11 Jun 2005 |
|
| By Reuben Abati On Sunday, concerned Nigerians will celebrate the 12th anniversary of June 12, 1993: the landmark date that reminds us immediately of the unique personal and collective sacrifice that had to be made to ensure the exit of the Nigerian military from the corridors of power; to give Nigerians a fresh cause for hope, and to make today possible as a kind of triumph over the past that we all shared. It is therefore just as well that a number of groups are planning to celebrate the occasion as they have always done for both immediate and historic reasons. The Lagos State Government has already disclosed that it considers June 12, not May 29, to be the authentic anniversary of Nigeria's return to democracy. A group that goes by the name: "June 12 Stakeholders" co-ordinated by the Oodua Peoples Congress leader, Ganiyu Adams is organising a symposium on the theme: "June 12 and the Imperatives of National Restructuring" at the Excellence Hotel, Ogba on Sunday June 12. Another group known as the "June 12 Coalition" led by Dr Beko Ransome Kuti and Wale Okunniyi, under the auspices of PRONACO, Action Group and UAD, is also planing another symposium on "June 12 and the National Question." In addition, the coalition plans to have a rally at the Tai Solarin Square, Yaba. Dr Beko Ransome-Kuti has been quoted repeating a concern that is articulated at every turn by June Twelvers, namely that "the date June 12 should be given prominence because it is the genuine democracy day. It was the day Nigerians voted for democracy although it was annulled by the military." The conflict that Ransome-Kuti draws attention to here needs further exploration for it is an ideological point that he makes. Since 1999, the Obasanjo government, at the Federal level, has chosen to ignore the June 12 process and its symbolism, and instead promotes May 29 as democracy day. True, it was on May 29, 1999 that Nigerians secured a clear victory, albeit in retrospect the extent of that clarity remains doubtful, over the military which had kept the country under its boots for nearly three decades. When May 29 is celebrated, Nigerians are reminded of that significant moment of their second liberation. In specific terms, the first liberation was liberation from colonial rule in 1960; the second is the liberation from military rule in 1999. And this is where the difference lies. Those who use June 12 as benchmark are making the radical point that May 29, 1999 is the culmination of the process that began on June 12, 1993, and which dragged on for six years as a struggle between the forces of light and darkness. In the course of that struggle, many Nigerians lost their lives: children became orphans, women became widows, businesses collapsed, the country itself was on the brink of collapse; the average Nigerian suffered the loss of esteem and dignity. But the people were undaunted. Civil society rose against the evil that the military had become with their unprincipled frustration of the will of the people as expressed through the ballot box. The celebration of June 12 is a proper recognition of the heroism of all those persons and families who suffered to make democracy possible. It is a necessary reminder of those dark days under the military, a re-invention of that moment when Nigerians of voting age were required to make a choice about their country: to join the progressives at the barricades, or team up with the renegades of power. The emphasis on May 29 seeks to discount the value of this process. It celebrates the beneficiaries of the struggle of the June Twelvers, many of whom have been shown by their own acts, in the last six years, to be thoroughly undeserving. The construction of May 29 as the day of our second liberation was perhaps hasty, for six years later, what we have seen, what we have experienced is the fact that the exit of the military does not constitute a transition in real terms. The transition that the people seek remains elusive. The new rulers in civilian clothing have proven to be just as venal as the soldiers. And in any case, the system remains in the hands of soldiers who are pretending to behave as citizens. Unless and until there is a radical reconstruction of the ethos and purpose of power in Nigeria, the country is bound to remain a failed state. This is sad because on June 12, 1993, the people of Nigeria had made a loud statement about power across religious and ethnic divides; by casting a vote for change and progress. Thirteen years later, there has been so much motion, but little movement. The scope of human freedoms may have been expanded but the state remains disconnected from the people. In this regard, the June Twelvers who insist on the power of the people as the main foundation of democracy are the owners of the argument. Contained in their insistence is a protest about May 29 and its aftermath, and a clarion call to civil society that the battle for the soul of Nigeria has not been won and lost. Hence, the two groups referred to earlier are focussing on "national question" and "national restructuring": both themes are relevant. There is as well a personal angle to their protest. The focus on June 12 is in addition to everything else, meant to celebrate and honour on an annual basis, Chief MKO Abiola, the late businessman and industrialist, who was the alleged winner of the June 12, 1993 Presidential election. He was denied victory simply because some powerful persons did not like his face. Abiola became the symbol and the hero of the June 12 struggle and he paid for it with nearly all that he had. He lost a wife to the struggle (Kudirat Abiola who was murdered in cold blood by General Abacha's gun-men). His businesses collapsed because the military made it impossible for those businesses to operate. Many of his associates were jailed, killed, brutalised or forced into exile. Abiola himself suffered humiliation and eventually died in prison custody. His heroism and symbolism have been politicised (religion, ethnicity, geography etc) but nothing has been more scandalous than the sustained pretension by the Obasanjo government that Abiola does not matter. Against wiser counsel, President Obasanjo (now the man they could not kill with a rumour) has consistently denied MKO Abiola his due. In the heat of the June 12 politics, he had gone to South Africa to announce that "Abiola is not the messiah we seek". He is also often fingered as the architect of the Interim National Government, and the recommendation of another kinsman, Ernest Shonekan as the head of that ill-fated contraption. In six years, the Obasanjo government has refused to either honour Abiola or speak kindly about the sacrifice that he made, and to make this certain, they would rather talk about May 29, the anniversary of their own emergence. In the Abiola matter, President Obasanjo opens himself to ready attack and blackmail. It is widely said for example, that he, Obasanjo is the chief beneficiary of Abiola's heroism, having returned from prison to harvest the fruits of Abiola's labours. In 1999, the operative consensus for the sake of peace, and to make proper amends, was that it was more advisable to allow the President to emerge from the South-West. Hence, the two Presidential candidates (Obasanjo and Falae) were both Yoruba. Those who took charge of that election even went a step further to ensure that the President also came from Abeokuta, the home-town of the late Abiola. On all counts, Obasanjo became the lucky man of history, as the rest of Nigeria willingly conceded the Presidency to the South-West. When June 12 is thrown in Obasanjo's face therefore, those who do so are more or less reminding him of his indebtedness and of the need to be humble. They go a step further to say that on the basis of the evidence of the past six years, and the subsisting crisis of democracy, he too is not the messiah that Nigeria seeks. President Obasanjo carries a special moral burden where late Chief MKO Abiola is concerned. It is a burden that he must discharge before 2007. If he refuses to do so, a future government would have been handed an easy opportunity to play politics with the Abiola heritage, which given the determination of certain forces in civil society would be kept alive whether President Obasanjo wants that or not. He may insist that this does not matter to him one way or the other, but the truth is that it may well happen in his lifetime, and if he is acting out of any animus, he would no longer be in a position to make amends. It is remarkable for example, that when he attended a recent ceremony at the Baptist Boys High School, Abeokuta (the secondary school which he and MKO Abiola attended), one of the speakers had made an issue out of Obasanjo's denigration of the memory of not just a major historical figure, but also an old schoolmate! These June Twelvers may have strong ideological reasons for making their kind of statements, but equally useful are the lessons indicated by the Abiola family as its members try to cope with the loss of their breadwinner who died so that Nigeria could live. At a recent function in memory of Mrs Kudirat Abiola, her daughter Hafsat was reported as having lamented that old friends of the Abiola family, those who used to hang around MKO have abandoned the family and embraced other causes. Should she be surprised? The engine of Nigerian life and society runs on the oil of betrayal. The dead are so easily forgotten especially in this present-minded society. In Chief MKO Abiola's case, the battle over his Will has not been resolved. Many of his wives have found new husbands (that is life). The premises of the Concord Newspapers (the jewel of the Abiola business empire) remain under lock and key; that newspaper house where truth was constantly spoken to power has been taken over by rodents and cobwebs, the windows are falling off, the machines are silent. Heroism is a dangerous enterprise in Nigeria; it is only those who have lost their loved ones who can tell the fuller story of how this country betrays its own. But all that perhaps would not matter, if Abiola were accorded the honour that he deserves. Beko Ransome-Kuti has offered a suggestion. He says "institutions in the country like the Abuja National Stadium, one of the airports or something ingenious should be named after him." One thing is sure though: Abiola's sacrifice will always be remembered as a pivotal symbol of Nigeria's democracy. Everyone knows this, including those who deny that this is one truth that is so self-evident. Perhaps, someday in the future, a progressive National Assembly would pass a law making June 12, a national holiday.
|
||||||||||||
# 
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.