Okey Ndibe (A Motion Against Moving Forward) has identified one strand of rhetoric that constitutes a hindrance to any effort to reclaim the Nigerian state from the incompetent rogues and clowns that currently occupy its highest political offices: the move-forward phenomenon that is so quick at interjecting itself into urgent national problems and robbing the citizenry of a credible, lasting resolution.

Moving forward has become a standard rhetorical register for responding to burning issues demanding urgent resolution. The PDP stole an election and put Yar’Adua in power? That may be true but we need to move on and the nation needs to move forward. Obasanjo desecrated the presidency with his larcenous proclivities and his juvenile and tyrannically vindictive and narcissistic method of governance? That’s true, but we should move beyond Obasanjo; the nation needs to move forward.

If Iyabo, like her father, dubiously appropriated power sector contracts and Obasanjo’s henchmen helped themselves to generous bribes from Siemens and Wilbros, the nation should not be bogged down by a pedantic quest for justice and restitution. Nigeria still needs to move forward. Nigeria is bigger than individuals and their crimes and should not be held hostage by the desire of some people to illuminate and punish the political crimes of the recent past. We need to move forward.

The rhetoric of moving forward has become depressingly pervasive, punctuating every effort to demand justice, moral accountability, and redress for the many things that are wrong with Nigeria .

In the wake of electoral disaster of April, this rhetoric gained unusual currency because the press seemed to have bought into it. Newspaper stories—many of them sponsored by investors in the corrupt PDP-controlled status quo—raised the specter of a power vacuum if Yar’Adua’s dubious mandate was not at least temporarily respected. The press insinuated the seeming inevitability of Yar’Adua’s ascension to a questionable presidential mandate, and helped argue the futility of protests against the brazen electoral manipulations.

When some principled holdouts insisted on fresh elections, the press was used to counter such demands with the argument that the electoral tribunals should be allowed to do their job and that a rerun of the polls would vitiate the national necessity for moving forward. In this inexplicable logic, sustaining an electoral corruption was a move forward while an insistence on a credible rerun of the botched elections was a move backwards.

Ndibe has repudiated the “move forward” phenomenon in all its ramifications. But we can frame the issue more broadly beyond the Nigerian electoral quagmire, and a little differently.

At issue is whether this "move-on" philosophy is or is not an 'African' dispute resolution rhetoric. I pose this question because it seems to me that, more than other peoples, Africans are quick to move on from crisis and dispute, to avoid a frontal confrontation with the knotty issues besetting their countries. Some of us are sometimes too quick to avoid disputes and to advocate the pacifist idiom of "moving forward." We do this even when the political and economic stakes are high and invite a decisive resolution, and when a lack of resolution can only aggravate our countries' plight and imperil their futures.

For empirical proof, look around the continent and you'll see this "move-on" discourse at work in political debates and in operation. Look at Uganda . During the recent peace talks between the government and the LRA, the government, in disregard of international outcry and the interests, sensibilities, and rights of victims of the LRA's atrocities, offered complete amnesty to the rebels in exchange for their abandoning the rebellion. As explanation for this unexpectedly generous offer, the government invoked an 'African' judicial emphasis on reconciliation and a concomitant indifference to punishment, retribution, and restitution.

In post-war Sierra Leone, the former RUF rebels, responsible for the hacking of the limbs of innocents and the sexual enslavement of thousands women, were given cash payments and job training to help rehabilitate them into society while their victims, many of them maimed for life, are still housed in dingy war victims camps around the country and deprived of the barest necessities crucial to their post-conflict rehabilitation. How does one justify this seeming rewarding of war crimes and the neglect of their victims? Doesn't this send the message that evil, even war-time evil, does pay and carries no punitive backlash in the post-war aftermath? Well, the government would say no. So would many of those who helped craft the post-war peace efforts in Sierra Leone . Like the Ugandan government, they invoke the so-called reconciliatory imperative of African judicial systems and painfully explain why reconciliation requires glossing over past crimes, rejects the appetite for revenge, and authorizes the compensation of war criminals.

The Rwandan Gacaca system of justice, which was used to try genocide cases, is also cited as another demonstration of the African judicial privileging of reconciliation over justice (in the Western sense of punishment and restitution). Reconciliation in this sense is predicated on the principle that society must move on without righting past wrongs; that it must move on from disputes, not necessarily resolve such disputes. It also supposes that dispute resolution is not necessarily the distribution of blame, the pronouncement of culpability, or the proclamation and enforcement of punitive and restitutive sentences. In short, it is a glorified form of "moving forward." It is claimed that the priority in this judicial philosophy is not justice (in a supposedly narrow Western sense) but societal harmony. But how permanent will such a contrived--and forced--harmony be without the healing finality of justice and redress? Some people argue that justice is a precondition for enduring peace and they are right.

In political disputes across Africa , especially in disputed elections, the idiom of reconciliation and 'moving forward' has been similarly advanced to quench the demands for electoral justice, fairness, transparency, and integrity in the electoral process. Insistence on electoral rules being followed and a puritanical rejection of rigging, voting fraud, and other manipulations of the electoral system are sometimes dismissed as emanating from an unAfrican obsession with justice, redress, culpability, blame, punishment, and restitution. The discourse of "moving on" and allied pacifist constructs come into play to discredit principled and morally motivated demands for redress, fairness, justice, and punishment.

In discussions on the Nigerian electoral fiasco of April and on the recent Kenyan elections, these discourses of reconciliation, societal harmony, and peace have been introduced as a counterpoint to the principled demands that political incumbents respect the electorate and their expressed will and that they not manipulate the process in their favor and to exclude the opposition. The Nigerian and Kenyan problems are identical. We have two heavily rigged elections from which two so-called presidents are now benefiting and whose tainted outcomes are being rationalized with the argument that society must move on and that reconciliation trumps the search for electoral justice and truth.

I am personally troubled by this spate of suspicious, strategic, and sometimes self-interested invocations of a supposed reconciliatory imperative in African dispute resolution ideology. In fact I am not even sure that such a dubious ideology is African. When was a poll taken to determine that Africans value reconciliation and 'moving forward' over justice, judicial redress, truth, and restitution? And why is reconciliation, political or otherwise, stressed to the exclusion of redress and punishment?

My concern is precisely Okey Ndibe's. Moving on and reconciling sound great. But they have little or no deterrence value when they are pursued outside a framework of justice and judicial restoration and restitution. If stolen electoral mandates and the resultant political disputes are resolved in ways that allow the thieves to keep all or some of their stolen political power and rob the electorate of the chance to establish their electoral will and the opposition of the chance to claim a deserved victory, what will discourage the next generation of electoral thieves? And how do we build credibility, faith, and longevity into our democratization process with such an elastic notion of democracy and electoral integrity?

If war criminals are compensated for their crimes, their victims denied justice, and society deprived of the chance to set a punitive example for the purpose of deterrence, then what message are we sending to putative war criminals of the future?

The Africanization of a dubious conciliatory ethic, which collapses moral boundaries and disrespects the universally subscribed values of justice, fairness, truth, and redress, is dangerous to both our democracies and our societies. Such a dubious reconciliation is neither African nor capable of moving us forward from disputes.

Even if the idiom of 'moving forward' and reconciliation is African, we must de-Africanize it immediately or else there will soon be no safeguards against--or consequences for--political wrongdoing. Or else we will be incentivizing and subsidizing political misbehavior and electoral larceny. Reconciling with tyranny, war crimes, and electoral manipulation in the name of moving forward can only replicate these crimes.

Robot  # 1 | 14.01.2008 19:42

var sbtitle1390=encodeURIComponent(Moving Forw...Read the full article.

tanibaba  # 2 | 15.01.2008 06:06

I want to commend you for this beautiful piece. I am particularly impressed by the two statements you made regarding this matter. 1.At issue is whether this "move-on" philosophy is or is not an 'African' dispute resolution rhetoric. I pose this question because it seems to me that, more than other peoples, Africans are too quick to move on from crisis and dispute. Some of us are sometimes too quick to avoid disputes and to advocate the pacifist idiom of "moving forward." We do this even when the political and economic stakes are high and invite a decisive resolution, and when a lack of resolution can only aggravate our countries' plight and imperil their futures. 2.Moving on and reconciling sound great. But they have little or no deterrence value when they are pursued outside a framework of justice and judicial restoration and restitution. If stolen electoral mandates and the resultant political disputes are resolved in ways that allow the thieves to keep all or some of their stolen political power and rob the electorate of the chance to establish their electoral will and the opposition of the chance to claim a deserved victory, what will discourage the next generation of electoral thieves? And how do we build credibility, faith, and longevity into our democratization process with such an elastic notion of democracy and electoral integrity ? I also want to agree with you that the term has been used by criminally minded people, who are conscious of the fact that in Nigeria “anything goes” to wreck havoc on the country. And the victims have also at one time or the other offered themselves as willing accomplices. Whenever anyone is to be brought to book such claims as “he is a muslim/Christian” “he is from our local government” “ he is our first graduate” are played up and the whole thing becomes messy. This has been played over the years in Nigeria that there is no true justice anywhere anymore. My country is gradually becoming animal farm. Some writers come to this village to condemn Ibori, Alams, Nnamani (the governor), Alao Akala, Uzor Kalu and showcase their “sins” against the people in their various states and localities. They have the right to do so. But when you juxtapose this with scenes on television where “their people” (the victims) actually resist any attempt to mete out justice and indeed organize elaborate welcome back parties, then what is justice and for whom. What is the meaning of justice to my people ; the so-called victims. Moving on? Yes we must always move on. Life abhors a vacuum. And I doubt if it is exclusively African. It may appear defeatist but it has it own uselfulness. There is war and strife all over the world today because some people decided not to accept the principle of moving on. But whenever we decide to move on we should ask ourselves the question : in what direction are we moving. The problem is not in MOVING ON. The problem lies in the fact that we have very few OPTIONS. We want to be at peace and not to disturb whatever small indulgencies we have right now. So for as long as we are guaranteed these, every other thing can go on. The minister can steal the entire oil proceeds and the governor can buy private jets for his mistress. The society is in a helpless situation and I believe that is what should be the focus of whoever wants to contribute positively to getting us out of this “moving forward” quagmire. We need to re-invent this society. We need to bring back values and ensure that the judicial and other systems work. I have come to realize that the forces of darkness and light must co-exist and so while each draws on its strength to dominate, commentators and writers who are on the side of light should be able to identify those things that is making darkness to thrive and seek to reduce the operating space of the forces of darkness. Unfortunately in my country, even at the personal level people who try to swim against the tide by insisting on propriety, truth etc are regarded as mad men/women and promptly killed or sidelined - Muritala Muhammed is a good example. My brother we have to move on whatever is the case but in what direction - is it towards light or further into the darkness . And what structures and systems are we putting in place to guide us towards sanity and light? Once again thank you for this beautifully written piece. taslim

Oghre  # 3 | 15.01.2008 09:41

Writer and Tanibaba, Any plans to construct possible solutions to these already highlighted issues? My main concern is not identifying “strand of rhetoric” and “move forward” phenomenon; echoing and re-echoing common Nigerian (African maybe) rants, it is the lack of constructive, objective and technical (if you like) solutions. Practicality is missing in articles and response like the one above. I could read these all day and go,” where is the added “value”? We are in danger of highlighting these issues, writing about them, creating awareness and distributing them on Nigerian owambe websites, while being part of the problem because of our lack of constructive offering of possible fixes. Let us lead and write by example; let us find our if the issues have already been highlighted and then move the wheel forward by telling people who/what/where similar issues have cropped up and what has been done to challenge or resolve them. I Don’t want to hear we have electricity problems anymore, I don’t want to know UMYA is illegitimate, my 8 year who has never been to Nigeria knows it just as my local take away Indian shop. I want to hear what drastic measures Nigerians can take to address it. Are we to continue demonstrating in every corner of the globe until local and international pressure removes UMYA? We should be importing strategic information about how for example a 3rd world East European country like Bulgaria provides wind turbine and solar electricity to its people. How the private sector can import these ideologies to remedy the Nigeria Power sector. I want to hear how we can assume a zero tolerance on fraud and isolate scammers from our societies anywhere there is a Nigerian community in the world as a way to redeem our image. I want to hear Nigerians setting up NGOS to partner the Niger-Deltans in a drive to understand their plight, highlight it to all corners of the globe to raise awareness so multinational companies and the Nigerians government will be pressured to stop abusing those citizens. What is stopping a Nigerian calling for a full scale revolution to re-identify our citizenship, bring about a radical and pervasive change in society and our social structure? No one but us at this stage can repudiate the thoroughly corrupt replacement of a thieving established government and political system we are burdened with for 48 years. Solutions please!!!

tanibaba  # 4 | 15.01.2008 09:58

Oghre, thank you for your comments. Fortunately you have shown that you are not different from us because you failed to provide solutions. We were merely discussing one aspect of our life - moving forward - as a tool for conflict resolution and its negative impact. The discussion has just begun and your perspective will be welcome. This article is a rejoinder offering another perspective. So it is a vibrant academic/social/nigeriana discussion. And for your information suggested solutions are both in the article and my response. It is just that you have to look close enough to identify them. They may not be terrific, but they are worth considering. You talked about revolution. What type and who will lead? You have to ask yourself why Nigeria has not gone to war in the last thirty eight years inspite of the upheavals that she has gone through. We went through june 12 etc, look at kenya, somalia, congo and the reasons for their unending wars. I am not saying we should condone evil but is the environment conducive to the growth of evil? the answer is yes. And will people want to rise up and fight for their rights? i am not sure as only few people want to be "disturbed" taslim

Oghre  # 5 | 15.01.2008 10:51

=tanibaba;4294980052>Oghre, thank you for your comments. Fortunately you have shown that you are not different from us because you failed to provide solutions. We were merely discussing one aspect of our life - moving forward - as a tool for conflict resolution and its negative impact. The discussion has just begun and your perspective will be welcome. This article is a rejoinder offering another perspective. So it is a vibrant academic/social/nigeriana discussion. And for your information suggested solutions are both in the article and my response. It is just that you have to look close enough to identify them. They may not be terrific, but they are worth considering. You talked about revolution. What type and who will lead? You have to ask yourself why Nigeria has not gone to war in the last thirty eight years inspite of the upheavals that she has gone through. We went through june 12 etc, look at kenya, somalia, congo and the reasons for their unending wars. I am not saying we should condone evil but is the environment conducive to the growth of evil? the answer is yes. And will people want to rise up and fight for their rights? i am not sure as only few people want to be "disturbed" taslim Tanibaba, You made some valid observation in your rejoinder; I am forced to deal my cards in another way. Before I continue, let me say I have written a lot with practical solutions of how Nigeria can reform the Information Technology sector (my field), for the betterment of our economy and the Nigerian citizen, many of my work and proposals have been made available to Government offices in Nigeria and some private sector organisations. Some are available on cyberspace. I have written to suggest ways of population control, which is one topic the average Nigerian is too ignorant to accept and discuss because we are still in the traditional time warp of Nigeria traditional- illogicalness. I have written and proposed a biometric citizen database to help us identify all Nigerians and place them on a birth and death register to assist planning, reform and policies. Even corrupt governments in Nigeria can attempt to implement these very basic suggestions. I did not ONLY just write and highlight problems with ICT in Nigeria or with our ever spiralling population, but I came up with practical solutions to ameliorate these issues. What I expect from people (like you and author) who have such education and socio-literate observatory resources at our disposal are practical solution with examples, and benefits for the Nigerian people. I do know that many government policies have been formed out of suggestions by people in Diaspora and in Nigeria who have knowledge and experience of “1st/2nd world” development techniques. The author had better do what I did in my first response (which you refuse to accept as a solution), call for a massive revolt. Keep calling for it until it sinks in to all Nigerians that we go nowhere until the likes of IBB has been remove from his Minna residence and treated like a common thief. Until political gangsters like UMYA refuse to accept stolen mandates for fear of retribution, until people stop celebrating thieves and criminals. "Justice is a certain rectitude of mind whereby a man does what he ought to do in circumstances confronting him." - Saint Thomas Aquinas "To see what is right, and not to do it, is want of courage or of principle." -Lisa Alther To answer you questions Revolution: What type and who will lead? Revolution knows only one type, and many have led to major changes in culture, economy, and socio-political institutions. Nigeria has abundant leadership in people-people like Gani Fawehinmi and Wole Soyinka, many more to choose from. Nigeria has not gone to war in the time you specified because they have not been mobilised, Ojukwu mobilised his people and they rallied around him for a common cause. So did Ken Saro Wiwa. We are passive people but many of us can become aggressive given the right nurturing. Nurturing that articles and publicity can generate. The tasks before us are not impossible and there is strength in numbers. Make it happen

fuguez  # 6 | 15.01.2008 11:37

A wonderful article that relates many of the points that have been on my mind for a while. I do believe there is something 'cultural' to it. "Forgive him, as he is your brother.". The amount of times I have heard this is incredible. Does anyone get punished in Nigeria (Africa)? The Asians have a (similar) concept of harmony - Wa in Japan. However, this is tempered by a real and powerful sense of shame, demonstrated in the extreme by suicide. We do not have a (or have lost our) sense of shame. The Catholics and Jews have a strong sense of guilt that keeps them 'within bounds'. These - shame and guilt - are two primary social mechanisms that control social behaviour. We (Nigerians) appear to have neither. In the absence of both we must have genuine deterrence, and real and apparent justice. The more I look at our condition, the more I become convinced that WITHOUT change (and I cannot see any presently) we are doomed. We have now reached a position where the government is actually incapable of delivering anything. They cannot provide and maintain power, gas, water, etc.. This all stems from the fact that they cannot really control anyone - not the teenage militant in the Niger Delta, nor the soldier sent in to control him, nor the Governor overseeing the soldier's commander. In short, nobody. We have created amongst ourselves an impregnable sense of impunity, where it is in individuals' interest to 'scatter' anything and everything instead of working and creating. When called to account we can simply demand of our accusers that they 'move forward' and stop preventing us from whatever perverted measure of progress that we have clearly developed for ourselves. A wonderful article. Thank you.

tanibaba  # 7 | 16.01.2008 05:36

Oghre, Once again thank you for your comments and your contributions to our country as stated in your submissions. It appears that we both agree on the need to re-engineer our country; call it a revolution if you like. However, we have to be careful. As I stated earlier, given our socio-cultural environment what type of revolution should we consider: Gandhi, Lenin, Sankara, Rawlings, Murtala, Mandela etc etc. These are individuals who are regarded as revolutionaries at different times, using different styles and achieving different results. But they are all revolutionaries. There are too many entrances into and exits from the market place. For instance I read somewhere, under this topic where somebody was calling for new elections. Sounds revolutionary doesn’t it? But the truth is that the judicial process is still on and there are constitutional provisions to handle whatever we consider presently as problems arising from the April elections. Should we jettison all that and follow those calling for new elections. What is their basis or relevance in the scheme of things in Nigeria? Do we recourse to this arbitrary way of handling problems whenever they arise? And if we do decide to take that course, will the destination be better than where we are today. Is it possible for us to pay attention to the tools that we want to apply in dealing with the issues of today so that we don’t have to pay for the consequences tomorrow. Thanks for your response I doff my hat for you taslim

EezeeBee  # 8 | 16.01.2008 06:01

Ebe, That was a spectacular article, extending Dr. Ndibe's thoughts. Thank you. We cannot keep 'moving forward' without first determining where 'forward' is because, as I realized when I was a young child, at north pole, every direction is south!