Wednesday, November 24, 2010

A Resurgent Nigerian State?

For more than a decade, the Nigerian state has been in retreat with multiple signs of state failure or even imminent collapse. Communal, ethnic, sectarian and religious riots in Warri, Aguleri-Umuleri, Sagamu, Ife-Modakeke, Andoni, Okrika, Bauchi, Kafanchan, Kaduna, Jos, Maiduguri and other parts of Nigeria were intermittent. The almost complete take-over of the Niger-Delta by so-called “militants”-in reality illiterate or poorly-educated, unemployed, misguided youths who had resorted to criminality partly in protests at state neglect but also for pecuniary sustenance in the absence of proper jobs illustrated state weakness. Outbreaks of religious violence across the North, most recently the “Boko Haram” crisis were recurrent.

The Niger-Delta crisis started with agitations by Ken Saro-Wiwa’s Ogonis against environmental devastation by Shell and Nigeria, but was soon followed by ethnic and communal crises as Urhobos, Itsekiris, Ijaws, Nembe etc fought against each other. Soon pure gangsterism took over as politicians deployed these veterans of inter-communal wars as political thugs and enforcers. In the Niger-Delta states, especially Rivers, Delta and Bayelsa, there was a clear link between violence and victory in the 1999 elections and thereafter. Once the politicians were settled in office, the thugs became autonomous gang leaders and later “militants”. The Nigerian government eventually offered a hastily-conceived “amnesty” basically admitting a balance of power with rag-tag armies of disparate and ill-organised “militant” groups.

Eastern Nigeria became a den of robbers and kidnappers with the Igbo elite abandoning their communities to criminal coalitions of emergency traditional rulers, kidnappers and armed robbers and their informants and watchmen (and women and children) to seek refuge in Abuja, Lagos, Port-Harcourt and Calabar. The two most important commercial centres in the East-Aba and Onitsha lost their vibrancy as banks, petrol stations and even markets closed under the onslaught of criminals. As armed robbers fled Fashola’s security measures in Lagos, they moved to neighbouring Ogun and Oyo states filling the vacuum in governance and policing, raiding banks at will and occasionally perhaps acting as part-time political assassins. In Ibadan, violent road transport workers became the state!

Highways in the North, especially around Kogi, Nasarawa, Abuja and other parts were seized by armed robbers with prominent citizens falling victim. Alhaji Abubakar Rimi died as a result of one such incident. The official response was to engage non-state vigilantes and powerful “medicine men” to keep the roads safe, again demonstrating the impotence of the state. Some years back, the Ajah area of the aspiring Lagos mega-city regularly erupted in urban warfare as “Olumegbon” and contending landowners battled for supremacy with guns, cutlasses, axes and charms usually in broad day light with residents fleeing for their lives and the police keeping a safe distance. Newspaper reports suggest a recent recurrence of the Ajah violence.

There were also more fundamental challenges to the powers of the state-declaration of Sharia by then Zamfara Governor Sani Yerima which spread across eleven states in Northern Nigeria in defiance of the Nigerian Constitution; suspicions that some “militants” and regional elite in the Niger-Delta perhaps desired not just “resource control” but may have been questioning the nation’s sovereignty and territorial integrity as well; “MASSOB” whose name made its strategic intent explicit-“Movement for the Actualisation of the Sovereign State of Biafra”; the Odua Peoples Conference (OPC) and other “self-determination” groups which in the aftermath of “June 12” and Abacha’s despotism questioned the rationale for Yorubas staying within Nigeria.

In recent times, labour (and even regional irredentists desperate for power to be “rotated” back to their “zone”) regularly threaten to “make the country ungovernable”. Power sector workers are eager to confront state policy and have shut down national electricity supply twice in the last three months. However the biggest act of contempt for the Nigerian state however was the Independence Day bombing, a dangerous escalation of the slide towards anarchy and an ineffective and impotent Nigerian state. However it does appear that the Jonathan administration and the new National Security Adviser, General Andrew Owoye Azazi may have recognised that the rationale for the existence of the Nigerian state is increasingly being lost and the introduction of bombings directed against the state may, if not checked, represent the final chapter in the process of state disempowerment and failure.

The Jonathan Presidency seems to have offered a strong response-routing kidnappers in the East who seized a bus load of school children, ensuring safe release of all the children; subsequent action by the military and police against kidnappers and criminals in eastern Nigeria that has reportedly led to the arrest of over 400 persons; the meticulous manner the State Security Services has been assembling evidence relating to the independence day (and the previously unresolved Warri) bomb blasts and arresting those implicated in these actions; detection of the Iranian armaments and heroine imports and strong security and diplomatic follow-up; and most recently the very successful (so far) military onslaught by the Joint Task Force (JTF) against the revival of “militancy” in the Niger-Delta, wiping out of militant camps, freeing of hostages and the surrender of several militant leaders and their men.

The early signs are that the Jonathan/Azazi/Petinrin/Ihejirika team is surprisingly shaping out as an effective national security team. Is it too soon to hope they can keep up this momentum and restore the powers, effectiveness and credibility of the Nigerian state?

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Obama's "Shellacking"!!!

I did not expect to find “shellacking” in a conventional dictionary so I went online. Dictionary.com defined it as “an utter defeat”, “a sound thrashing” or “to defeat or trounce” while the World English Dictionary notes that it is a mainly US or Canadian slang meaning a “complete defeat” or “sound defeat”. I was subsequently surprised to find my good old New Webster’s Dictionary with essentially the same meaning-“to defeat by a very large margin”! By his own admission, that was what President Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats got from the Republicans in the recent US mid-term elections.
It was a stinging chastisement as Republicans picked up (at least) 60 House seats and 6 in the Senate taking the Republican tally to a House majority of 239 displacing Nancy Pelosi as Speaker, and narrow minority of 47 in the Senate, to the Democrats 186 and 52 respectively. It is clear that US voters delivered a categorical thumping to Obama who they had elected overwhelmingly just two years earlier. What is not so clear is why? The usual explanation is that it was about jobs and the economy; that US voters always punish incumbents for poor economic conditions; that Obama had done too little to convince voters he would restore jobs and prosperity. I would love to accept this conventional logic, but it just doesn’t seem to me like the whole truth!
I don’t believe American voters are so unsophisticated that they did not appreciate the scale of the economic and financial calamity Obama inherited from the Republicans. Did US voters really expect that the destruction of output, wealth and jobs wrought during the US Great Recession of 2008-2009 could be reversed in just two years? Could the voters have so completely forgotten that Republicans created the mess with their combination of wars, deficits and hands-off deregulation such that in anger, they would return power to the same Republicans? Could US voters be so angry about slow progress towards recovery that they would in effect vote for no progress at all that the new gridlock would lead to? Did Obama’s fundamental actions on economic stimulus, healthcare reform and financial sector regulation count for nothing at all? If this is the whole truth, would it not reflect badly on the utilitarian value of democracy and suggest that the masses may often act against their own enlightened self-interest?
But as I mentioned earlier I am not convinced this was all about jobs and the economy! For one I suspect a major failure of political strategy and communication on the part of the Democrats who appeared tentative, timid and lacking self-assurance as they abandoned the political space to the “Tea Party” onslaught. Obama himself continues in pursuit of his idealistic but elusive America that is neither red nor blue; neither Democratic nor Republican; neither liberal nor conservative. Of course political realities may be different as angry conservatives deployed everything in their vast political and financial arsenal towards undermining and destroying him.
I suspect this was also about campaign finance. The US Supreme Court may have delivered an enduring strategic advantage to the Republicans with the ruling removing caps on corporate political donations. So while individuals, who form the bulk of Democratic donors, have restrictions on their political donations, companies who favour mostly Republicans may make unlimited campaign contributions. That advantage may have had decisive impact on this race, and except that ruling is reversed, future races as well.
Deploying their financial advantage in organisation and advertising, the Republicans and their Tea Party allies successfully but unjustifiably demonised Obama as an anti-business liberal engaged in wealth re-distribution and seeking to over-tax and over-regulate businesses; a socialist who wanted to nationalise the economy and spend his way to recovery; and a statist who through healthcare and other policies would foster big government and lead a government take-over of citizens’ rights and lives. All these supported with barely-disguised racism and “we want our America back” posturing from the pulpit, conservative rallies and Fox News Channel! The Democrats never quite rose to the propaganda challenge and failed to summon the energy and enthusiasm to confront Republican and Tea Party scaremongering. Unfortunately Obama was professorial rather than engaging. He assumed that the facts would speak for him, and that reason would prevail over disinformation and fear, and failed to connect at an empathic level with independents and even Democrats.
I suspect right-wing demonization of Obama proved devastating due to a “pre-existing condition”-American voters were themselves increasingly unsure of Obama on the issue of “American values” even if they couldn’t say so to pollsters. What did Obama really believe in? Who is he? Is he an American or Kenyan? A Christian or Muslim? A centrist or far-left liberal? Why does he seem overtly focused on the Islamic world? Why does he support the “Ground Zero” mosque? Why did he bow waist-level before the Saudi King? Will he abandon Israel under pressure? Is he determined to elevate the place of gays and lesbians in US society? I suspect that not being sure of where Obama seeks to lead US society on these “cultural” issues, American Republicans and Independents voted to impose restraints on his power. And many Democrats, acquiesced by staying at home!

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Fela's Foresight

I have always wanted to write about Fela! Fela Anikulapo-Kuti. In the wake of this year’s “Felabration”, I found enough incentive so to do, even though politics and business disturbed my timeline. Why would an otherwise serious column dedicated to “Economy, Polity, Society” find Fela a worthwhile subject? The answer is that Fela transcended all of these spheres. Indeed my basic thesis is that Fela was ahead of his time and his generation in his pioneering thinking in relation to Nigeria’s socio-political development, and oftentimes in relation to global politics as well.

Consider Fela’s song, “Zombie”, a stinging rebuke of the Nigerian military institution and rejection of military rule which had turned Nigeria and many other African and third world nations into huge military garrisons. At this time when Fela found military incursion into civilian life and national leadership an abominable desecration, professors of law, political science and other intellectuals, lawyers and civil servants were happily serving under the military. It was not until the progressive (or rather regressive) march of military rule turned full circle with the Abachas that intellectual thought in our universities, professional associations and chambers of commerce evolved into a consciousness that military rule could no longer be tolerated-decades after Fela!

Or consider Fela’s “Authority Stealing” which was a frontal assault on corruption and the selfish abuse of office by Nigerian political office holders and civil servants. Fela recognised that “…authority stealing pass armed robbery” in its destruction of the national economy, denial of social services and infrastructure to millions of Nigerians and its ultimately deleterious impact on the nation and the destiny of its masses. As Fela argued while one armed robber could destroy one or two lives at a time, a pen robber by one stroke could destroy a million lives, denying them schools, hospitals, social welfare, power and other necessities of a fulfilled life. It took us several decades after Fela before corruption came unto the national agenda with the ICPC and EFCC.

Our people’s docility and lack of political activism also engaged Fela’s attention long before NGOs and so-called “civil society organisations” and at a time when the foreign ministries of the western powers thought the best way to protect their interests was through African strong men or their corrupt civilian counterparts. In “Suffering and Smiling”, Fela railed against the abject conditions of public transportation (“…49 sitting 99 standing…”) and other aspects of the standard of living of our people and wondered why they continued to smile and tolerate the wickedness of their rulers. But then Fela understood. As he sang, our people will do anything to stay alive, even if they were living an existence which was next to sub-human. “I no wan die, mama dey for house; papa dey for house; I wan build house; I wan buy car”, Fela sang, recognising the endless, sometimes unrealistic hope for a better tomorrow which push our people against radical political or social action to improve their conditions. Fela anticipated the peculiar bastardisation of “demo-crazy” that we would later see from 1999 to date. He regarded the mockery of democracy that we witnessed during the Shagari regime and the Babangida experiments as a demonstration of madness (craze).

Fela’s thinking also explored economics, international relations and even aspects of sociology. He sang for instance about inflation and its effects on the purchasing power and living standards of the people, illustrating with the story of the unfortunate Nigerian who was saving to buy some appliance, whose price kept moving up, as our victim manages to assemble enough funds to buy the coveted item. He sang about the menace of multinational corporations which encouraged corruption in third world countries using MKO Abiola’s ITT as the example. “International Thief Thief” he parodied. At this time the US and other developed nations had no problems with their corporations bribing and corrupting third world nations. It is significant that such activities as Fela sang about are now illegal under the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and even private sector organisations from developed nations are obliged under laws such as Sarbannes-Oxly to adopt higher and more noble standards of conduct. Many years after Fela!

Fela sang about the United Nations, about the oddity of the veto wielded by the US, UK, China, Russia and France, wondering how united an assembly that harboured Britain and Argentina; Libya and the US; and Iran and Iraq could be. Fela of course dismissed the UN as a “disunited United Nations”! He sang about Africa as the “centre of the world” projecting the mantra later adopted by our foreign policy establishment as “Africa as the centre piece of our foreign policy”. Fela also sang about social phenomenon-the inferiority complex and neo-colonial mindset fostered by “colonial mentality”; about the penchant of ladies to do “shakara" when propositioned by men; the critical role of water in human existence in “water no get enemy” (today global NGOs are also on to that); about the desire of Africans to look fair-skinned (still that inferiority complex) in “yellow fever” and other social tensions in “palava”!

Fela was ahead of his time. Unfortunately as happens to geniuses who can’t understand why the environment around them can’t see what they see, Fela may have snapped and become a social, economic and political rebel. His ultimate vindication is that decades after his songs, we have finally found our way to accept all his arguments.

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Which "MEND" is this?

Several readers have wondered why I have had nothing to say (till now) about the Independence Day bomb blasts in Abuja on October 1, 2010. The answer is not far-fetched-it was clear to me that whoever planned the incident was selling us a storyline which they hoped we would swallow uncritically. I can detect choreography when I see one, and I can tell the difference between truth and propaganda! So it was wise and prudent in my view to suspend judgment, analyse the facts and see what pattern emerges.

A pre-bomb warning and post-bomb claim of responsibility was attributed to the so-called “Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger-Delta” (“MEND”). The objectives of MEND should thus include economic emancipation (in terms of resources, employment and wealth creation, infrastructure and economic development), environmental remediation and advancing political interests of the Niger-Delta. It is difficult to see how the Abuja bomb blasts could have been in pursuit of these objectives! For the first time in Nigeria’s history, a Niger-Delta indigene was at the helm of affairs in the country, and had been in that position for less than six months, a period in which he had appointed Niger-Deltans to the petroleum, foreign affairs and Niger-Delta ministries and had already awarded major infrastructural contracts in the region.

What can we deduce instead as the strategic objectives of the Abuja bombers? It would seem these were to prevent the 50th independence anniversary celebrations from holding and thus prevent Jonathan from having his day in the sun; discredit the Jonathan administration; undermine Jonathan politically by seeking to show that he lacked home support in the Niger-Delta and would be unable to resolve the Niger-Delta crisis; and weaken his chances of winning the 2011 presidency. How on earth can these be consistent with the interests of the Niger-Delta? Why would a movement seeking Niger-Delta emancipation pursue these objectives? I think we can dismiss altogether the possibility that the bombings had anything to do with the Niger-Delta!

But it appears clear that Henry Okah was involved in the bombings. From my investigations (information which is at least one year old) Henry Okah was an arms dealer who sold arms to all the militant factions in the Niger-Delta. His primary motivation appears always to have been commercial though by virtue of his positioning as “logistics supplier” to the less-educated militants, he may have secured some influence over them. It is thus not inconceivable (especially as the Niger-Delta amnesty has in effect undermined his thriving arms sales operation) that Okah’s involvement was motivated by commerce rather than any emancipatory considerations! So the focus of enquiry perhaps should be who has the motives, incentives and capacity to engage Okah’s services if indeed he had been contracted to provide terrorist services by some employers? Alternatively was Okah attempting to blackmail the Jonathan presidency into providing him an “amnesty subsidy” to replace the revenue flow from the sales of weapons and ammunition to militants?

There are concerns however beyond Henry Okah. There does seem, as I mentioned earlier some choreography around the bomb blasts in particular involving Al Jazeerah, which broadcast a news item purporting to show a MEND camp and demonstrate that MEND was re-arming around the time of the blasts; and followed up with an interview with Henry Okah in which he claimed that President Jonathan had tried to induce him to implicate “Northerners” in the bomb blasts. Who organised and facilitated these Al Jazeerah activities? Was the correlation between the timing of the bomb blasts and the Al Jazeerah story “happenstance, co-incidence or enemy action”? Why would Okah who is purportedly seeking Niger-Delta emancipation (presumably from Nigerian hegemony exercised mostly by “Northerners”) become the spokesperson and defender of “Northerners” against a Niger-Delta President? Why would Okah appear to be going out of his way to seek to destroy the Jonathan presidency? Who will be the beneficiaries if the Jonathan presidency is destroyed? MEND? The Niger-Delta? Who? Again the focus of enquiry should also be around these questions.

Subsequent to the bomb blasts, over 60 former MEND field commanders including all the known militant leaders visited Jonathan and disclaimed any connection to the bombing. “Tompolo” in particular asserted categorically that he was the leader of MEND, and that MEND had nothing to do with the blasts.

Any doubts about the explicitly political objectives of the independence day “MEND” appear to have been dissolved by the latest “MEND” statement issued a few days ago which sought to scare people away from Goodluck Jonathan/Namadi Sambo campaigns and accused Jonathan of disuniting the country. It is very probable from the language and content of that release that the writer was not even from the Niger-Delta! The mind-set is of an individual or group aggrieved by the Jonathan presidency and his intent to contest in 2011!!!

So while it has been politically correct to blame President Jonathan for trying to delink the bomb blast and MEND from the bomb blast, I would in fact affirm strongly that even though Jonathan was angered, rattled or incensed by the bomb blasts and therefore spoke prematurely, his basic instincts were correct! It is impossible based on rational analysis to conclude that the bombs were detonated on behalf of the Niger-Delta.

The truth may be closer to Abuja than Port Harcourt, Warri or Yenagoa!!!