02 Feb 2005 |
|
| Nigerians are probably about to witness a season of so-called national conferences, thanks to the decision late last year by the current regime to hold what it initially called a National Dialogue (ND). Though hastily re-baptised in the wake of the Ogbeh-Obasanjo exchange as the National Conference for Political Reform (NCPR), the Abuja dictator’s ND has, not surprisingly, attracted a lot of controversy. President Obasanjo’s conference project would seem to have set in motion a curious process that is fast snowballing into a situation of competing and sometimes mutually antagonistic claims, with the democratic health of the nation hardly emerging as an over-riding concern. In rejecting the Obasanjo-convened ND, the mainly pro-SNC lobby – the Pro-National Conference Organizations (PRONACO) - led by Enahoro has said it will organize its own national conference in June this year. Yet another group, the Forum for Democracy and Good Governance (FDGG), a House of Representatives body led by Usman Bugaje, is said to be calling for a parallel conference. This is a veritable bazaar and one cannot rule out the possibility of other groups in the Senate or within the civil society in general trying to cash-in on this latest craze in our land of “anything goes”. We may also have to contend with the reported threat by some members of the National Assembly to have the ND declared as illegal by a court of law. What this means is that fellow citizens are reacting to the leadership deficit in the country in a manner that is largely chaotic or opportunistic. The immediate implication is that those hoping for useful deliberations on the way forward will have to wait much longer because what seems to preoccupy the Nigerian pol more than anything else these days is his political survival. This situation is not likely going to change in the next two years. For Obasanjo and his allies, the diversion offered by the president’s festival is a welcome development. It allows them to give the impression of being involved in something purposeful – a cheap ploy which should elicit our disdain. They know Nigerians love parties and many would gladly attend one even if it were organized by the neighbourhood bully. This bacchanalian culture has contributed in no small measure in the forging of a Nigerian personality that is adept at justifying every aberration of our national life. It is little wonder that many of the groups and individuals who had initially expressed their opposition to Obasanjo’s ND are now said to be scrambling for a chance to attend it. By tagging along in this matter of Mr. President’s ND scheme, civil society groups and their representatives should be considered as aiding, some of them inadvertently, perhaps, in the perpetuation of the very status quo they rightly rail against. And as to be expected, the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) leadership under Adams Oshiomhole have indicated their readiness to take part in President Obasanjo’s jamboree, unbelievably stating that a main reason for their stand is the desire to find out the true motives behind Obasanjo’s decision to stage the event in the first place! What a slick way to justify Oshiomhole’s “come-and-chop” relationship with a scheming tyranny! The attitude of the NLC leadership recalls the inconsistencies of other civil society groups in their respective positions on major national issues. This would seem to be their lot in the last five-odd years of relative inaction mired in self-serving justifications and ND may turn out as yet another alibi for Nigeria’s pro-democracy advocacy. So, Nigerians are bound to be suspicious when they realize that, all of a sudden, some of these people are now behaving as though ND or its SNC version is the epiphany for our national salvation. The fact of the matter is that by elevating this SNC wahala to the level of an idée fixe - a single-minded obsession akin to dogma -, Nigeria's pro-SNC establishment has effectively compromised both its credibility and efficacy as agents of truly democratic change. SNC is presented as the only way forward. In concrete terms, this has meant that, by and large, much of the pro-SNC lobby which is a critical part of the nation's civil society, has all but remained in a state of paralysis and abdication regarding the crisis of leadership the country is currently plagued with under the dictatorship of President Obasanjo. Confronted with the organized rape of democracy called the 2003 elections or 'selections', also popularly known as "419", key human rights organizations of the pro-SNC mould and their representatives preferred to either do nothing or threatened those who called for public demonstrations against the PDP-induced brigandage. Oshiomhole, the NLC leader, is on record for having vowed to harass and physically deal with anyone publicly marching against the 2003 electoral charade. All sorts of blackmail tactics were deployed by some of these so-called human rights/pro-democracy advocates to intimidate Obasanjo's opponents. It is these same people who are sanctimoniously telling us today that SNC is the unique way to go for Nigeria. A principal argument for the holding of a SNC is that many of the members of the National Assembly were introduced there illegally. Now, despite the damning evidence against "419", the voices of these human rights proponents have tended to be muted regarding the national shame in Anambra, for instance. This contradiction or lack of consistency on the part of much of our civil society in dealing with the national leadership crisis has serious implications for the pro-SNC advocacy. And we are yet to dwell on a central piece of a crucial segment of the pro-SNC orthodoxy - ethnicity. Its simplistic certainties notwithstanding, ethnicity or tribe-based advocacy with its emphasis on sectarian relevance is seen by its proponents as a dominant factor of national governance. This raises the all-important question: SNC, and then what? The "purposes" of a SNC as articulated by some of its main advocates are probably legitimate. A recurrent theme of pro-SNC militants is the principle of “true federalism”, whatever that means. Also, another crucial item is the issue of inter-communal relations. Chief Enahoro’s PRONACO is of the view that SNC is “a panacea to the myriad of ethnic questions confronting the nation”. But is SNC the only way to attain those core objectives of transparent democratic governance Nigerians have always desired? Some commentators have cautioned against the danger of trying to see the SNC as something akin to a ‘deus ex machina’ for dealing with the rot within the polity. I would go further than that and warn that for many of the self-proclaimed pro-democracy people, SNC would seem to have become a convenient moral and philosophical alibi. It offers ready justification for one’s curious refusal or unwillingness to confront a dehumanizing regime like the kind in place in Nigeria today by insisting that the fundamental problem with Nigeria lies elsewhere – in her Constitution – and not in ourselves. By that I mean the corrupt and uninspired political leadership and a deferent populace that seems willing to keep playing the role of eternal victim of the wreckers of our collective heritage. I have always maintained that the best national constitution in the hands of a decadent political leadership without the benefit of countervailing influences of a civil society committed to making the former accountable will not be of much use. I reiterate, Nigeria's fundamental problem has to do with our bad national leadership coupled with a civil society that is at once hypocritical and spineless. As the saying goes, every nation deserves its leaders. And regarding the supposed cathartic benefits of a SNC, Nigerians may feel they need them, but one cannot over-state the fact that good national leadership is the best catharsis any people can hope for. Those hoping that Obasanjo’s conference will metamorphose into something much more meaningful are probably being overly optimistic. They seem to ignore some of the critical inadequacies of those wanting to congregate sovereignly. Interestingly enough, it is Major-General Diya, a key member of the Abacha regime who has most succinctly captured the ambiance of the national conference bazaar we are now living. In giving his approval to president Obasanjo’s ND, Diya opined, as if in the manner of a Freudian slip: “It is better than nothing…I think we should participate and wait for another regime for another talk shop”. And there must be millions of Nigerians – most likely the silent majority - who quietly nurse an attitude similar to that by Diya in his categorization of Obasanjo’s conference as a mere “talk shop”. Beyond the apparent lack of broad appeal inherent in this undue emphasis on a SNC and its latter-day manifestations, the misgivings many Nigerians have concerning President Obasanjo’s ND or National Political Reform Conference have a lot to do with the legitimacy problems of the current regime in Abuja. It is worrisome that a government that cannot rationally claim to be acting on behalf of the majority should be trying to impose yet another sad episode in its macabre series of punishing impositions called ‘reforms’ on the country. And what precisely is the track record of the current Obasanjo regime in the area of reforms? Nigerians were told back in 1999 that the regime would be undertaking so-called reforms in the military, the police as well as other national security outfits. Five years later, the army, the police and the SSS have individually and collectively been reduced to behaving as corrupt tools in the service of a tyrannical regime and its allies. As for the much-vaunted economic and fiscal reforms, only the most cynical sycophants and beneficiaries of the regime would dare talk publicly of their supposed benefits these days. And what has become of the promise by President Obasanjo to help instil transparency and accountability in the way public institutions perform? We are dealing with a government whose relationship with the citizenry is now limited to three main items, namely, violence, intimidation and lies. How then does a mendacious tyranny with a huge credibility problem realistically hope to pull off its latest survival ploy called National Dialogue? Of course, through more lies, violence and intimidation, overt or otherwise. This is a recipe for failure, but that should hardly surprise any discerning mind. We are now faced with Obasanjo’s conference and the promise by Enahoro’s group to hold theirs some time this year. And as mentioned in the introduction, a section of the House of Representatives has indicated its intention to convene a parallel one. “We plan to organize a national conference that would highlight major dangers to democracy”, Mallam Bugaje is reported to have stressed. Whether or not the wish of the legislators does materialize, it has served to underline the alienating profile of the executive arm of government in our country today. Now, some of the people signing up for the jamboree which will no doubt be dominated by the corrupt PDP are saying that their participation should allow them the opportunity to have a better political system for the country. I do not doubt the sincerity and good will of some of those thinking that way, but one cannot help but ponder an issue that is implicit in my earlier remarks here, namely, that individuals otherwise considered as reasonable people should refuse to see the handwriting on the wall by wanting to get involved with a boondoggle. If President Obasanjo wants history to be less harsh on him, he should use the little time left for his regime to concentrate on fixing the nation’s essential services in the areas of healthcare delivery, education, the generation and distribution of electricity as well as the provision of petroleum products at reasonable prices. His regime should desist henceforth from the use of the various national security organs and other institutions for purposes that are anti-democracy and anti-people in general. Citizens should insist on the establishment of a truly independent body charged with organizing future elections. Obasanjo and his regime should leave any talk of constitutional reforms to the next government which, with due diligence on the part of the people, should use its stamp of legitimacy to help sponsor those reforms that the electorate would genuinely call for. There is no harm in accepting one’s limitations. What is harmful is the obstinacy in refusing to acknowledge them and acting accordingly in the national interest to stem the dangerous national drift for which they are largely responsible. Aonduna Tondu New York Email: tondua@yahoo.com |
# 
Your Comments
Please make The Square an enjoyable experience for everyone by refraining from gratuitous ad-hominem contributions, defamatory comments and off-topic posting. Such posts will be removed.