Margaret Thatcher 1925-2013

On May 4, 1979 when Margaret Hilda Thatcher (nee Roberts) became Prime Minister of Great Britain (actually there wasn’t much “great” about that country when she took office!), I was in the third year of secondary school; by November 28, 1990 when she left office, I had graduated from the University of Ife (as it was then known); attended the law school in Lagos (there was only one law school then!); completed my NYSC in Benin City, Bendel State (these newer states didn’t exist then!); had a short stint practicing law; and was about to leave (the older version of) First Bank for then new generation of Guaranty Trust Bank! In short, Margaret Thatcher by the time of her death on April 8, 2013 was very much a historical figure. There were already four prime ministerial successors after her-John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron. Margaret Thatcher was the first and so far only, female political leader of the United Kingdom, and irrespective of what you thought about her, after Thatcher, any doubts about the ability of females to lead became a nonsensical proposition! Before she became prime minister, Thatcher had already acquired a tough image, known as “the milk snatcher” for her role as the secretary of state for education and science who implemented a policy of abolishing free milk for school children aged 7-11. Cabinet papers reportedly later showed however that she actually opposed the policy, but was forced into it by the Treasury, one indicator perhaps that much of her public image was erroneous. A Soviet defence ministry newspaper Krasnaya Zvezda (Red Star) called her “iron lady”, an appellation that stuck! It was not until I became at first a visiting lecturer and later held a faculty position as an academic, researcher and teacher in a business school, working in major aspects of political economy and business strategy that I fully appreciated Margaret Thatcher’s era as British Prime Minister. Essentially Thatcher redefined many aspects of global thinking about macroeconomic policy and management, development, privatization and public-private partnerships, deregulation and liberalization, regulation, financial markets and labour market flexibility. The fact that her bold and pioneering work in these areas was not based on academic postulations, but were actually executed (I would suggest successfully!) in a major OECD nation meant that most of the world followed her policy leadership. The fact that her ideas, which were implemented amidst much tumult and opposition in the UK have become mainstream thinking in today’s global political economy is a great testament to her vision and courage. The Britain that Thatcher inherited in 1979 was essentially almost ungovernable-powerful and often irrational unions; a damaging series of strikes, incompetent and inefficient state-owned utilities and corporations, racial tension and a country that in the views of many was sliding towards conditions seen in third world nations and requiring IMF support. Whether anyone accepts it or not, Thatcher reversed that slide and restored the UK’s place as a first world nation. Her policies had a monetarist theoretical foundation anchored on lower taxes, low inflation, limits on public spending (hence privatization), and financial sector deregulation. But there was a social cost to these policies, most notably in the resistance through the miners strikes of 1984, when Arthur Scargill’s National Union of Miners (NUM) proceeded on a long and costly strike which Thatcher deemed illegal. Margaret Thatcher formed a strong cold war alliance with the US Republicans led by her conservative soul mate, Ronald Reagan and together they confronted communism, ultimately ensuring the collapse of communism and the victory of western-style democracy and free market systems. The greatest error (and it was a grave one) attributed to Mrs Thatcher was her perceived tolerance and even support for the apartheid system in South Africa and her opposition to the African National Congress (ANC) and its leader, Nelson Mandela who she branded terrorists. It is a sad blight on her otherwise sterling record. The anti-colonialist, African mindset in me also sympathized with Argentine claims to the Falklands Islands, but victory in the Falklands war in 1982 significantly bolstered Thatcher’s leadership credentials and contributed to her re-election in 1983. She would win subsequent elections in 1987 and stay in office till for a total of eleven years. Her popularity would of course eventually wane-divisions over Europe, the unpopular poll tax, conservative disaffection etc, and Thatcher left office a bit disgruntled with her colleagues who she felt betrayed her. She became a member of parliament for Finchley in October 1959 and stayed on in parliament for two years after she left the prime ministerial office till April 1992. Born on October 13, 1925 in Grantham, England, she studied Chemistry and Law at Oxford University where she was a conservative activist. She had been Head Girl in secondary school in 1942-43, a sign perhaps of what was to come. She assumed leadership of the Tory Party in 1975 and was given a life peerage after she left office, becoming Baroness Thatcher. Her late husband, Dennis Thatcher was an important part of her success in politics and within the conservative movement. Margaret Thatcher always stood by her convictions, a trait that is rare in today’s world as weak men and women, who stand for nothing, assume and sustain leadership by doing whatever the polls say is popular!

The Politics of Boko Haram

I have previously written a two-part serial, “The Evolution of Boko Haram” on February 1 and 8, 2012 that chronicled the various phases and people in the emergence of that fundamentalist terrorist organization. My conclusion based on all the facts and analysis was that contrary to the contrived and pointless hair-splitting over whether it was religious, political or economic, “Boko Haram” like all human and social phenomena was multi-dimensional. There was religion of course at the core-an extremist religious ideology of a specie of political Islam which opposes secular or western education, advocates hatred and murder of Christians and Jews (and even opposing Islamic clerics), tolerates and even endorses suicide killings on promised reward of paradise (plus seven heavenly virgins!) and seeks to overthrow the secular constitution in favour of an Islamic Caliphate. How can anyone deny that these are religious motivations? There are social factors which predispose adherents to such mindless extremism-illiteracy, ignorance and social exclusion; and excision of young boys at very young ages from the family system through the Almajirai system of half-baked religious education, begging and occasional deployment by politicians, clerics and traditional institutions for violence in pursuit of political objectives; there are critical economic dimensions-poverty, unemployment, a complete absence in millions of young people, especially male, of any skills or competences and therefore their divorce from modern economic systems, and of course corruption which denies society the resources required to chart a different course for its citizens and leaves them without opportunity or hope. There are even aspects of a Kanuri “Liberation Movement” in the mix! Finally there are political factors-the early origins of “Boko Haram” in a clear political alliance with mainly All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) governors in the North-East Region of Nigeria and Kano; its ostracism and attempted destruction by its estranged sponsors and appropriation by new mentors and financiers; its transmutation from a locally-focused to a national political agenda as federal power slipped into Goodluck Jonathan’s hands; and its deployment as an instrument of undermining the credibility of the Jonathan presidency, both at home and in foreign embassies and capitals. This article focuses on these political aspects of “Boko Haram” and how the “amnesty” discussion fits into the overall picture. There is no doubt that in its early days, Muhammed Yusuf’s “Boko Haram” (BH) enjoyed a close relationship with the Borno State Government under Senator Ali Modu Sherrif and that Yusuf actually nominated a member of Sherrif’s cabinet. There is also no doubt that the group played a political purpose as enforcers to ensure ANPP’s defense against the federal PDP. The broader point in fact is that ANPP as a political strategy adopted Islamic intimidation as a bulwark against the rampaging PDP. While Modu Sherrif deployed BH, his Zamfara counterpart, Sani Yerima launched “political Sharia” and virtually all ANPP governors followed suit. While Modu Sherrif’s romance with BH is well documented, the group probably played a role in other ANPP states-plausibly assisting in the party’s take-over in Kano in 2003; Bauchi in 2007; and its successful retention of Yobe-Senator Bukar Abba Ibrahim is an open and unapologetic supporter of Boko Haram’s agenda! There is evidence that some ANPP states made regular payments to BH. In the heydays of BH’s alliance with ANPP, its presidential candidate, both in 2003 and 2007 was General Muhammadu Buhari who is inextricably linked through his public comments before he became a politician, with the agitation for Sharia! There is no doubt that the underpinning of Buhari’s popularity in Northern Nigeria is the fact that the Islamic base trusts him. Soon however Modu Sherrif would fall apart with Yusuf and the group and would seek to destroy the Frankenstein he had nurtured! A second governor would have similar incentives (and this is little discussed)-Isa Yuguda of Bauchi who was on his way back to the PDP having married then President Yar’adua’s daughter. The attempt to destroy BH did not wholly succeed and the group would re-surface in 2010 as a pure terrorist organization! It also changed sides in Borno, apparently (as the matters of Senators Ali Ndume and Zannah, and late Ambassador Pindah suggest!) to the PDP!!! At the same time, national politics was changing and a Christian Southerner was defying Northern intimidation and opting to contest the 2011 polls. Soon BH’s agenda would transcend local and state politics! In spite of its military successes against the terror group, it is evident that the Jonathan Presidency lacks the local insight and support required to completely eliminate BH, and that having resolved to ensure Jonathan’s 2015 re-election plan is thwarted, the region has no incentive to help him solve the BH problem. As it is, Jonathan has two distinct but inter-related problems-the challenge of very difficult re-election prospects and a widening and intractable security challenge that undermines his governing credibility. “Amnesty” is being proposed to Jonathan as a magic wand to solve the two headaches, but I suspect it will solve neither! Amnesty will be meaningless to the core, religious BH and the spinoff Ansarul, for in their minds, they do the work of God and have with reinforcing links to AQIM and Al Shabab. But a political/security BH will emerge to accept the amnesty and receive the funds appropriated for that purpose. This other BH will merely be an instrument for extracting political and economic concessions for the Northern elite from Jonathan.

Chinualumogu Achebe 1930-2013

I was in form 3 at Igbobi College Yaba, Lagos in 1978 when we read Chinua Achebe’s “Things Fall Apart”, the book that defined him as a great African story teller. Though my school was predominantly Yoruba, we had a strong representation of most parts of Southern Nigeria-Igbos, Edos, Niger-Deltans and beyond. As thirteen year olds, we did not look at ourselves through ethnic or religious lenses-my favourite football team then was Enugu Rangers! Though we gained significant insights into Igbo language, traditions, culture and society through the book, we related with it and its author only as fellow Nigerians and Africans. The legacy of “Things Fall Apart” remained in our language and expression-a wrestler classmate became “Amalinze the cat”; an unserious student was Unoka, the never-do-well father of Okonkwo or Nwoye, his lazy son; the quote “things fall apart: the centre cannot hold; mere anarchy is loosed upon the world” from W. B Yeats’ poem “The Second Coming” became etched in everyone’s memory; colleagues who wore eye glasses became “Ojuigo” a Yorubanisation of one of Achebe’s characters; we relished expressions like “Amadioha will break your head”, “a man could not rise beyond the destiny of his chi…if a man said yea, his chi also affirmed”, “he who brings kola brings life” and “proverbs are the palm oil with which words are written”. “Things Fall Apart” was a memorable book and its African richness was part of every Nigerian secondary school student’s formation, at least in the 1970s. Chinualumogu (“may God fight on my behalf”) Albert Achebe was born on November 16, 1930 in Ogidi, north-east of Onitsha in the present Anambra State. His father Isaiah Okafor Achebe, a convert to the Church Missionary Society (CMS) became a teacher and catechist. Achebe’s biographer, Ezenwa-Ohaeto notes his birth and early education at a time of “cultural crossroads” when traditional Igbo culture encountered the challenges of Christianity, Western civilization, British colonialism and a newly emerging multi-ethnic nation. “Things Fall Apart” explored these conflicts from the lenses of the fictional “Okonkwo” a proud Igbo traditionalist who resisted, ultimately in vain and to his own destruction, forces that were bigger than him. Between 1958 and 1964, Achebe wrote “Things Fall Apart” (1958), “No longer at Ease” (1960), “Arrow of God” (1964) and “Chike and the River” (1964). He also wrote “A Man of the People” and “Anthills of the Savannah”. I believe I read all these books! Achebe participated in politics, as a high officer of Mallam Aminu Kano’s People’s Redemption Party (PRP) along with “progressives” and intellectuals including S.G Ikoku, Abubabar Rimi, Professor Wole Soyinka, Balarabe Musa, Dr Bala Usman, Arthur Nwankwo, Michael Imoudu and Uche Chukwumerije. Indeed his pamphlet, “The Trouble with Nigeria” appeared to have been written at least partly to promote Aminu Kano’s 1983 presidential campaign, an objective short-circuited by Kano’s premature demise. Achebe defined the trouble with Nigeria as “simply and squarely a failure of leadership” and called for “a radical programme of social and economic re-organisation or at least a well-conceived and consistent agenda of reform”. He identified other problems-tribalism, self-delusion (Nigeria is a great country!), vague values (e.g. unity and faith-unity for what purpose? and faith in what?), false patriotism, social injustice, mediocrity, indiscipline (“although indiscipline is by definition distinct from lawlessness, the line between the two is often tenuous indeed…the danger of indiscipline escalating into lawlessness is particularly acute when large numbers of people are involved” he argued, correctly predicting Nigeria’s current descent into near-anarchy and breakdown of law and order) and corruption. His antipathy towards Chief Obafemi Awolowo is apparently not a recent phenomenon! He accuses Awolowo of a multitude of sins-stealing “the leadership of Western Nigeria from Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe in broad daylight on the floor of the Western House of Assembly”; “poverty of thought” (apparently for seeking personal success!); and of course being anti-Igbo! He wrote, “there were hard-liners in Gowon’s cabinet who wanted their pound of flesh, the most powerful among them being Chief Obafemi Awolowo” who he accuses of pauperizing the Igbo middle class! But then he extended the accusation beyond Awolowo-apparently in Achebe’s eyes, all Nigerians resent the Igbos!!! It is difficult, on all the evidence not to accuse Achebe of having a severe tribal mindset, one of the troubles he lists as plaguing Nigeria!!! His statement that Wole Soyinka winning the Nobel prize, did not make him the “Asiwaju of Nigerian Literature” was devoid of grace and involved an unwarranted ethnic allusion. Achebe’s last publication, “There was a Country” perhaps conscious of his approaching mortality, is an explicit effort to remind younger Igbos of the lost (or perhaps delayed?) Biafra. In the very first sentence, he recalls “an Igbo proverb tells us that a man who does not know where the rain began to beat him cannot say where he dried his body” and by his own admission, the book tells “Nigeria’s story, Biafra’s story, our story, my story”. The book is neither strictly speaking a work of history, nor one of literature-a master storyteller’s selective admixture of both!!! Chinua Achebe is part of the glorious Nigerian generation of academics and nationalists whose achievements stand in stark contrast to the state of the nation they so much loved. In that respect, his disillusion with Nigeria is understandable. I thank God I had a rare opportunity to be present at his final Achebe Colloquium at Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA in December 2012. He died on March 21, 2013 aged 82. May his soul rest in peace.