Taiwo Akinola wrote. Dear Compatriots, Please see the attached document which I have discussed with Dr Akingba and Sir Ajayi while I was in Nigeria. Please we need to organise and workout how best to sell this idea outside Nigeria- Europe, US, UN, etc. Please let us agree on platform and strategies for achieving this objective, OR just act on it. Please forward to other citizens. I will also be talking to SS and SE leaders in diaspora. Yours sincerely Taiwo. From: takinola@hotmail To: Subject: WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH NIGERIA? Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 20:59:35 +0100 Dear Citizen ....... I am opening this dialogue with you in response to your recommendation that General Buhari is capable of solving our problem- because he is not corrupt. Your observation on the corruption of Bola Tinubu is appreciated. If it is not right for Jonathan, Abacha or Ibori to be corrupt, why is Sahara, thisday news paper and many of these youths who only gravitate toward where power and influence are, not criticising BT? Why did they not criticise either BT or Wale Oshun for hijacking the resources of the Yoruba for selfish ends? Only the masurity of the likes of Sir Ajayi and General Akinriade has averted another ‘peration Wetie’. How has the Yoruba benefited from the fractionalisation of Afenifere? Is the current alliance in the APC not wreaking the position of the Yoruba at the National Conference? I am a fan of yours, through it is almost certain that I am older than you in age, in the experiences of the ways of the world and of this subject, ‘what is the problem with Nigeria’? Long before June 12, I formally studied the subject including the analysis of balance of power in Nigeria and during the crisis I was the founding chairman of Campaign for Democracy, CD outside Nigeria and the first to start the Movement for National Reformation outside Nigeria. The late Chief Anthony Enahoro, of blessed memory, used to perform a function and I latter joined him on the project- when we noticed either, influential writers, activist, politicians or those who are energetic or sincere on the issue of how to resolve the problem in Nigeria- but who are getting the diagnosis of the problem wrong, a factor, among others, which tends to affect their recommended solutions and actions, he would find a way to talk to them. I am aware that the elder statesman, invited OBJ, Beko, Dr Eddy Madg., Abraham Adesanya, and a host of others, to his home for this purpose. I appreciate your sincerity and let me diagnose my understanding of the problem with Nigeria and this is our position at the MNR: WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH NIGERIA? As complex as this question is, both the definition of the problems and the solutions can be illustrated in a one line mathematical formula, thus: Nigerias Problems = [PCC+ PCL, balance of power/ethnic struggle] + EPI + MB. Solutions= Following the law of BODMAS, we must first seek to solve [PCC+ PCL, balance of power/ethnic struggle], which is a product of a system which is lacking authentic ownership- through regionalisation that stabilises and gives ownership and responsibilities to each part of the country. Once the part which provides the superstructure for her problems is resolved, it will be possible to effectively address her economic and moral problems. PCC; represents political corruption by the colonialist [PCC]- Not minding the propaganda that “the British came to Africa to civilise us”, the British did not come to Africa as state builders or as NGOs, but as a colonialist, whose core interest is the exploitation of the locals. In order to prolong its ability to protect its interest, it ‘divide and rule’ the people’ by establishing a conflictual structure which exacerbated the balance of power/ethnic struggles between the ethnic and power blocks in the country. The British granted overbalanced power to- the Northern power block under the leadership of the Hausa/Fulani- the least educated, the least productive and the most conservative ethnic nationality in Nigeria. The British achieved this objective through the manipulation of the Nigeria’s ‘elements of national power’ in which, both when the country was divided into two, three and four administrative regions, the British granted to the Northern power block- the geographical [75.3% of total land area in Nigeria], military, population [50%] and administrative [inform of indirect rule] elements of national power. But to make the same group to be weak and to create dependency on the British, it denied to the same power block, modern education which is a most strategic element of national power which the Southern power blocks had achieved by default. Commenting on the damaging effect of this policy, Professor Awa observed that: “It was the educational policy of the country more than anything else, which help the cleavage between the North and the South in intellectual and psychological orientation. While northern education was in government hands except in non-Muslim areas, in Muslim areas, it was adapted to the cultural environment of the territory.”[1] Commenting in his book, ‘The Administration of Nigeria 1900 to 1960, Nicolson I. F, a colonial administrator in Nigeria between 1947-1962, (303-4), verifies that: “Nigeria’s experience, since independence at the beginning of the United Nation’s Development Decade, has been one of ‘underdevelopment’.... The past in which this tragic situation has its main roots is not so much the immediate past of evanescent political movements and leaders, nor the more remote past of the period before British intervention, before Nigeria was brought into existence. The main root system of Nigeria’s present is to be found in the first half of the twentieth century, and particularly in the earlier years of that period..... In the growing literature on Nigeria government and politics it is usually this period which has attracted least scholarly attention. Political commentators have tended to concentrate on political developments after, rather than on administrative developments before. The Second World War historians have tended to probe into the more remote past, the period before the birth of Nigeria in 1900. And inquirers into British administration have tended to look at local rather than central government.[2] I.F. Nicolson went further (p.310), “As social engineering and nation-building, then, the sixty years of British colonial administration in Nigeria must be judged a failure. Colonial administration did produce, in countries like Nigeria which were not nations, a workable system of estate management in which oppression, corruption, and the curtailment of basic human rights were exceptional, and less prevalent than they were to become after independence. He affirmed that (p.303-4): “the actions of British administrators in the early years will leave a thousand-year legacy as important as the Norman conquest of England. Conflict analysts are in agreement that, even though, conflict is a permanent feature of every dynamic society, the nature of each conflict is determined by its political environment. In Nigeria, the characteristics of PCL- the political corruption by the local power elite was aided by the objective of the political corruption by the colonialist, PCC. Having purposefully established a political administrative structure in which the allocated leadership did not have the needed prerequisites to lead from the front, the system was conflictual, regressive, and underdeveloped and this led to the general breakdown of morality in the society. There are two types of power exercised in a political relationship; structural and relational power. Relational power as defined by the realist school of thought is a power, which enables A to get B to do something they would not otherwise do. Structural power on the other hand, confers the power to decide how things shall be done, the power to shape frameworks and the power to determine the surrounding structure within which states relates to each other. It also shapes the frameworks within which actors in a system relate to one another. It gives the power to determine the structures of the ‘global’ political economy within which other states or ‘national’ groups, their political institutions, their economic enterprises and their scientists and others have to operate. Structural power is more than the power to set agenda of discussion but is gives the power to imposed issues on other parties. British political shenanigan in Nigeria granted Structural power to the Northern political elite; to lord over the Southern political elite who are more advanced in the strategic knowledge and economic elements of national power. In that arrangement, even if it had the ability to lead, which it did not have, it was not in the interest of the Northern power elite to promote policies of rapid development in the country. As a result of this- in a Nigerian political system that has no authentic ownership- due to its weaknesses, the Northern Caliphate, a subsystem of the Nigerian system used its overbalanced power to sub-optimize [Suboptimization] their interest over and above the interest of the federal unit in its own terms. It embarked on a policy of destructive negative competitive strategies in its internal balance of power struggles against the South- i.e. a policy of destroying the advantages of the South, as a means of catching-up with the South. As it is always the results of such policy when it is adopted in dysfunctional polygamous homes; it led to the inefficiency of the country’s economic and political institutions [EPI]. The effect of the two combined has led to moral bankruptcy of the entire system [MB]. This policy succeeded in paralysing the Nigerian federal system, but it did not destroy the South as it was originally planned. However, because the Caliphate system devoted too much of its effort and resources on trying to destroy the south, it did not seek sufficient self development- as such it also paralyse itself. As such, this creates a stalemate in the political balance of power struggle. There is a big difference between political corruption and moral corruption and some actors who took part in political corruption even for realist reasons- such as the structure and the nature of the problems on the ground [ for example, initially the Northerners were fighting for survival. But once it attained power, it ‘abuse it’], are moralist. That includes Sir Tafarwa Balewa, the first Prime Minister of Nigeria and Sir Ahmadu Bello, the authentic Northern leader and until his assassination, the most powerful political actor in the independent Nigeria. Currently, General Buhari, one of the top Caliphate add core leader, nationalist and religious fanatics is in this category. Yet there actions represent a greater threat to the corporate existence of Nigeria than the activities of the morally bankrupt ones. For example the late Ahmadu Bello, the Sardauna of Sokoto, may not be morally bankrupt. But politically he was always a threat to Nigeria’s ‘national security’. Let us consider the statement credited to Sir Ahmadu Bello, and see if what the Northerners are doing is anything different from his or the groups’ laid down injunctions. On the 12 of October, 1960, just 12 days after independence from Britain, Sir Ahmadu Bello, said: The new nation called Nigeria should be an estate from our great- grand father, Othoman Dan Fodio. We must ruthlessly prevent a change of power. We must use the minorities in the North as willing tools, and the South as conquered territories AND NEVER ALLOW THEM TO HAVE CONTROL OF THEIR FUTURE. (The Parrot, Oct. 12, 1960). [Also, see this and you will understand the religiouse and aanti-Africa agendas and double faces of the likes of Lamido, El Rufai: I was chased out of Sudan when I raised the alarm about Boko Haram – Ambassador Bola Dada.] Here, the Caliphate uses the ‘structural’ power of the state to commit terrorism against people of other nationalities. Other nationalities were forced to use their ‘relational’ power to defend themselves. These actions led to nepotism which breeds both economic inefficient and moral bankruptcy. Basically, the British initiated a ‘Nigerian unity’ objective, which envisaged that, the Southern society, through a combination of jurisdictional pressure, military and political power, would be integrated firmly into the body of the Northern society under the leadership of the Hausa-Fulani nationality, but under her supervision. What the British did in Nigeria was to build Nigeria in her image- Britain is an asymmetric society where the English nation more or less constantly makes up 84% of the total population, Wales nation around 5%, Scotland roughly 8.5 %, and Northern Ireland (since 1921) less than 3%. England’s land area of 130,410 sq km (50,352 sq mi) is equivalent to 57 per cent of the area of Great Britain and 54 per cent of the area of the United Kingdom. With it the English at all times enjoys a built in majority power; it determines when an English should rule the country and the characteristics of non-English who can be allowed to rule. In this ‘union’, Scotland is the second most influential nation followed by the Wales. However, in spite of this unjust arrangement, the British system was effective and even went on to build a glorious empire because the English, like the Roman nation in Roman Empire, Prussia nation in Germany, Hans nation in China; were able to lead from the front. But in Nigeria, power was allocated to the most conservative, the least educated and least productive power block, which is not able to lead from the front- some Federal Ministers from the North such as Professor Jubril Aminu, both as Education Secretary [from 1975] and Minister for Education; embarked on policies which retarded education development in Nigeria. The situation is not conducive to development. Factions of the Northern power elite are still bend on implementing this unworkable and unpatriotic policy. In true power relations terms, there is a stalemate- the Caliphate lacks the capacity to see this project through, but it’s yet to psychologically come to terms with that reality; while the rest of the stakeholders, are yet to formulate effective strategy with which to take over power from the Caliphate. The greatest challenge to the Nigerian political elite is to have the political maturity not to seek to take advantage of each other; but to see both their advantages and disadvantages as joint issues to be jointly administered. There is a genuine tendency for hegemonic ambitions in Nigeria. When there is a danger of imposition or a wish for imposition, each nationality feel more secured to revert to its base for solidarity. This action tends to cut-across the idea of a Nigerian state. The collective identity of each nationality tends to be pervasive and persistent. They are less subjective to rapid changes and tend to be more intense and durable ‘because it is vivid, accessible, well established, long popularised and well believed’. But the idea of a Nigerian state is defective both as an idea and as a process. This is because it lacks a ‘pre-modern and a prehistory’ which can provide it with emotional substance and historical depth. If we examine the effects of the January 1966 coup on the psyche of the Hausa-Fulani, the effects of the July 1966 coup and the civil war on the Igbo, the effects of the June 12 annulment on the psyche of the Yorubas, the helplessness of both the Middle-Belt and the South-South power blocks; one political thread runs through those crisis and that is that there is a genuine fear of and a wish for hegemonic control in Nigeria. This fact dictates the need for the National Conference to seek to balance inter-nationality political relations in the country and to look for a more workable formula with regards to how to manage the central political power authority. Conclusion Buhari, like Sir Tafarwa Balewa and Sir Ahmadu Bello, is not morally bankrupt- because he will not steal money or buy private jets for himself. But he is politically bankrupt. Was Nigeria better under Sir Tafarwa Balewa and Sir Ahmadu Bello? The answer is no. The most important gain of June 12 is that we have reduced the Caliphate’s grip on power so that the distribution and exercise of power in Nigeria can move toward a state of ‘dynamic equilibrium’. That brought in OBJ and Jonathan. Buhari will negate these gains and we would be back to square one. There is the Buhari- person and Buhari a senior member of the Caliphate system. Just go and look at what he did when he was a head of state- his treatment of the southerners, the money we lost on Lagos Metro! The Caliphate once promised to grant power to Chief Obafemi Awolowo, Chief Enahoro, Chief Adisa Akinloye, Chief MKO Abiola. The rest is history. Some of our most strategic concessions, such as the creation of unbalanced regions, the inflated census and representations for the north; have only serve to worsen the situation in Nigeria. We are about to make another stupid concession. It’s is too early for power to return to the North. The Caliphate have failed us woefully, they are not able to lead from the front. So, what have we to gain from the Buhari concession? What so ever that Buhari can do, there are a 1001 Ibo who can do better. Still on BT., when the Axe gets to the bush, the first thing the trees would notice is ‘this is one of us’. When you are dealing with Nigerians, it’s good to consider three factors- the general level of consciousness, the stage of their development (knowledge, understanding), interest- personal and group (ethnic o religion. Personal ambition is the greatest problem affecting BT at the moment. He hijacked the resources of the Yoruba and would use it to negate all the gains from June 12. When he is gone- either because of his poor health or kill by the Caliphate whom his alliance would have helped to prop up, he would leave behind for people of your generation, a greater problem than what we have at the moment. You cannot make the economy to be efficient or stop corruption until you stop this internal colonisation palaver. There is considerable evidence from the behavioural irregularities which characterise the social, economic and political direction of events in the Nigerian state, that its unbalanced structure is the most critical factor to the countrys inability to compound and synthesise its enormous resources into effective economic, military and governmental mechanism to further its national interest. Nigeria has a balance of power problem, fronted by the three nations - the Hausa-Fulani, the Yorubas and the Ibos - whose particular configurations form the basic structural framework within which all other interest groups in the federation are forced to operate. However, power is over-balanced to the advantage of the Hausa-Fulani who led the northern group of nationalities. My thesis is not that the Nigerian state, like any other developing country, is immune from problems associated with developmental processes, such as corruption, poor education, lack of infrastructure, ethnicity, tribalism, military rule, class divide and manipulation by the elites- far from that. My argument is that in terms of intensity and scope, its balance of power problem is the one single factor that contributes most to the economic and political instability in the state. It is the super-structure engendered by this factor that compounds the normal problems facing Nigeria. It is this problem that renders everything we touch putrid and poisonous, and is the only reason why the state is not making progress. If we do not address this problem, but pretend to be marching forward, we would be negating all our positive inputs by sheer stupidity. In order to fully appreciate the influence of the balance of power problem over the other ills facing the Nigerian, it may be necessary to point out that the super-structure created by the overbalanced power thrives on corruption and nepotism. Because the system lacks ownership, corruption at the centre is seen as a way to empower each nation and nationality involved in the struggle for power. And for the nationalities in power, it is also a means to reduce the influence of real and potential enemies. Outside the context of balance of power conflict, what they are doing may amount to corruption or nepotism, however, in the context in which their actions are carried out, the attitude which they display, is comparable with the way states tend to justify the resources spent on wars as reasonable because national interest is involved. Some academician and socialist middleclass, especially in the South have mistaken the phenomenon of balance of power, for a class struggle- all because of their wrong perception that the Nigerian state is a nation, rather than a collection of nations that it truly is. I have asked some of the people to clarify to me, the differences in social class, if not of ethnicity between the following regional antagonist: Alhaji Hamadu Bello, Chief Namide Azikwe and Chief Obafemi Awolowo; Or between these military personnel- Yakubu Gowon, Odumegun Ojuwku and Ogundipe? The reality is that the two phenomena’s are present in Nigeria, but the balance of power phenomena contributes most to the crisis that the National conference is meant to resolve. This problem is not peculiar to Nigeria- please go online, for example; the Greek state actively went through this stage of development around 404 BC, United Kingdom in the 17th century, Italy in 15th century and Germany in 18th Century. I look forward to hearing from you. Yours sincerely Citizen Taiwo Akinola. Ezekiel Atewojaye February 19 near London · Edited We Must Have a Choice as People Can we really blame our present Guvnors of SW? Can we compare them with those of LOOBO States of 1979-83? What is the shares of Jakande and co after Hello fellow Nigerians of IdiAgbon Buhari? How were they treated by the military guys of WAI Adventurers and usurpers? Why can’t Nigerians of LOOBO States at least reacts then and tell off the adventurers to go back to the barracks where they belong to? The only Nigerian that speaks out then was Tai Solarin and he was locked up for his outspokenness. We can remember some of what they did to some of our then progressive governors. Onabanjo was the first casualty of their obnoxious decree. He was sentenced to 23 years imprisonment for an unknown law that come from a backdated decree, Bola Ige bagged 21 years for failing to be able to account for 10,000 Naira spent from his Security votes during the time he was a governor, Jakande and Ajasin were under lock and keys for nothing, Tai Solarin was locked up with Decree 2 for telling them that they should conduct new elections and handover power within 12 months or a year plus. The key political figures like Uba Ahmed, Umaru Dikko, Akinjide and Akinloye of the Federal were allowed to pass through our borders an abscond, while The same decree was used to declare that Shagari as an Angel and Alex Ekwueme as a Saint Jim Nwobodo was ridiculously given 126 years while Mbakwe was given 8 years for ferrying 50,000 Naira to his daughter in London through black-market to support her education while in Power as a Governor. If that type of thing repeat itself again are they ready to react and show their determination to stick on to the Democratic civilian rules through which their dignity and rights can be fairly and sparingly protected at least as human beings? If any segment of the present component react to bad governance wont they be treated as anti-government, vivisectionists, rebels, antagonists, or even be internationally tagged and blackmailed as TERRORISTS? In a country like ours where interests, aims and objectives are not the same; and also a situation where a large portion of about 80% land mass belong to a particular segments that have something in common; it is highly impossible for the Yorubas in the West or the Ibos in the East or the Itsekiris or Ijaws of the South, South and host of others to make noise and be fully Heard, Recognized and Appreciated. In views of the above facts it is highly suggestive to go devolution instead of waiting for protracted voyage of revolution that could make many territories become desolated. Is it not better to go con federal instead of this manipulated Federal system that has been marred with Military Unitary System of 1966? Or we better chose an exit of peaceful worse scenarios and go Czechoslovakia instead of choosing a brutal trek to Kigali or Bosnia-Herzegovina of Yugoslavia? We have ample of CHOICES to make.
Posted on: Sat, 31 May 2014 17:38:57 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015