantz Fanon, Chairman Mao, Leon Trotsky are perhaps the most celebrated. However, all the aforementioned are outstanding intellectuals of world-wide renown in their own rights contributing significant ideas to politics change, religion, economics, governance, freedom advocacy,medicine, literature, nationalism, business etc. These men were fighting for something, attempting some sort of revolution with the goal of attaining a better world for their people and mankind in general. What were the militants fighting for? All arms and little or no intellectual persuasion, conviction or commitment hardly leads to anything substantial for fighters even when they win the war outright; it has not lead to any destination of note in the history of the world. Characters like Pancho Villa, Fodeh Sanko, Charles Taylor, Samuel Doe etc. are good examples. Slogans and plain common sense do not suffice as intellectual persuasion, higher psychic transformations are required. To further the argument, I attempt to give five significant reasons why intellectual struggle will serve the Niger Delta militants better than their current armed struggle. Firstly, there is the reason of justification. For any struggle to be robustly justified it needs to satisfy an ancient but unfailing “Quartet of Conditions”. (a) It must be led by an enlightened able leader in whom the people have unshakable confidence. (b) It must be carried out without ulterior motives on the part of the leaders and immediate supporters. (c) It must robustly answer a real acute need or necessity of the people. (d) It must be carried out in the right manner both in action and thought. I doubt if the militants adequately satisfy more than one condition in the quartet, namely condition (c). Yes, the Niger Delta is relatively one of the, if not the most economically deprived and environmentally degraded regions in the world per units of wealth it generates; no one doubts that. But can our ex-freedom fighters proudly say they have satisfied the other three conditions of the quartet? If they have not, then they are doomed to failure. Or they can learn. Needless to say the “Quartet of Conditions” is infinitely better suited to intellectual struggle than armed struggle but the reverse can also be true. Secondly, there is the reason of ideology. To galvanise a people into being willing en masse to fight and die and ignore the brutal crippling consequences of armed struggle, they must have something to believe in; a structured system of thought that will enable them believe it was worth it whether the war was lost or won. Maoism came out of war, look where China is today. Castroite ideology is still very influential in Latin America today. Existentialism came out of war and is one of the most influential global schools of thought. Neoliberalism and neo-conservatism are products of the intellectual struggles of the Cold War. What is the victory ideology of the freedom fighters? Thirdly, there is the reason of military capability. No matter the case, the Niger Delta militants will be out-armed by the Nigerian army and military contractors. Being out-armed by hegemon has never deterred rebels or freedom fighters, and many a time they have been victorious over much mightier armies but only so if the “Quartet of Conditions” of armed struggle are met. Nigeria can be described as a life-support machine for the production of crude oil. OECD countries need Nigeria’s oil and are willing to supply arms and military expertise to wipe out the militants in times of outbreak. Oil companies are rich and afford to do the same. Bunkering was rumoured to the main source of militants’ funds for armament. What happens when opportunities for bunkering are blockaded by Nigerian or invited military forces? Protracted armed struggles are wearisome and the longer the struggle in warfare the higher the uncontrollable costs resulting in the people wanting it to end whether as victors or vanquished. Intellectual struggles are only tiresome to the light-hearted and opportunist and the costs are mostly controllable. Fourthly, there is the reason of public relations. All great rebel leaders from Pancho Villa to Nelson Mandela to Frantz Fanon all had (most importantly) strong local and extraterritorial opinion, and thus support, on their side. If your local people do not sympathise with the causes of the indigenous struggle then they are doomed to waging a hopeless war. Today the Niger Delta militants are seen by most of their own people and the international community as rapacious gangsters more interested in bunkering, kidnapping, ransoms, extortion, wanton violence, and seeking all sorts of “settlements” from government, oil companies and affluent families. Such a perception all by itself is analogous to shooting the struggle in the foot. Does the public image of the warlords and militants satisfy “Quartet Condition” (a) of the leader winning the confidence of his people? Fifthly, there is the reason of conclusive talks. After the arms struggle is won and lost, negotiations between the victor and the vanquished must take place in the presence of powerful third parties who might be biased or neutral to the interests of the warring parties. Good ideology and sound collective intellect has been a crucial bargaining chip in attaining one’s goals before and long after the negotiations have been concluded. I wonder what the Niger Delta militants and warlords bargained with the Federal Government on amnesty. Perhaps, roads, educational scholarships, local government creation, hospitals, bridges, jobs, land reclamation, electricity,adequate housing etc. Can these things not be attained without armed struggles or more so by way sound intellectual movements? And yes significant resource control was bargained for. But resource control allocations kept as rich pickings for Niger Delta’ rulers does not nearly fulfil the “Quartet Condition” (b) of leading without ulterior motives nor (c) the condition of answering a real need of the people. If human conditions and relations have reached a point whereby the “inevitability of war” is the only “apparent” option then the “good fight” has to be fought. Even though there are intellectuals in the struggle amongst the militants, maybe Niger Delta militancy as a movement is not ripe for intellectual struggle because of the anti-intellectual ethos that afflicts Nigerian psyche. However, this is where my challenge to the militants becomes very apt and significant; they should endeavour to take up intellectual struggle (and make the people ripe for it) bearing in mind the “Quartet of Conditions” and a liberating system of thought that will lead the Niger Delta people and perhaps the entire region’s people out of the darkness, oppression and neglect that befalls them. The warlords and militants should not forget or desecrate the memory of Ken Saro-Wiwa, his struggle for his people and region which he paid the ultimate price was an intellectual one. It is the continuation of Saro-Wiwa’s intellectual legacy that i appear to seek to mentor and foster; this is not in anyway to say that i do not have an independently initiated prerogative to do the same out of compassion, responsibility and courage. Intellectual struggles are often usually the stuff of attrition, gradually but surely, till a winning consciousness is established that is legitimate, popular and indomitable amongst the people. Niger Delta ambassadors,what are your takes?
Posted on: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 09:13:39 +0000