'If there is anything worth celebrating, it is that the North is not as 'united' as it used to be (President Obasanjo has seen to that), because 'disunity' may end up working better for the North in the long term by strengthening internal opposition within the region."
The idea of 'aid' from self-styled donor countries is often repulsive. If their motives are altruistic, why, for instance, would a donor country give 'aid' to another country to build a five-star hotel, using contractors, consultants and materials from the donor's country? If the reason is purely to help the tourism and hospitality industry of the recipient country, wouldn't it have been better to allow the demand in that sector to spur supposedly free market capital to go seeking profit by funding the building of the hotel? And why set conditions such as who may be hired as consultants, where materials may be obtained from, etc?
As many people already know, 'aid' never comes without motives in the interest of the donor country, whether or not they are hidden. To begin with, some politicians who approve these funds in donor countries are only somewhat higher up the corruption ladder than their counterparts in recipient countries, usually in the so-called third world. It is well-known that many foreign contractors and consultants often have deep political ties and their donations back home during campaign seasons help their politician friends to win or retain positions. As the rather glib saying goes, 'Do the math!"
Some may ask, 'What does it matter if there's kickback in the donor country? If the five-star hotel gets built, won't it provide jobs and help the economy of the recipient nation?" To be sure, whether they are Greek gifts or not, some good do come of foreign aid. But should that then excuse the intrinsic moral and sometimes criminal duplicity therein? What about the recipient's honour and sense of self worth? What about the seeming state of permanent helplessness suggested by the recipient's willingness to always accept these 'aid'? Are all these things worth the obvious denigration of the recipient?
It may not be an apt analogy, but your correspondent has gone to this length to illustrate how, on one level, the concept of 'power shift' is despicable and should be repudiated by everyone with a sense of self worth. The idea that one or more groups have to agree to let go of political power before another group can be assured of attaining it smacks of some pitiable form of enslavement that ought to fill the advocates of such an abysmal scheme with shame.
If wielding power at the centre of the federation is what one or more groups feel others can be intimidated with, have those other groups nothing to bargain with? Whatever happened to the concept of breaking a few eggs in order to make an omelette? There is considerable doubt that anything worthwhile will be accomplished by engaging in this undemocratic 'turn-by-turn' mockery of democracy.
In any case, once a group identifies itself as such, it often sees other groups as, at best, the 'opposition' or, at worst, the 'enemy', even if it's only a game like football. When matters ascend to the level of national politics, the inverted commas would come off and non-belligerent-if not benign-opposition, may quickly morph into a fearsome enemy that must be defeated, or at least thwarted at any cost. Does this sound like a good mix for national development?
Let it be conceded that this correlation is rather oversimplified. But taking a somewhat over-the-top tack is a way of underscoring the danger inherent in this revived 'love' for regional posturing. The danger is not so much one of cracking the country's unity because there's no unity to crack. The danger is one of turning a barely manageable situation-where we're all struggling to get along amidst mutual suspicion-into utter chaos.
Moreover, let us dismiss any notions that this country would know meaningful progress while her current ruling elite insists on pursuing this political ping-pong of 'power shift'. It should be obvious that significant advancement will continue to elude a people led by a select few who would rather carve up the country's wealth than grow that wealth. This is accentuated by the haughtiness and absurd exclusivity in-built in the very concept of 'power shift'. The evident poverty of ideas and this attempt at elitist snobbery is a clear indication that no side in the on-going tussle seeks power at the centre for developmental purposes. It is simply a matter of, 'Let us have a turn at holding the knife over the national cake."
Further to this, let the silence from all camps regarding ways and means to diversify the economy, create jobs, improve security and tackle other national problems support the point made above. Those who see nothing but conjecture in all of this are welcome to review Nigeria's recent history as it stands.
Now, if there is something that is worth celebrating at this juncture, it is the fact that despite all recent claims to the contrary, the North is not as united as it used to be. President Obasanjo, aided in no small way by the burden of the North's contemporary history, has effectively seen to that. For proof, look no further than some of the leading lights of the third term agenda. However hard they may deny their involvement or try to hide their hands or faces, a good number of persons from the North are neck-deep in the scheme.
Why is this situation worth celebrating? Because a certain level of disunity may actually work out better for the North in the long term by strengthening internal opposition within the North itself. Internal opposition in this context means it would no longer be enough for someone to get up and proclaim 'Arewa" and think that's all there is to gain the people's support. Some would ask, 'Wait a minute; what can you do for us?" Others may even say, 'We would be better off with such and such because this chap wasn't much help in the past."
Aligned with similar forces in the South-which, for all that huffing and puffing and show of solidarity at Enugu still has mutual distrust as its watch word-there is an opportunity to explore coalitions built around clearly defined and mutually beneficial socio-political exigencies. This is where Nigeria should be heading; a position where power would be pursued by a group that may not necessarily be in love, but would be diverse and progressive enough to recognise that an honourable person of ideas from any stock in the country is worth supporting if that would lead to attaining set goals.
Proponents of 'power shift' to whatever part of the country are not the major obstacles to the achievement of this realistic platform for momentous change. The people of Nigeria are their own biggest problem. Until they realise that their capacity for counterproductive ruthlessness-regularly harnessed from their ranks against their own interests-can be unleashed to bigger and longer lasting benefits on the usual harnessers, there will be a whole lot more weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth while the palaver of 'power shift' raves, perhaps unwittingly allowing an incumbent leader in no hurry to leave to delay his departure beyond his designated exit date.
|
# 
# 
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.