I listened to Annual October Lecture in radion Nigeria by J. ISAWA ELAIGWU of University of Jos in Radio Nigeria 2013 Annual October Lecture.
His lecture is informative and educative, below is the presentation:
SECURITY AND PEACE: THE IMPERATIVES FOR NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
BY
J. ISAWA ELAIGWU
*Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of Jos; President, Institute
of Governance and Social Research (IGSR), Plot A76 Liberty Boulevard, PMB 2156, Jos
930001, Plateau State, NIGERIA. Tel: 07031163751/08181132618
Email: igsr2008@gmail.com; elaigwu2033@yahoo.com
**Being the text of SEVENTH FRCN ANNUAL OCTOBER LECTURE, Shehu Musa
Yar’Adua Centre, Abuja, Thursday October 31, 2013.
SECURITY AND PEACE: THE IMPERATIVES FOR NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Conflict is an inevitable aspect of human interaction, an
unavoidable concomitant of choices and decisions… the
problem, then, is not to count the frustration of seeking to
remove an inevitability but rather of trying to keep conflicts in
bounds.1
A. INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman, please permit me to start this lecture by thanking the Mana
gement of the Federal Radio Corporation of Nigeria (FRCN), for inviting me to give the Seventh FRCN
Annual October Lecture. Given its mandate of “Uplifting the People and Uniting the
Nation”, the FRCN title for this year’s lecture is very apt. I congratulate FRCN for its
performance and sensitivity to issues of our national concerns over the years. This topic
was given to me for the Fifth October Lecture in 2011, but had to be postponed by the
organizers.
My duty here today is apparently simple and yet onerous. On the one hand, as
Coleridge, an English writer, once observed, unless you understand a man’s ignorance, you
are ignorant of his understanding. I am here to expose my ignorance so that you would not
be ignorant of my understanding as we discuss – the topic: – Security and Peace: The
Imperatives for National Development.
On the other hand, the subject matter is complex and defies simple solutions. It is my
hope that I can tickle your minds in new directions as we collectively seek to establish a
relatively peaceful and stable political environment conducive to national development.
In our discussion, I shall humbly accept superior views and be thankful for these. On
the other hand, on matters of principle, permit me, Mr. Chairman, to hold on to my views.
Let me illustrate this. As I travel all over the country and the world, I am very much aware of
the level of apparent despondence, disappointment and anger of many Nigerians with their
country. Many Nigerians believe that we have been crawling in fifty-three years instead of
walking or even running. They may be right. Others believe that our little progress over the
years, had been through a strategy of piecemeal somersault. May be. Yet others believe we
should disintegrate, or dissolve by mutual agreement, because 1914 has been an
irremediable mistake. This I do not agree with nor do I agree with the notion that the
Nigerian ‘giant’ is a sinllingship.
I believe that my bias must be stated at the beginning so that you are not in doubt
about where I am coming from. Yes, we have reasons to be disappointed with our leaders
and ourselves in our 53 years of sojourn as a nation-state. We have reasons to be angry or
to even be mad with ourselves. We could have done better and we can still do much better.
My belief is that, staying together as a country for 53 years is an achievement. While we -
leaders and followers – have not lived up to expectations, let us not allow ourselves to be
drowned in the vortex of cynicism. Let not sit down as grumbletonians - grumbling about
everything but doing nothing. We must stop playing the whining children wallowing in selfpity.
We must get up and put our acts together and take our destiny in our hands. The fault
is not in our stars but with us. It is our fault that we have not adequately corrected whatever
was the 'mistake’ of 1914. Other countries have tried to correct their own ‘mistakes’. Let us
learn from the experience of the United Kingdom, India and Malaysia. I believe that while
the ship of the Nigerian nation-state may be battered severally on the high seas, with
discipline, hard work, selflessness, patriotism and dedication, the Nigerian ship will
safely anchor and be renewed to the surprise of everyone in the world. I am
passionate about my commitment to a single and indivisible Nigeria and I have no apologies
for it or for my views on the necessity for a rebirth of my country. However, I shall try not to
allow my passion to overwhelm my intellectual objectivity.
Having exposed my bias, you know where I am coming from, in our discussion of the
title of today’s lecture. Let us begin by asking a few key questions. What is Security? What
do we mean by Peace? What is the relationship between security and peace? What impact
do these have on national development in Nigeria?
To answer these questions, we suggest that:
1. security is the first Order of the State – for without security, peace and/or law
and order, all other functions of the State cannot be effectively carried out;
2. there can be no national development without relative peace and stability;
3. since May 1999, there have been greater challenges of security than at any
point in time in our history, thus rendering our political stability fragile,
democratic institutions and processes fluid, and our economy debilitated;
4. government, political leaders and followers, and all of us, must have the
courage and honesty to get to the root causes of our current state of
insecurity, underpinned by criminality, and insurgency/terrorism;
5. our leaders and followers have taken the issues of security for granted; yet
urgent and immediate steps (short and long–term) must be taken to
consciously respond to current threats by architectonically designing and
building a security system which would create a stable and relatively
peaceful environment, conducive for national development; and
6. security is the duty of all Nigerians, and we must take our destiny into our
hands, determined to face the future with confidence, discipline, patriotism
and demonstrable honesty.
B. SECURITY, PEACE AND NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Toward Operational
Definitions.
Since this is not an academic Forum, we are going to skip all the theoretical
arguments on the key terms – security, peace and national development. We shall give
operational definitions which will guide our discussions.
Every nation-state has at least three functions 1) security (law and order); 2) welfare
of its citizens; and 3) the pursuit of national interest in the global setting. Of all of these,
security 2 is the most important in the establishment of the State. That is why, one of the
important characteristics of a State is the monopoly over instruments of violence. For
our purposes, security means the ability of a State to ward off all formS of threats external
to its survival, these may include ensuring the internal stability and predictability of the
system. The soft side of security refers to those socio-political and economic factors/values
that are central to the harmonious working relations of members of the State. These include,
food, environmental, political, economic, health security. The hard elements of security refer
to the most obvious material elements of the State designed to maintain law and order, the
defence of the country, and the security of lives and property, such as the police, military
outfits. It is therefore important to see security in holistic terms – i.e comprehensive
security.
Let us illustrate the point. If there is no ‘good’ governance, food and health insecurity
could be potent sources of political instability. Similarly, in the context of a weak economy
and an ever-enlarging army of the unemployed, violence becomes democratized as young
men get enlisted as political thugs by politicians. It is however, important that only the State
has the monopoly of the legitimate use of force, in order to guarantee freedom, security
of lives and property, and relative peace.
What do we mean by Peace? Peace is not the absence of conflicts. There shall
always be conflicts where more than one person live. Interests often clash, thus resulting in
conflicts. It is not the conflicts but how they are managed that is important. Peace is about
how conflicts are managed to ensure relative stability, law and order in order to enable
human beings carry out their daily activities. Peace is a societal condition which ensures
relative social stability and order through the dispensation of justice, fairness and
opportunities for accommodation by formal and informal institutions, practices and
norms3. It does not refer to the peace of the graveyard which often seems still and peaceful
to human beings at night, but active for the spirits. It refers to our ability to successfully
manage conflicts below a threshold which does not threaten the freedom and the security of
lives and property. In such contexts regular institutions and processes deal with emerging
conflicts which permit the system to carry out national development.
For us, national development refers to the delivery of services which achieve the
ends of the state – security, welfare and the pursuit of national interests in the global setting.
While the United Nations has indicated some Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) as
welfare goals of the state,4 national development is a multi-dimensional process of
change which affects political, social and economic growth and sustainability. It
directly and positively changes the quality of life or welfare of the people. Meaningful
national development has to be people-centric.
Most politicians and analysts agree that there is a positive link between security and
‘good’ governance.5 This is because, unless there is relative peace and stability,
development would be elusive. It is generally accepted that in African States, there is need
for ‘good’ governance generally and more specifically in the security sector in order to i)
achieve peace and stability; ii) embark on meaningful development; iii) enable contending
armed groups to disarm, and iv) establish a basis for enforcing human rights and restoring
human dignity.
Governments need to ensure the maintenance of law and order, and the security of
lives and property in order to enable people to move about freely to carry out normal
activities of development. Insecurity created by instability does not provide a conducive
environment for development. Thus security and a relatively peaceful environment are
imperatives for national development.
C. NIGERIA AND THE CHALLENGES OF SECURITY
Since the return to ‘democratic’ civil rule in May 1999, there have been dramatic
increases in the numerous violent conflicts among Nigerians. The research carried out by
the Institute of Governance and Social Research (IGSR), Jos, indicates that the number of
selected ethnoreligious violent conflicts in which one or more lives were lost and/or
properties destroyed are over 10006. There are more cases of violent clashes which do not
fit into this selected category. This number is over four times the number of similar violent
conflicts, between 1980-1999.
Nigeria has experienced numerous electoral, ethnic, political, ethno-religious
communal (land), economic and other violent conflicts since May 1999. The nation, within
the period witnessed the emergence of ethnic militias – such as, the Odu’a Peoples’
Congress (OPC), the Arewa People’s Congress (APC), the Igbo People’s Congress (IPC),
the Bakassi Boys, the Egbesu Boys and others. These ethnic militias had taken on the
causes of their ethnic groups. In some cases, some of these have played the role of
vigilantés – showing that the capacity of the police force was inadequate to demonstrate
government’s monopoly of the legitimate use of force.
In addition to these, there have been inter-ethnic violence, such as, Itsekiri-Urhobo;
Tiv/Jukun, Tiv-Fulani, Berom-Fulani, Eggon and neighbours, and others. While the period
1980 – 1999 was marked by few serious religious violence, such as, the Maitasine (an intrareligious
crisis), these increased tremendously in number after May 1999.
Militant ethnic and religious protests transformed themselves from the level of
criminality to insurgency/terrorism. The activities of Niger-Delta militants, especially the
Movement for the Emancipation of Niger-Delta, (MEND), the kidnappers of South-Eastern
and South-South Nigeria, and the activities of the Jama’atu Ahlis Sunnah Lidda’awati Wal
Jihad, better known as the Boko Haram, are examples of these. Not only did Nigeria
witness an escalation in the technology of violence – from guns to bombs – Nigeria has
begun to experience suicide bombers. This deflates the argument that Nigerians love
themselves too much to commit suicide, even in search of martyrdom.
Ironically, these insurgents are very sophisticated in style, and have at times, beaten
security agencies to get at their targets. The October 1, 2011 independent day celebration
was allegedly postponed because of the challenge of security in Abuja. The National Youth
Service Corps (NYSC) did not hold a passing-out parade in October, reportedly by because
of security challenges. Candidly this is State submission to forces of terrorism and an
acceptance that it lacked the capacity to protect the lives and property of Nigerians.
What has happened to our dear country? Why have we become so violent in our
responses to provocations, no matter how little? Is our culture of violence displacing our
erstwhile preference for talks and negotiations? What are the possible causes of these
threats to security? Armed robbery has become part of our daily life. Kidnapping of people
for ransom has become rampant in the country. Apart from the bomb blasts of October 1,
2010, there have been many other bomb blasts including those at the police headquarters
and the United Nations office. Virtually every other day there is a bomb scare and workers
have to rush out of their offices – examples of which include the National Assembly and the
Radio House.
Our very young ones have also had their hands awash in human blood – the blood
of their compatriots. What kind of younger generation are we producing?
As we have suggested above, we must develop the courage to get to the root
causes of our current state of insecurity, underpinned by criminality and terrorism. This is
our next focus.
D. NIGERIA’S SOURCES OF INSECURITY: TOWARD CAUSALITY.
Conflict is the spice of every State. It tests the fragility or otherwise of the State and
creates the basis of future amelioration or adjustments. However, conflicts beyond certain
thresholds are detrimental to the very survival of the State, precisely because they threaten
the consensual basis of the association. Conflicts which emanate from the nonrecognition
of the claims of others to issues of conflict (for example, excluding others
from sharing in crucial items of allocation) could be very dangerous for the system. Such
conflicts mobilize total loyalties of the people and tend to defy all attempts at effecting
desirable compromises. The events which led to the Nigerian civil war provide useful
illustrations of perceived non-recognition of mutual claims among Nigerian groups.
On the other hand, conflicts which result from the nature of distribution are less
dangerous to the survival of the State. Since the claims of others are recognized in this
case, the only issue of conflict is over the distribution of the items of conflict (such as how
allocatable items) are shared or how conducive compromises are struck between competing
claims.
Finding causes of human and societal problems can be very difficult. As any good
social scientist would explain, tracing causality is a very difficult exercise. As an illustration,
to what extent is the ostensible reason of “bad food” the cause of students’ riot in a given
university? Were the Ekiti riots of 1965 or the Agbekoya riots of 1969, necessarily over tax
or politics? Or were these events the result of multi-variable causation and the reasons
given, mere verisimilitudes?
In addition, human and societal conflicts are often multivariable and
multidimensional in causation. Often it is a daunting task to accomplish in a few pages.
This means brevity in many aspects of our analysis which may not do justice to the above
topic. Our objective here, therefore, is to raise issues for further debate.
Conflicts may emerge as result of actions which may lead to mutual mistrust,
polarization of relations, and/or hostility among groups in apparently competitive interactions
within a country. They may even result from frustrations arising from unsatisfied human
needs – physical, psychological, social, economic and others.
Conflicts may also arise from the explosion of identity as groups begin to ask for
greater participation and rights in the polity. Threatened identities of groups have also led to
conflicts in a State. Seeming cultural incompatibility among groups with different
communication styles could generate conflicts in a polity. In addition, demonstrable and/or
perceived inequality and injustice expressed through competitive socio-political, economic
and cultural frameworks, have been known as potent causes of conflict, as groups react to
the perceptions of the situation.
The principle of power-sharing and perceived political and economic domination by
one group or the other in the State can lead to the frustration and disenchantment/alienation
of one group or the other from the polity. It is therefore difficult to adequately identify causes
of conflicts in contemporary Nigeria.
We cannot claim to know all the causes of conflicts which have created challenges of
security and peace in Nigeria. However, we shall briefly mention a few of these for purposes
of analysis.
1. The Foundations of Nigerian Federation:
It is our contention that the period 1914 to 1946 had witnessed the mere coexistence
of Nigerian groups which hardly knew of one another nor interacted in
any substantial way horizontally. Like most colonial authorities, the British
administration encouraged vertical relations between the individual communities
and their administrators. Close horizontal relations among Nigerian groups would
have nailed the colonial coffin earlier than the British would have wished, assuming
they had any intentions of leaving. It was the Richards Constitution of 1946 which
formalized the division of Nigeria into three regions within a unitary colonial state. If
the year 1914 marked the birth of colonial Nigeria, 1946 marked the establishment
of the structure of effective horizontal relations among Nigerian groups. Thus within
this period, there was no concept of colonial Nigeria as a State. Nigeria evolved in
the context of British colonial policies in West Africa, in piecemeal fashion.
Once it became evident that the colonial administration would soon go, in
response to a combination of international and national events, Nigerians began to
organize to inherit colonial power. This realization came as Nigerians had begun to
establish contacts with one another. No sooner had they started to interact than
they realized that they were strange bedfellows in the same polity. They had not
interacted long enough with one another to work out an acceptable mechanism of
conflict resolution. Given the competitive setting in which they found themselves,
Nigerian politicians withdrew into their ethnic/ethnoregional or geo-ethnic7 cocoons
in order to mobilize their followers effectively for competition. The new parochialism
was not the old one (based on ignorance of one another) but parochialism based on
the awareness of others in a competitive setting. As Mallam Aminu Kano told this
writer in an interview,
I think regional grouping was a result of sudden awakening. I
think there was a period of sudden awakening in Nigeria, but
the awakening was misdirected.... The sudden realization of
'we can take power’ resulted in ethnic grouping and therefore
regionalism.8
If the very process of decolonization had spurred regionalism, regionalism
also determined the form of government Nigeria was to have - one based on the
mutual fears and suspicions among Nigerian groups.
The mutual distrust among Nigerians and the prevalence of centrifugal
forces in the colonial state were amply demonstrated at the Constitutional
Conferences between 1957 – 1958. The result was the federalization of Nigeria
with three component units, the structural imbalance among these units and the
suppression of the fears of the minorities, inspite of the Willink Commission Report.
Our argument is that the pattern of colonial administration had partly led
to the emergence of federal government in Nigeria. We argue that, in part,
federalism emerged as a compromise formular to assuage the fears and
suspicions of domination among Nigeria’s heterogeneous population. One
legacy of this process was the structional imbalance in Nigeria’s federation which
the military tried to resolve through the creation of states. Like any medicinal
prescriptions, the creation of states produced its “political rashes”.
Under this ‘democratic’ polity, the suppressed angst of various groups with
the Nigerian federation has found expressions in many ways. The emergence of a
fiscally and politically titanic centre has questioned the basic sense of security of
groups. Some groups have begun to wonder aloud if the federal association was
meeting their objectives, and if desirable adjustments should not be made in the
federation to give everyone a sense of belonging.
2. Structural Adjustments of the Nigerian Federation and the
Majority/Minority Divide.
The creation of states (from 12 in 1967 to 36 in 1996) from the original 3
(later 4) regions in the country created new sets of problems, even as it resolved
the problems of the structural imbalance in the federation. The first is the
emergence of new boundary problems among the new states. Secondly, while
inter-communal boundary conflicts had been intra-regional, with the creation of
states, some of these became inter-state problems, thus giving these conflicts
higher saliency and visibility. As an illustration, the Tiv-Jukun land/border conflict,
was transformed, after the creation of Taraba and Benue States, to inter-state
conflict.
Similarly, after every exercise of the creation of states, emerged new
majorities and new minorities. Often, many of the ‘new majorities’ who were old
minorities, are even more vicious than the old majorities, thus creating new basis of
conflicts in the new setting. In addition, public servants in the old public services
faced new problems. As an illustration, after the creation of Enugu State, husbands
and wives who now belonged to different states and served in the public services
were under pressure to transfer their services. In most cases, the wives were under
pressure to transfer their services to the home state of their husbands.
Only recently, in reaction to the N18,000 minimum wage demand, Abia state
transferred the services of all those Igbos who were not from Abia, but were in her
public service, to their respective states of origin. Thus, while solving some
problems, the creation of additional states, has had its political rashes which require
appropriate medication.
3. Competition for Control of Resources
Many of the ethno-religious and other conflicts we have today are related to
nature of interactions among groups as they compete for scarce but allocatable
resources. As the state or government, at all levels, serves as the main allocator of
resources and also sets the terms for such distribution, the control of government
becomes also an object of group competition. Controlling government also means
the control of resources and the power for their distribution. Thus as groups contest
for political power, ethnic and religious sentiments and loyalty get easily regimented
for the achievement of goals. Yet ethnic and religious sentiments are issues of
primordial identity with large emotive contents. Thus, often the contest for the
control of state and policy, produce religious and ethnic interests as mechanism for
mobilizing loyalties. These resources could be land for farmers, or boundaries for
claimed lands or grazing lands. The creation of additional states heightened these
problems in certain areas.
A variant of this is when leaders in control of government discriminate
against others, who perceive gross injustice in the polity. As an illustration, the
Niger-Delta sense of deprivation did not start today. Isaac Adaka Boro, Nothingham
Dick and Owomero, had embarked on secessionist bids to protest this perceived
injustice as far back as 1966.
Yet another variant which generates conflicts, is that in some newly created
states, their composition is such that one ethnic group dominates the political arena
perpetually – to the exclusion of others who are considered minorities. The creation
of permanent minorities often generates frustration, disenchantment with the state
and anger, which often degenerates into violent reactions.
4. Decisions of Government
Decisions of government must be properly thought through before execution,
or they could generate violent conflicts. Given the competitive setting among ethnic
and religious groups, government decisions are often perceived in the context of
fairness, justice and equity. In the struggle for the control of government policy if
one group has an ascendancy, government decisions may not favour the other
group. The aggrieved group in the absence of fair avenues for seeking redress
goes violent. Thus, the creation of local government, (re)location of local
government headquarters, the sighting of government projects or appointments into
political offices can generate violent conflict, which utilizes ethnic and religious
bases for mobilization. The violent conflicts between Ife and Modakeke, Urhobo and
Itsekiri in Delta State and in Gwantu of Sanga Local Government Area of Kaduna
State, are good examples of cases in which government decisions sparked off
violent conflicts that are traceable to deep-rooted rivalry among different groups.
The perception of government policies by the various groups in a polity could
generate violent ethnic, religious and other formS of conflicts.
5. Migration and the Indigene/Settler Problems
In some parts of the country, especially in the Middle-Belt area, there have
been substantial migrations in the last 20 years. In the context of competition for
scarce resources and the importance of the control of the State for the distribution
of these resources, new lines of cleavages develop among groups. As indigenes
organize for the control of their polity and economy, so do the settlers press for their
rights of participation in these processes. Beyond a threshold, settler communities
threaten the indigene’s position of hegemony and control. While the ‘settler’ gets
defensively aggressive in its relations with the indigenes, the indigenes get
aggressively defensive, often resulting in violence with the full mobilization of ethnoreligious
loyalty and commitment. This is a general problem all over the country
which requires urgent resolution to give the country a lease of peace.
6. Deliberate Manipulation of Ethnic and Religious Identities
There are instances when politicians, traditional and religious leaders
deliberately manipulate ethnic and religious identities of groups. There are enough
evidences to show that quite a number of ethno-religious conflicts are caused by
politicians and political leaders. The level of hypocrisy among our political leaders is
nauseating. Some of these politicians have no constituencies from which to
demonstrate their relevance except through their narrow ethnic and religious
groups. Without being religiously judgmental, they are not genuinely religious in
their actions and faith—whether they claim to be ‘born again’ (or is it ‘born against’
God). Their personal lives do not show that God has a place in them. They exude
religious bigotry and ethnocentrism with demonstrable arrogance. They
symbolically use churches and mosques as their theatres of operation in the day
time, while consulting babalawos, cultists and/or juju men or even ritualists at night.
It is important that they maintain this semblance of churchianity and mosquianity,
bereft as these may be of the core values of Christianity and Islam. This is because
it is their lifeline for survival. They pollute the minds of young children with their
bigotry and copiously exhibit ethnocentric arrogance. Many of the ethno-religious
conflicts in Nigeria (especially in Northern Nigeria) are generated or exacerbated by
this group. Since no commission of inquiry ever punishes them, they hide behind
their ethno-religious curtains as untouchables—constantly brewing and dispensing
new formS of violence. Genuinely religious people respect the ways of life of others
and treat human lives with care and dignity. They know that since they did not
create, they should not take the lives of others.
7. Traditional Social Stratification and Ethnocentrism
Very often some citizens of ethnic and religious groups consider themselves
as hailing from aristocratic traditional backgrounds, and arrogantly exhibit
ethnocentrism in relations with other groups. At times, these people relate to other
groups (that is when they care to) with disdain, extending their ethno-religious
status recklessly to domains of others’ socio-cultural preferences. Politicians do this
with nauseating efficiency. It is no wonder that traditional leaders ‘sell’ or ‘award’
titles more under democratic polities than under military regimes in Nigeria. As a
matter of fact, the character of the recipients hardly matter. How they acquired their
wealth is often considered unimportant. No wonder some young men struggle for
these titles, in some parts of Nigeria as if it is a matter of life and death. This often
offends the sensibilities of other people who find other platformS for checkmating
the nuisance of these ‘leaders’.
8. Partisanship of Security Agencies
In potential conflict situations security agencies may be useful in creating a
sense of safety and security among groups. The partisanship of security agencies
usually tips the balance, resulting in the lack of confidence in the security agencies.
Thus, instead of preventing violent conflicts or effectively controlling conflicts, they
exacerbate conflict. The perception of the security agencies as neutral arbiters is
useful in conflict management. There have been allegations of partisanship of
security agencies which helped to escalate rather than dampen conflicts.
9. The Challenges of Democratic Governance
Most of the conflicts and crises which have characterized Nigeria’s
democratic path, are associated with undemocratic values which underpin our
national life – that is, building supposedly democratic structures on
undemocratic foundations and values. Let us illustrate some of these:
a. Electoral Process
Democracy is not all about elections. Elections are vehicles for the establishment of
representative government. The 2003 and 2007 elections were blatantly rigged. The
judiciary has exposed the shame we called elections by their various judgements of its
tribunals.
Given the perception that the control of state power is important, groups often decide
which political platform is the best for the pursuit and the promotion of their interests. Thus,
politics in Nigeria is not game but a battle. Nothing succeeds as much as success and
nothing fails as much as failure. The exclusion of failures from the political arena has been a
major source of conflict.
In addition, the blatant rigging of elections creates a reservoir of ill-will for the so-called
winners. Seeing no prospects of peaceful change, the aggrieved often take the violent
route. Even the judiciary could not, in such circumstances be trusted. In essence, electoral
rigging is a coup d’etat by other means, as it supplants the will of the people. Similarly, the
political intolerance of members of political parties generate intra-party and inter-party
conflicts. At times, ethno-religious support gets mobilized to achieve targets. . The Jos
crises of 2001 and 2008 are a good examples of violent conflicts which started because of
elections but which later took on ethno-religious colouration. In addition, the Tazarcemania
(self-succession obsession) of political incumbents generates conflicts as there are often
zones or groups which are opposed to the self-succession agenda of the incumbents. Thus,
electoral malpractices often offend the sensibility of those already dissatisfied with the
incumbent. Often politicians hire thugs and young people to visit violence on their
opponents – even within the same political parties. It has been alleged that the militancy in
the Niger-Delta took on criminal dimensions after the 2003 elections. Politicians reportedly
recruited young cult members into their army of political thugs over whom they lost control,
after the elections. These groups became monsters and were even threats to their erstwhile
masters. In addition, some governors courted and pampered religious and youth groups for
political purposes, only to have these eventually boomerang on them, as well as the system.
Groups such as ECOMOG, Yan Kalare, Sara Suka are examples of these extraconstitutional
armed groups which specialize in democratizing violence on behalf of their
masters. As Aliyu Tishau, a leading member of the Jama’atu Ahlis Sunnah Lidda’awati Wal
Jihad (otherwise known as Boko Haram) claimed:
The truth is that politicians are the root cause of this
Boko Haram problem …. I was contacted by a
governorship candidate to kill an opponent for a fee …
some politicians are now taking the advantage of the
conflict between Boko Haram leadership and the
authorities to execute their own agenda.9
Boko Haram has consistently denied that it killed the ANPP Governorship candidate in
Borno State.
There are enough evidences to show that politicians recruit young people for
violence and generate violence in the polity. As an illustration Mr. Nwanze Adiele, a leading
member of MEND (Movement for the Emancipation of Niger-Delta) while surrendering arms,
(with 20 of his boys) to the Amnesty Office in Rivers State said:
I was first introduced to guns in 1999, during the
elections, when we were asked by the PDP to help
them during the elections. They gave us guns and
promised to give us big money… But when the election
finished, we did not see any money. So, with the gun
we did not return, we went into this thing… I was with
MEND until when I left due to disagreements and I
formed my own group. I was servicing guns for other
groups, sometimes going into kidnapping, which I do
not want to do again.10
Candidly, virtually all political parties were guilty of this form of resorting to violence
for electoral purposes.
Similarly, in 2011, politicians lobbied South-South militants ahead of the elections.
As Prince Joseph Ettela Harry (the spokesman of the faction of MEND under Chief
Ekpemupilo, alias Tompolo) said:
I have been reliably informed that some of the boys
have been contracted by some of those politicians to
bring in their guns for them to buy against 2011
elections. But the ‘generals’ are saying that they have
been used and dumped before and would not succumb
to the dirty tricks of politicians this time around. Every
politician must win votes on his merit, not on the
strength of his arms.11
It is currently being alleged that politicaus are stockpiling arms for usage in the 2015
elections.
It is illegal and unconstitutional for politicians to keep armed groups and body
guards, not so deployed by security agencies. But these are daily scenes at political party
rallies and with politicians. Politicians, in and out of government, are therefore the greatest
generators of conflict, because they do not perceive politics as a game, but a battle.
Similarly, political parties, which are expected to aggregate and articulate the
interests of their members, as well provide alternative governments, are largely
undemocratic, fragile and ridden with ‘deadly’ fractionalization. Party elections and primaries
generate violence and even lead to assassinations. The crises in the Peoples’ Democratic
Party, with the emergence of a faction called “New PDP” illustrates this point.
The intolerance of the opinion of others is another challenge of democracy. Political
parties are intolerant of different views, and often see these as ‘anti-party activities’, which
deserve to be punished. It is not surprising that the political pilgrimage of politicians, from
one party to the other, by members is on the ascendancy.
b. Leadership and Statesmanship
Since we started our journey in democratization in May 1999, three major political
groups have emerged in the political arena. These are the politicians, the political
contractors and the political thugs. The genuine politicians know how to acquire and use
political power for the ends or goals of the State. These are few and have become an
endangered specie.
The political contractor is a businessman for whom democracy is a tolerable
nuisance in his calculus of profits. The electoral process is a commercial process in which
deals can be made in the form of investments in politics. Thus, from the Ngige-Ubah saga in
Anambra State to the Ladoja-Adedibu showdown in Oyo State, the political contractors
insisted on their pounds of flesh12. There are more political contractors than politicians. It is
hoped that the political contractors, in the next 20 years, may transform themselves into
genuine politicians.
The political thugs, often brazen and rough, are usually the hirelings of the political
contractors. The only value of this group is the maximum dispensation of violence and/or
threats of violence as may be requested by the political contractor. The political thug
democratizes violence against opponents—thanks to the big unemployment market which
swells up its rank.
Good governance and accountability entail the tolerance of divergent views, the
accommodation of political opponents and the widening of the frontiers of politics through
inclusiveness but not alienation and exclusion. Our leaders, once in the State House
must accept that they have become statesmen and no longer soap box politicians.
They must accept that they are no longer ethnic and religious champions or
parochial opinion leaders. They have become the fathers of all irrespective of the
ethnic group, language, geopolitical unit, or religion to which they belong. They now
transcend all these and must respect the country’s “unity in diversity” and “diversity
in unity”.
In essence, our leaders have not learned that once elected, they must transform
themselves into statesmen. Often many of them remain politicians in State Houses. There
is no principle they cannot mortgage, no value they cannot adulterate, and there is no
law they cannot bastardize. Genuine critics of their actions are dubbed ‘saboteurs’
and reactionaries, as if this country does not belong to all Nigerians. Many politicians
and political leaders have learnt nothing from the past. They behave as if Nigeria
belongs to them to milk and exploit, while the rest of us are mere tolerable nuisance.
It is no wonder that there is a big disconnect between leadership and followership,
and between government and the people.
Leadership thus remains a vital factor in effecting desirable compromises in our
democratic federation. The way our political leaders respect the rules of the game of
politics; their ability to imbibe the democratic values of accommodation, tolerance of
opposition and participation; and their ability to demonstrate gallantry in defeat and
grace in victory, will determine the extent of harmony in our democratic polity in the
future.
c. Economic Empowerment and Poverty Eradication
There can be no durable democracy nor can governance be qualified as ‘good’,
without a viable economic base. No one cares for democracy on an empty stomach. We
must not forget that democratic culture and political stability cannot thrive in a society where
there is abject poverty. Our poverty alleviation/eradication programmes have so far failed to
tackle the problem. Our economy is still in bad shape: the exchange rate is about N160.00
to one USA dollar; inflation still haunts our hopes for a good take home pay; some banks
are still tilting towards collapse; the manufacturing sector has experienced closures in spite
of our privatization process; there seems to be greater invasion of our market by external
forces than investment; our infrastructure are dilapidated; our educational system is
collapsing and the health sector is severely in pains. Perhaps, the financial sector has
remarkably been transformed. But there is still need for more regulation of the banking
industry. In addition, the private sector is still small and heavily tied to the apron-strings of
the public sector.
Generally, while reformS are welcome, the human being should be the object of
reformS. It is not enough to mention that there are poverty alleviation programmes. The truth
is that our experience since 1999 shows that these programmes are neither well thought-out
nor coordinated. At state and local government levels, we all know how the poverty
alleviation money is thrown down the drain-pipe. When programmes tend to contribute to
poverty escalation rather than alleviation, government should stop and review its activities.
In about seven years to 2020, how can we launch the economy to the desired position with
poverty still ravaging our people; with power supply still very epileptic, and our factories
closing down one after the other? How can we become one of the 20 largest economies at
the rate we are going, by 2020? We can, but only if we put our act together, and colleatively
act with urgency and purposeful determination.
The global economic meltdown has hit both industrialized and developing economies
very hard. For an economy that largely relies on petronaira, it cannot be any harder. We
seem sentenced to budget deficits as our foreign reserve dwindles. However, we can turn
around the current situation to fortune. We can make it a blessing in disguise. We need to
diversify our monocultural economy. We must not forget that rural communities are the
‘engines’ of growth. They are the greens of the country, rich in land and labour even
though they may have scarce capital and infrastructure. Our consumption pattern must
be regulated, if we are to become a developed economic power by 2020. It is important, as
part of our extractive and productive mechanism, that government funds agriculture, solid
minerals and small and medium manufacturing sectors. Now is the time for the Government
to wade into the crisis-ridden sectors of the economy as the erstwhile champions of the free
market in the West are now sinking money into their productive economic activities. From
deregulation, the apostles of the free market in the West have opted for guided regulation.
What lessons do these experiences have for us?
With our abundant human and natural resources, we strongly believe that our
poverty is related to the ineptitude and inefficiency in the governance of the country.
Our governments at federal, state and local levels must summon the courage and will to
fight this menace, which from all available indicators, is on the increase. Our deregulation
and privatization policies must be pursued with all sense of patriotism and sincerity,
transparency and accountability. From available evidence (even in the media) the
privatization exercise had been transformed into the personalization of our national assets.
Some cases of privatization must be revisited for justice and equity. As done in the United
States of America, are there laws (such as anti-trust laws) to ensure that all our assets are
not cornered by a few big business names? Currently, the same or similar names or
characters seem to re-echo during privatization exercises. Our lawyers and law-makers may
want to check on this.
d. Unemployment
Given the economic hardship and high level of unemployment, ‘armed youths for
hire’ are available at cheap price. While the Federal Government ‘deregulates’ the
economy, politicians ‘deregulate’ violence and the control over the dispersation of the
instruments of violence, which is supposed to be the cardinal duty of government. The army
of the unemployed are always willing to find new jobs as body guards, assassins, and
canon-fodders in communal violence. The conspicuous consumption of political officeholders
(whose backgrounds were well known before they assumed offices) amidst the
abject poverty of the people, not only alienate, but generate hatred. Candidly our level of
unemployment is directly related to our security. Government should review or scrap the
National Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP) and replace it with an intergovernmental
agency which partners with the private sector for urgent actions in this area,
while cutting out duplications. We may want to learn fast from other countries how they are
tackling their unemployment problem.
e. The Corruption Conundrum.
Some Nigerians have no doubt earned their only country a bad reputation in terms of
corruption. No nation is free from the corruption cancer. But the fact that we are always,
rightly or unfairly, rated among the most corrupt nations is devastatingly irritating. Corruption
is real in our society. It is a menace to our individual, societal and national life. It happens in
the open and in the dark. How can we fight it?
Many Nigerians have observed that there are some people with unclean hands in
and around the government, thus casting shadows of corruption over Jonathan’s
administration. Is the President a victim of the political context in which he rose to
office? Have our Governors, Ministers, Legislators, Permanent Secretaries, Local
Government Chairmen and Councilors also gotten the message? Are the policemen on the
streets, the messengers in the offices, the classroom teachers, businessmen and
contractors alike conscious of the desirability for change? Herein lies the need for
aggressive advocacy.
The wind of change against corruption has been sweeping from Peru, Chile and
Argentina through Italy, Japan, France, Thailand to Taiwan, and Costa Rica.13 — witnessing
how former Presidents and leaders have been brought to trials with some convicted and
jailed for corruption. What is happening in this country? Can we amend the laws of our anticorruption
agencies to give them enough teeth to bite? What about the establishment of an
anti-corruption court? The lesson in anti-corruption crusade must start from the top in
practical terms.
Importantly, our anti-corruption agencies must be seen to be ready for the task. The
past experience, in which they were used as instruments of political victimization cannot be
tolerated. These agencies should be strictly guided by law. Most importantly, the civil
society should be involved in the fight against corruption. They should not only serve as
whistle-blowers but also as the eagle eyes of the society. Corruption is multi-dimensional.
Corruption does not only involve money. It also involves the abuse of trust, processes and
institutions. It is our suggestion that we should concentrate on the prevention of
corruption by establishing appropriate mechanisms for checking it. This will reduce
the number and cost of cases prosecuted. If we must rebrand Nigeria, we must start from
within government, and its determination to be exemplary should not be in doubt. The
difference between Nigeria and many other countries such as China or the United States, is
that when one is caught, one can expect punishment. Efficacy of law enforcement is
Nigeria’s main problem in dealing with corruption.
f. Security, Law and Order, and Conflict Management
Currently, the greatest problem in the country is the security of lives and property.
This is not unrelated to the lack of ‘good’ governance which has alienated people from
government. The first step towards stability is to restore mutual confidence between the
government and the citizens, as citizens become part of the security collective. Democracy
presupposes responsibility. It presupposes that politicians will be responsible enough to be
crises-dampners rather crises-escalators. It also means that government should effectively
maintain law and order to encourage the ‘rule of law’ and prevent the aggrieved from taking
laws into his/her hand. Unfortunately, the Nigeria Police Force seems to be
overwhelmed, while the constant use of the military to perform police duties is
dangerous for everyone. The emergence of vigilanté groups and ethnic militias is a
demonstration of the failure of the Nigeria Police Force and other security agencies.
The Ombatse ethnic militia in Nasarawa State illustrates what happens when one treats
security issues with levity and/or politicizes security matters. If the Ombatse case had been
appropriately handled much earlier, the killing of over 70 security agencies and the
deployment of troops to Nasarawa State, would have been probably avoided.
Given the above security challenges, how do we proceed from here? Do we give up?
This is not an option, because we owe our children a relatively stable polity within which
development can take place. The only option available to us seems to be – taking up the
challenges, facing these challenges collectively, with courage, discipline, and patriotism. We
cannot afford to be overwhelmed by these challenges, rather, our resolve and actions
should overwhelm these challenges. Let us, therefore, make some recommendations.
E. TOWARD PEACE AND STABILITY FOR NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Given the atmosphere of physical insecurity which currently envelops the country,
we need to take urgent actions to set up the machinery for the prevention, management
and resolution of conflicts. Generally, we tend to treat security issues very lightly. Yet,
without adequate security, nothing else can take place. Let us therefore, make
recommendations on how to roll-back the carpet of violent conflicts – ie. how to manage
crises and conflicts in Nigeria.
1. Towards Conflict Prevention, Management and Resolution
Since federalism is about how to manage conflicts, it requires politicians
and leaders with skills in effecting appropriate compromises and conflict
resolution. It calls for a collective sense of patience, accommodation and
tolerance. These are not the cheapest commodities to find in the market place
when people operate under stress, yet they are indispensable.
a. The Development of Early Warning Signals
Since political elites are not committed to resolving the problems of
communal conflicts and violence, they are unprepared for future cases of
violence. Having experienced these violent conflicts before, one would
expect each state government to have a well-equipped and manned Conflict
Management Unit. This unit should have data on conflicts, and the capability
to analyze and provide an early warning signal to government. True, not all
conflicts can be predicted because human behaviour can also be
spontaneous or instinctive in reaction to external provocations. But such a
Centre, which constantly liaises with IPCR, and holds regular seminars for
the Federal, State and Local Government Security Committees, would be
helpful. As the IPCR report observed:
The conclusion of this study is that an early warning
does not exist yet in Nigeria and there is need to put one
in place. An Early Warning Mechanism or system is not
such until an early warning has been fed into the system
and appropriate responses elicited as a result of such
warning.14
Efforts have been made to establish an early warning system, but there are
at initial stages and not coordinated to have desirable impact.
All governments, must thus establish active Conflict Management
Units, to help provide proper information, identification, interpretation of
conflicts and provide policy options, from which appropriate responses can
be undertaken. This also involves training appropriate staff for these units.
We treat security issues too carelessly and trivially in this country for our
own good. Security is expensive. Similarly, it is recommended that there
should be conflict rendition councils at each local government level (chaired
by the paramount Traditional Ruler). At the State level, the council should be
chaired by chairman of the traditional council. These councils will endeavor
to prevent and resolve conflicts before they get out of hand or become
violent.
b. Government Sensitivity in Decisions and Policies
Our governments should also be sensitive, fair and just in their
decisions and policies. It is wrong for governments and/or their officials to be
conflict-generators. Nor should government over-heat the polity through
hurriedly reharshed and unthought-out policy decisions, because it suits the
interest of a few people either in government or those who have influence
over government. Good governance entails catering for the interests of
the majority while protecting the interests of the minority. Nor should
governors/politicians maintain their own militia for political purposes. The
federal government should ban any existing ones. The lack of courage of
government to deal with politicians, who violate this law, has let to many
unnecessary violence, and consequent loss of lives and property.
c. Political Maturity of Leaders
Leadership is not all about privileges to loot public treasury or push
personal interests to the disadvantage of the public. Leadership is
responsibility, an obligation to demonstrate commitment, integrity, honesty
and decency in handling the affairs of a heterogeneous group which chose
you as a leader. The speeches and utterances of our religious, ethnic,
traditional and political leaders before, during and after communal conflicts
clearly show that they do not have patience, understanding, honesty,
maturity and tolerance, which are marks of good leadership. It is even worse
when these leaders manipulate ethnic and religious identities15 for their
selfish ends. Mature leaders treat their followers with respect and do not talk
down to them. They must encourage mutual respect even in the context of
vehement disagreements among groups. Perhaps, even as important are
leadership qualities such as Justice, Fairness and Equity which are
cardinal to the survival of any polity, not to mention a federal polity.
We need a conference of all ethnic and religious leaders to jawjaw
and also learn the values of tolerance and accommodation. This takes a
long time to achieve, but we must not underrate it. We must start now. We
can start this at the state level first, and then have delegations to a National
Conference on Conflict Management. Therefore, all State governments
should host a State Conference on Communal conflicts (ie religious,
ethnic and others), at twice a year.
d. Mutual Respect and Recognition of Claims of Others
Many of the conflicts we have witnessed emerged from the lack of
mutual respect for one another. We cannot all be the same. We must realize
that even within a single religious and ethnic group, there are differences in
perspectives and opinions. Disdain and arrogance (bankrupt of content) are
often marks of inferiority complex.
Similarly, as we mentioned earlier, we must be able to dialogue with
one another, no matter how difficult. We should respect and recognize the
claims of others in a competitive context even if we disagree with the nature
of such claims. Non-recognition of claims generates major conflicts which
often mobilizes ethnic and religious loyalties. Recognition of claims, while
disputing the nature of claims, creates a basis for discussion. Here the
quarrel is over shares, how much? and not the illegitimacy of claims.
Governments can play helpful roles in mediating in some of these conflicting
claims. It should not wait until the competitive process turns into violent
interactions among claimants. So also can civil societies, NGOs and even
the private sector contribute to the prevention of conflicts. We must accept
the reality that while it is necessary to create “unity in diversity”, we must
identify and respect our differences – “diversity in unity”
e. Improvement of the Economy and Management of Unemployment
Candidly, unless those in government are in a country different from
ours, they should realize that conditions of life are currently very hard for the
average Nigerian. Eating poses a real problem, not to mention taking
members of your family to hospitals. Many families can no longer pay school
fees. There are no jobs for even those who have graduated from secondary
schools, Polytechnics and Universities. There is a large army of the
unemployed, ready to be used for odious jobs which bring in some income.
Armed robbery, political thuggery, banditry and other formS of crimes have
virtually been “legitimized” by the logic of the imperatives of survival.
We must therefore address the issue of the economy, poverty, and
how to check and manage unemployment if we are to effectively manage
conflicts.
f. Control of Electoral Malpractices and Political Intolerance
Leaders who are not genuinely elected lack legitimacy. These
leaders know themselves. Driving in tinted glass cars with a retinue of scarecrows
called security people, is not leadership. A leader is close to the
people. What are they afraid of? Are they afraid of their own shadows? I
know some governors who drive with an entourage of three cars, and at
times, they even drive themselves and stop to talk to the people along their
way. Yet, I have also seen governor’s entourages of between 10-20 vehicles
intimidating other road users and deafening our ears with Nigeria’s symptom
of officialdom – sirens. This is siren terrorism. Apart from share wastage, this
latter group of governors demonstrates that it is wary of the very people
whom it claims to have elected it. This opinion is without prejudice to the
security requirements of leaders. Even traditional leaders and their escorts
stampede us off our roads. The nuisance of sirens has become an evidence
of recklessness of our leaders.
We must avoid electoral malpractices. It is an evidence of
democratic deficit to rig elections – that is to replace the people’s mandate. It
is a way of telling the people – “you do not like me, but here I am in spite of
you. Do your worst.” Is it any wonder that people resort to doing their worst,
especially when the judiciary does not always provide a fair avenue for
redressing grievances?
The level of political intolerance is amazing – even within the same
political party. We must learn, as leaders, to interact and dialogue with one
another, so that our followers can pick up the signal. I wonder where those
official inter-state visits among governors during the Gowon and Shagari
days have gone? Exchange of visits among political, religious and traditional
leaders, sports and inter-state games, visits among youth groups, and
cultural festivals and exchanges — may promote peace and harmony.
In addition, we must avoid the current winner- takes-all trend in our
political terrain. At all tiers of government we must establish power-sharing
arrangements to accommodate various groups. While our federation
provides for the interest of the majority, it also provides for the protection of
minorities from eternal servitude and discrimination.
g. Indigeneship and Settler Problems: Towards Residency Requirements
This has become a problem all over the country. In spite of the
rhetorics about Nigerian citizenship, all Nigerians recognize that there is
indigeneship. This problem cannot be solved by political hypocrisy and
rhetoric. Yes, there have been patterns of migrations. But we all know the
settlement patterns at this point in time. Even though the Hausa-Fulani have
lived in Shagamu for over a hundred years, how many of them are in the
local government councils or in the Ogun State House of Assembly? In Abia,
Enugu and Anambra States, Hausa-Fulani people have lived there for a long
time, how many are recognized as indigenes of even local government
council areas? In Kano and Adamawa States, many Ibos have lived there for
generations. How many of them are recognized as indigenes? Even the
names of individuals immediately disqualify them. Similarly, in Jos and
Kaduna, many Hausa and Yoruba families have lived there for over four
generations. Have they been accepted as indigenes? One has been reliably
informed that in Kaduna, Benue, Kano and a few other states, there are nonindigenes
in the various State Houses of Assembly or in the municipal
councils. One hopes that this trend continues.
Yes, every Nigerian can live anywhere in Nigeria, but do all Nigerians
have the same indigeneship rights everywhere? No! Political hypocrisy will
not help us resolve this problem. Let us be frank and realistic with ourselves.
The 1999 Constitution, sections 25-32, and the Part I, provides in
Item 9, that “citizenship, naturalization and aliens” is an exclusive matter of
the government of the federation. Thus, any Nigerian can live anywhere in
the federation. Note that citizenship is not a concurrent matter as in the
United States and other federations of the world.
However, many activities of government, and the contents of the
Constitution still remind us that we need an identity called indigeneship. As
an illustration, it does not matter how long a man has lived in Kaduna, his
daughter who is admitted to the Federal Government College, is required to
go to her local government to get a certificate of indigeneship even though
she has never been there. Can you imagine Miss Ngozi Okoro going to Yola
and requesting for a certificate of indigeneship there, even if she had been
born there?
In addition, in the employment into the federal or State Public
Services, the principle of “Federal Character” is applied. The Federal
Character Commission is expected to monitor these patterns of recruitment
and call for corrections. In fact, formS for recruitment into public services also
provide for an identification of one’s religion.
As a federation, I believe that citizenship should be a concurrent
matter under the constitution. Each state should have a residency
requirement, given the laws of the state. A state could provide that if you
have lived for 15 or 25 years in the state, or if you were born there and
contributed to its development, you should be given a certificate of
indigenship and entitled to all the privileges of an indigene. However, this
means that you cannot carry your family in truckloads to your original village
for census exercises or elections. You have a new base of territorial identity.
This may be similar to provisions of residency requirements in most federal
states.
Let us be honest with ourselves. We cannot eat our cake and have it.
We cannot run a federal system and run away from issues of dual identities.
h. Depoliticization of Ethnic and Religious Groups
Given the cost of violent communal conflicts in the North, it is clear
that ethnic and religious groups need to be depoliticized. Politicians must
halt the current trend of manipulating these two groups with primordial
identities for political and selfish ends. Politics overly radicalizes religion and
ethnicity. An elaborate process of depoliticizing ethnic and religious groups
must be put in place. Government should seriously think of setting up a
panel on this.
Topic: SECURITY AND PEACE: THE IMPERATIVES FOR NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT BY J. ISAWA ELAIGWU (Read 3604 times)
