|
Nigeria – The Broadway Show!
by Samuel Akinyele Caulcrick,
UK.
____________
To shore up its non-performance in GDP, despite its high-yield oil receipt, Nigeria could earn, comparatively, billions of dollars in drama on Broadway, New York. The show, Nigeria, will definitely break all records in terms of the number of tickets sold. This, however, is a supposition. Notwithstanding, the recent theatrics of, “You are a thief. …No, I’m not a thief,” by our two topmost citizens lend credence to the possible. If it were so, then New York’s three international airports, Kennedy; La Guardia and Newark, could be bursting to capacity as people from all over the world would have descended on New York. Most of who, would have come to watch the Nigeria show in spite of the terrorist threats. This also could catch the attention of Hollywood.
When I first noticed the German giant sports gear maker’s (Adidas) advert, “The Impossible Is Nothing,” I thought that was ingenious. Wait, until you see what is being played in Abuja. Is it a question of déjà vu? Was the late Fela Anikulapo a true prophet? Fela sang about many things, long before they manifested in our lives. You should remember, ‘Education is disorganised, patapata; communication is disorganised, patapata; everything is upside-down, patapata…’ They all manifested and like the ancient Israelites, we did not listen. Fela’s arguments were sound moral arguments, but we did not listen.
Nigeria’s multifarious economic and socio-political defects will only be tackled through arguments – sound moral arguments. The late Chief Obafemi Awolowo had thought that he could ascend to the presidency through arguments. He was wrong. The people did not even listen. A friend once said that it is impossible to listen when you are hungry, but then impossible is nothing. At least the hungry man should listen even if he does not agree, so that he will know which cupboard contains the food. Otherwise he will starve for long and suffer longer than it is necessary.
There is no doubt that the proverbial seven years of “plague and famine” descended on Nigeria in the 80s – forcing, as would be expected, an unprecedented exodus of Nigerians to seek greener pastures. Those that chose to stay and slug it out, as tenacious as they claim to be, still bear the scar of dejections. The new generation of Nigerians, one would expect, should, therefore, have been tempered by this unique feeling in the Diaspora or the “sidon-look.” The conditions are, somewhat, right to not just listen, but to listen well.
Many people are familiar with the word euphemism. The dictionary defines euphemism as a word or phrase used in place of a term that might be considered too direct, harsh, unpleasant, or offensive. The Encarta Concise English Dictionary, in its Language Note, states thus: Euphemisms make the unpalatable more palatable. People use euphemisms chiefly to conceal feared things, such as death; to conceal the reality of unthinkable crimes; to conceal references to sex, body parts and fluids, and excrement; and to elevate otherwise lowly-sounding or derogatory occupational titles and institutional names… In Nigeria, the public and the press have long used euphemisms to elevate misdemeanours of derogatory proportions. Corruption, misappropriation and embezzlement are euphemisms for stealing. These people are not corrupt leaders; they are common thieves, period.
Let us go back to the issue of arguments. Our score-yearly constitutions (the first was in 1959, the second in 1999 and we should expect the next one in 2019), has been a living lie and that is why. The first was republican and the present is also republican - hence the Federal Republic of Nigeria. However, Nigeria has never seized to be, from the periods before the incursion of the colonial Britain to the present day, a conglomerate of kingdoms. How to marry the structural incompatibles of monarchisms and republicanism under a written republican constitution has been the Nigerian experience. It has failed so far; hence Nigeria has resorted to governance by proxy, which is outside the written constitution. Our traditional fathers, whom our constitution did not give a political role to play, are thus rewarded outside the budgets by contracts and the rights to lift oil.
Traditional institutions, don’t get me wrong, are stabilising institutions. Besides, they are what we are. Trust the British, they always know best. They know how impractical it is to operate a written constitution in a monarchy, so they operate without one. It would have been impossible to suggest this in the 60s. At that time, the North and the South West were monarchical, while the East was mostly republican, because of the egalitarian nature of the people of the East. All attempts to impose traditional rulers in the East by the colonialists ended up in disaster. The British thus had to govern the East through the councils of elders, while in the other parts it was the indirect rule – ruling by proxy.
Things have changed since then. After the war, in which the East failed in an attempt to secede, there had been a rush to turn the East into monarchies. All sorts of men donned redcaps with feathers and the number of feathers signified the hierarchy of each kingdom. Kingdoms are still being created in that part of the country on a daily basis. The time to readdress the constitution is now - since every part of the country now has traditional rulers. We can give the traditional fathers transparent roles in our polity, just like the Lords in the House of Lords in the UK. They should be paid handsomely from our budgets, instead of from under the table deals. They are the custodians of the land (landlords) and should be compensated for the use of the land. That way, they would feel a sense of having a bigger stake in the tranquillity of the land. They could even be the ones that will choose our presidents for us. They had been the ones doing that outside the written constitution anyway – at least now it would be de jour.
‘If you think I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one,’ so please, do not shoot me. Just remember our post colonial history. The power of the electorate, which is the ingredient of republicanism, has never been a reality apart from being on paper – waste of money. Who do heads of states visit first, or turn to, in times of trouble? Who do criminals like the former Inspector General of Police turn to in their travails? Who do the courts suggest as surety for corrupt officials in time of troubles? The answer to all these questions is the traditional leaders. They have been degraded by our constitution to accept blood monies from our rogue leaders.
Dubious and not too dubious people struggled to be knighted by these traditional systems. The Guardian Newspapers at its inception promised not to address anybody by the titles bestowed on the recipients by the traditional system. That paper had swallowed its words. Even the founder is now addressed as a chief. The former embattled Lagos Police spokesman, Alozie Ogbuguaja, or something like that, during the time of his travail following his “Pepper soup coup plotters” saga, said what happened to him would not have happened to him if he were the son of an Oba, Emir, or Obi. The traditional institution is the reality, man! We should stop living a lie.
I am suggesting that the traditional rulers should choose the President for us and decide among them where the presidency should go this time, North, West, East or South East. It is of no use to the man in the street. It is the man in the street that is being marginalised in any case and not where he is from. I am a Yoruba man. I do not see any advantage I have gained over my contemporaries from other parts of Nigeria since Obasanjo became the President of Nigeria. This issue of marginalisation, therefore, is by the elites and it is a smokescreen.
The Nigerian scenario runs thus: I have been selected or elected to represent my people at the centre, say Abuja. I have now been elevated to the status of political elitism. I, instead, go there to partake of the sharing of the national cake for self. I move my stolen money to Switzerland, my children are withdrawn from the pitiable educational system to Europe or America, and my wife jets in an out of the country. The only tarred road in my village detours through my gate to the village council and ends up at the palace. The fence of my palatial house is so high that nobody sees the more than twenty high production cars parked there. All is well; after all, I am the village’s illustrious son. Nobody remembers marginalisation at this stage.
Then for one reason or the other, I lose my favour with the other fellow louses in Abuja. I then rush home to tell my people that I have been removed from the centre because I am from that Village. My people, without thinking, will rise to my defence – citing marginalisation. ‘This cannot be allowed to happen to the only son we have in the centre.’ They would not stop to think that I am the reason, why they cannot compete in a capitalist world because the capital needed has been spirited away by me to foreign land instead of in the local banks where they could have access to such funds; why their children went through pitiable educational system; why there is no running water in their taps; why there are no good roads, etc. All they know is marginalisation as selfishly defined by me. They do not even consider sending another son.
By the way, I remember the then retired General Obasanjo stating in 1993 that the late Chief Abiola was not the messiah. He, himself, has been short of messianic attributes - to say the most, but it may not be too late. Now that he has sworn to go in 2007, will he delouse the system, and thereby, be the deliverer of the people of this great country from the captivity of the louses in our lives. That would earn him the enviable title of a Messiah.
|
Authors 
Posted by Robot| 28.09.2006 08:07