22 Mar 2009 |
|
Gowon And The Four Groups Sabotaging Nigeria By Reuben Abati General Yakubu Gowon, former Head of state of Nigeria and a statesman recently came up with a four-group theory in trying to analyse that old subject namely the problem with Nigeria. Gowon is a good man but his aforementioned theory is dumb. He was speaking at the second anniversary of the Central Working Committee of the Arewa Consultative Forum where he was represented by Alhaji M. D. Yusuf and he had concluded that the problem with Nigeria can be traced to four main groups whose activities militate against the corporate survival of Nigeria. In his reckoning these are: the first group comprising idealists who cannot wait to see a perfect Nigeria. This group he says agitates for the cancellation of the 1999 Constitution on the ground that there is too much concentration of power in the centre. The second group wants the country balkanised into small territories to be headed by tribal leaders, "demagogues and other anarchists who will sooner take Nigeria back to the chaos of the 18th century" There is also a third group, which according to General Gowon is similar to the first, and which wants the country's broken up into "geo-political territories, whereby the big ethnic groups may swallow up small ones without a challenge." And the fourth group which is "asking for a new constitution that will allow them keep 100 per cent of money derived from the sale of oil that is extracted within their territories." General Gowon says the nation may not survive the next elections if the activities of these four groups are not checked. But he then goes on to contradict himself when he purportedly declared that the country needs to be governed on the basis of fairness, justice and rule of law in order to remain one entity. He added that "harmony can only thrive when all the components that make up the country feel secured", and he urged leaders to "clearly embody the esteemed values of honesty and integrity and earn the willing respect and loyalty of the people". I have no problems with all that talk about harmony, honesty and integrity in the later part of General Gowon's presentation., but the same four groups that he says constitute a problem to Nigeria are in fact committed to the same objectives that he defines as central to the making of a good country. Their agitation is informed by the frustrated search for justice, equity and harmony in Nigeria, and the urgent need to re-negotiate the basis of our union. Rather than see these four groups as saboteurs whose opinions must be dismissed on the platform of the Arewa Consultative Forum, it is perhaps advisable to listen to their arguments. The bigger problem in Nigeria is the refusal to listen to dissenting views, the predilection by certain persons and groups to think that their own view of the coin is supreme and superior. Gowon's four groups as identified indeed exist, but they are not nihilists as alleged, rather they are major contributors to the Nigerian debate, a debate that should be encouraged. And to start with, the 2011 elections will not be jeopardised simply because certain groups of Nigerians are determined to ask questions, nor will the country disappear. The next elections can only end up widening the fault lines in Nigeria if President Umaru Yar'Adua and the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) continue to play games with electoral reform and the integrity of the ballot box. And if statesmen like General Gowon continue to protect the status quo and fail to summon the courage to speak the truth to power. Now back to the four groups. The first one: what is General Gowon's problem with idealists? And why is he opposed to the idea of a perfect Nigeria? Nations are made by idealists. By persons who dream and who stretch their dreams to the end of the street. By persons who see opportunities where others see challenges. Persons who are willing to dare when others scramble to protect their comfort zones. This is the world of Mahatma Ghandhi, of Abraham Lincoln, of Theodore Roosevelt, of Margaret Thatcher, of Nelson Mandela, of Lee Kuan Yew, Othman dan Fodio, Obafemi Awolowo, Mukoro Mowoe, Isaac Adaka Boro, Adegoke Adelabu, Ken Saro Wiwa, and of all the early nationalists in politics, society and the media who fought for Nigeria's independence and so on. Each man or woman in this category helped to make a difference because he or she asked questions and dreamt of possibilities. Anthony Enahoro was once convicted by a colonial court of law for daring to predict that Nigeria will one day be an independent country. General Gowon himself was once a member of this class of idealists. As a young man in his early thirties, as Head of State of Nigeria, he came up with the idealistic vision that it is possible to end a war in which there will be "no victor and no vanquished" and that all Nigerians should "go on with one Nigeria." Is the old man suffering from old age crisis when he says those who want the 1999 Constitution thrown out and amended do not wish the country well? He says those who are opposed to the concentration of power in the centre are more or less unpatriotic. The simple truth is that the 1999 Constitution is defective and the state of the debate is no longer whether or not it should be amended but to what extent. Whoever wrote that speech for General Gowon is behind the times. And to respond to the particular concern that has been expressed, let it be noted that the over-concentration of power in the hands of the Federal Government is a problem with Nigeria. I shall not attempt to explain the nature of this particular issue, I can only state that if the General still does not understand this matter which is directly at the heart of the Nigerian question, he is invited to read the writings of Professors Ben Nwabueze and Itse Sagay on it. The two scholars, in various writings provide the illumination that is required in the Gowon camp. And by the way, a perfect Nigeria is a relative concept. General Gowon in the speech under review also deplores self-determination groups. He says they want to take Nigeria back to the 18th century. For a former Head of State, this is a very unfortunate statement to make. He should allow his speeches to be written only by persons with a sense of history. A former Head of State of his stature cannot afford to make statements that fall short on historical context. It is not true that ethnic self-determination groups are anarchists, indeed they are just as concerned about the objectives of harmony, equity and justice in the Nigerian state, but confronted with a country where the opposites reign supreme and the governance process is anti-people, they are compelled to retreat to primordial holdings to demand the rights of their people to live. The question has been posed variously by Professor Wole Soyinka most recently and others as well: Is Nigeria a nation?. The failure of this country to transform into a nation in the real sense is what is responsible for the calls for self-determination and the proliferation of ethnic and tribal groups. The General's response would have been more analytical if he had looked at the causes rather than the effects, and if as a statesman, he had come up with suggestions as to how Nigeria, more than four decades after independence can become a nation. A third group he says wants the country broken up into small geographical territories, where the big can swallow the small. The latter part of that observation is his own deduction. I doubt if there is any group in this country today that is going about openly saying that its intention is to create the kind of geographical region that Gowon envisages. Yes, there are calls for regional governments as in the First Republic, and even the adoption of a Confederal system, but these are expressions of great frustration with the present Nigerian arrangement. We need not look for the danger that General Gowon describes in a new arrangement. It already exists, in a Nigeria where majority groups swallow up small groups, where the Federal Government swallows the states, and the states dominate the local councils creating a nationwide web of inequity. The General says this third group is related to the first, those who want a new Constitution. Is he aware that the 1999 Constitution actually recognises only three indigenous Nigerian languages and by that fact only three ethnic groups out of the over 400 ethnic nationalities in the country? Besides, what is wrong in dividing the country into geographical regions? The arrangement worked in the First Republic and it is probably the best way to raise the country's competitive index which is at an all-time low. General Gowon's fourth group and his protest about its preference is an open assault on the Niger Delta struggle. This group is "asking for a new constitution that will allow them keep 100 per cent of money derived from the sale of oil that is extracted within their territories." Oh, come on sir. The arguments for fiscal federalism, resource control and justice in the Niger Delta and elsewhere have been so well articulated it amounts to sheer mischief to dismiss it in this manner. I had in fact hoped that General Gowon would disown these declarations, because they are most strange. The whole point of the Niger Delta struggle, and he should know, is tied to the continuing search for harmony and justice in Nigeria. And if he, a member of the same Council of State, that is often called upon to advise the Federal Government and the Presidency on national issues, does not know, and he feels this way, then the country is truly in trouble. Besides, Niger Delta activists are not exactly asking for 100 per cent by all means, they are willing to negotiate, but since the First Republic, the Nigerian ruling elite and their rent-collecting cabals have treated every invitation to dialogue with arrogance. This is what has brought us to this sorry pass. And in any case, what if the people of the Niger Delta keep all the oil sale revenue? Let other Nigerians keep what they produce in their own lands too and make a contribution to the Federal pool. That way, we can get Nigeria to begin to work, because the people in all parts of the country would have to work to earn a living. For now, Nigeria is such an unproductive country because the Federal Government keeps oil revenue and every month, the states go to Abuja to collect their share of the national cake, and this effectively, we run a nation of parasites. General Gowon's speech in question points to two things. One: the fact that a conservative elite exists which is committed to the protection of the status quo. They don't think, they don't believe, they can't even see, that there is anything that is wrong with Nigeria. They are happy with Nigeria as it is. They are the problem with Nigeria. But if General Gowon is opposed to idealism, change and reform, then why does he lead a group called "Nigeria Prays?" Isn't the act of prayer itself the most idealistic of all human endeavours- the belief that an unseen being possesses the powers to change the course of human reality? And two: those who write the speeches that Nigerian public figures deliver are not always fair to them. It requires discipline however to take a critical look at a prepared speech and ensure that it does not become a problem to the speaker's image. The joke as I see it is on General Gowon, not the four groups that he says constitute a danger to Nigeria's corporate survival. But he is absolutely right in one regard: Nigerian leaders need to "clearly embody the esteemed values of honesty and integrity and earn the willing respect and loyalty of the people".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
# 
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.