North Africa: Change from the Ground Up—And Now, the Hard Part

 

–Cutting-Edge Analytics–

In an article published in several blogs and newspapers including the African Herald Express titled, Democracy Now: Laboratories, Incubators and Nurseries of Democracy—the Party Primaries Rolling Off on January 15,2011, and accessible through the above link, this author had some pretty remarkable things to say concerning democracy generally in Africa, but with particular references to the dictatorships in Hosni Mubarak’s Egypt and Muammar Quadaffi’s Libya, and elsewhere in North Africa.

 Without much ado below is an excerpt from the said article:

 “Emerging from its own Dark Age of military coups and jackboot dictatorships that seemed to have terminally arrested her democratic growth after gaining independence from colonial Europe, Africa south of the Sahara has once again been caught in the throes of democratic transitions. I say “south of the Sahara” because the Muammar Qadaffis and Hosni Mubaraks of North Africa have seemingly declared democracy persona non grata in that part of Africa, leaving Africa south of the Sahara to assume the role of incubators of democracy on the continent.”

That puts North Africa well behind Africa south of the Sahara in the democratic equation, and North Africa should be playing the catch up game now because she has been late to the game. Thank God for little mercies. That is not to say that democracy has had a great time in Africa south of the Sahara because it has not but to underline the fact that it has had a head start in that region. However, at the time the article was published nine clear days before the Egyptian revolution got underway, little did the world know or had reasons to believe that a great wind of change was gradually building up in the North African political atmospherics that would forever change the political landscape of North Africa, and the greater Arab world that had easily won the dubious title of the world’s largest incubators of dictatorships and sanctuary of petty despots.

Starting in Tunisia on December 17, 2010, with the self-immolation of one Muhamed Bouazizi, a common street vendor, in protest against the confiscation of his merchandize by a Municipal female official which he considered a humiliation, a fire was lit that grew into a raging conflagration that was to consume the 23-year old dictatorship of President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali 28 days later. The dictator fled to Saudi Arabia—the veritable home of dictators to save his neck on January 15, 2011, co-incidentally, on the same day that article was published. But thankfully, it did not end there.

With the resounding success of the Tunisian revolution the political wild fire aided by internet enabled social networking quickly spread to Egypt leaving in its wake the charred debris of the 30-year old Hosni Mubarak’s dictatorship. He fell this morning, February 11, 2011 and I woke up to the news of his apparent resignation with his handover of the reins of power to the powerful Egyptian military’s Supreme Council as announced by his hand-picked vice president, Omar Suleiman, a former Egyptian Intelligence chief despised for his despicable role in the US sponsored terrorists rendition program under former president GW Bush.

Even with certain lingering misgivings and troubling signs that I shall touch on presently, I would nevertheless hasten to join the people of Egypt in celebrating Mubarak’s fall. Keep in mind, I said Mubarak’s fall not his successors’ ascendance and that distinction is critically important as we shall see later. He didn’t deserve one day longer in office.

The fall of both North African dictators in Tunisia and Egypt in rapid succession is an eloquent testimony of the power of the people and the resilience of the North African streets. However, these protests have not only taught dictators a lessons and many of them should be looking over their shoulders to see what is coming behind them, but the exceptionally peaceful character of the Egyptian protests provides a poignant lesson for African peoples on how to prosecute political action in the streets. Nigeria in particular, has a great lesson to learn from the Egyptian model that builds on the earlier paradigm provided by such giants as Mahatma Ghandi in India and Dr. Martin Luther King Jnr. in the United States. And that is that you don’t have to go burning down cars and buildings and making bonfires in the streets to achieve revolutionary success. You don’t have to go about forcing others to join your protests against their wishes to make things happen.

The Egyptians who have not enjoyed democracy all their lives seem to respect the rights of others more than those who claim to be democrats in countries like Nigeria by organizing and prosecuting their protests and demonstrations in a most civilized and democratic manner devoid of any kind of violence, compulsion or conscription of fellow citizens to join the protests and demonstrations. Protests and strikes are not and should not be compulsory but voluntary based on true convictions of their merits not forced, not hired area boys and miscreants. The Egyptians protesters are well heeled, educated and enlightened enough to respect the rights of others who might not have bought into their demands for whatever reasons. And that is the mark of civilized people. I respect them for that for observing a critical element of civilized conduct in an otherwise authoritarian clime.  

As I wrote earlier in the week in the piece Bloodless Revolution in Nigeria—Fall of the Northern Oligarchs, revolutions come in different shades and colors and they don’t all have to be bloody or even happen in the streets. The Egyptian revolution has not been associated with violence and the little of it witnessed was sponsored by the goons of the dying Mubarak regime who stormed the Liberation square to chase out protesters last week.

Were this revolution to have taken place in a place like Nigeria it would have left in its trail deaths and destruction of monumental proportions including, of course, serious economic and social dislocations and, of course, terrible restrictions on movements. Did you see any footage of bonfires in the streets throughout the duration of the protests? Gosh! The Egyptians pulled this one off with minimal effects on their economy and society as a whole and nothing untoward happened for 18 solid days of pent up anger that found expression in chants and sloganeering not destruction of lives and properties. This is indeed a model for Africa and the world to emulate. They have indeed taught us a huge lesson on how to successfully prosecute pro- democracy protests and demonstrations with tenacity of purpose and single mindedness, with no fifth columnists, sell outs, traitors and compromisers, who shout “Aluta Continua!” in the day and be in bed with dictators in the night, messing things up.

We know them in Nigeria and they know themselves too. There is no need to mention their names here, but the likes of professor Tam David West, Tom Ikimi, senators Waku, Tony Anenih and  Chukwumerije, now lecturing us about democracy stand out as pillars of military rule in the Abacha, IBB and Buhari military dictatorships respectively. And there are many of their types in Egypt too whose activities virtually made Mubarak life president; people without conscience who shamelessly dine and wine with dictators at the expense of the people and those too timid to act and simply sit on the fence waiting for someone else to do the job for them.        

The glory of Mubarak’s peaceful ouster therefore goes not to fence sitters and military apologists but to the Egyptian streets and even more so to the Egyptian military itself, at least on the face of it, that has taught the world a big lesson on how to handle such protests and demonstrations professionally by remaining totally detached. And Egypt is a third world nation just like many others whose militaries would have acted quite the opposite way. African militaries, particularly the Nigerian military and the other security agencies have a big lesson to learn from this.

In fairness to the Nigerian military though it seems to have been moving in that direction in the way and manner it handled the very serious situation during the Yar’Adua illness saga and the tension it had generated in the polity. It acted professionally by not using that as an excuse to strike and has accordingly earned praise from several quarters on that account alone. But it was nothing compared to what happened in Egypt which was a big test on the country’s military considering the fact that Mubarak himself came from the military, from the Egyptian Air Force and had been backed by the military all along as indeed his predecessors Abel Nasser, and Anwar Sadat his former boss, who was assassinated 30 years ago making it possible for Mubarak to assume power.

What has happened in the streets of Tunisia and Egypt should send shivers down the spines of Muammar Quadaffi of Libya, King Hussein of Jordan and the Saudi and Kuwaiti monarchies, amongst others in the Middle East. It is a signal that their end is near and not even the United States will protect them when their streets erupt in pro-democracy protests to end their dictatorial regimes just as it has happened in Tunisia and Egypt. And when that day finally arrives, not even their militaries, the so-called “Royal Armies” will protect them seeing what their Egyptian and Tunisian counterparts have done. Those monarchs will be sleeping with one of their eyes wide open. I suspect they will now begin to undertake some pre-emptive measures before they get hit some day.   

Yet even as we applaud the Egyptian military High Command for displaying professionalism in its handling of the revolution there is a gnawing suspicion of its real motives which could not be deciphered from the surface during the protests. It is not at all clear if the resignation of Mubarak was forced by the military or voluntary. It would be a sad day indeed if the resignation was forced by the military and sadder still if the military had had an understanding with Mubarak to hand over the country to them on a platter and go on vacation while his country is thrown into needless confusion and acute uncertainties. On the other hand, it would be terrible if the military had had some understanding with the protesters to get Mubarak out and take over power ostensibly to institute democracy in Egypt thereafter as it has promised. 

And that begs the question: Was the constant profession of support for the demands of the protesters streaming forth from the Egyptian military High Command meant to encourage the street to remain steadfast in the their number one demand for Mubarak’s ouster just so the military could step in as has indeed happened? Or am I reading too much than warranted into the action of the military?

Asked differently, was the Egyptian military sending repeatedly signals to and indeed encouraging the protesters to hang tough in the face of the many concessions granted by Mubarak including but not limited to his transfer of presidential powers to his vice to enable it take over power from Mubarak?

These questions have become necessary in view of the fact that the protesters were openly calling on the military to take action and get rid of Mubarak on their behalf. Well, they got what they wanted. Didn’t they? And they’re jubilating. Aren’t they? But see where that has landed Egypt—in the warm embrace of military rule.

And that further begs the question: Were the protesters only interested in the ouster of Mubarak and could care less about democracy itself when it rejected overtures for orderly transition to democracy? Why was it not considered reasonable to negotiate an orderly transition to democratic rule with or without Mubarak?

If the protesters’ demand for the immediate ouster of Mubarak meant that elections would have been held within 60 days from the date of resignation under the Egyptian constitution, there would have been no question of military takeover. The vice president would have been in charge of the transition process right up to the elections with presidential powers already ceded to him by Mubarak, which the protesters, perhaps egged on by the open signals from the military flatly rejected. If the protesters did not like the face of the vice president due to his past activities and close ties to Mubarak couldn’t they have insisted on a more credible individual to midwife the transition process that could have included members of the opposition in Egypt such the Nobel Laureate as El-Baradei?

Mubarak is gone and Cairo’s Tahrir Square has fallen silent and protesters are now going home to sleep after daylong celebration of the fall of Mubarak. Now what? Military dictatorship in the place of Mubarak? Sad to say but the answer is a big YES! Egypt has transited from one party dictatorship to full blown military dictatorship literarily overnight, no thanks to the protesters.

But perhaps the greater issue is this: Was the transition executed through a military coup executed through the back door as was the case in Nigeria when General Sanni Abacha got Ernest Shonekan to resign as Chairman of IBB’s Interim Government and assumed power through the back door, which was, in fact, a palace coup dressed up as resignation? Hard to tell but all indications point to that probability given the way and manner the military had been carrying on since the protest began, which to the uninitiated civilians like us had appeared to be  professionalism for which the military was lauded.

The fact that the military has made no public commitment to democratic transition within a given timeframe 48 hours after taking over should worry Egyptians and all lovers of democracy including the international community and the protesters too. The most that has been said was the expression of commitment of the military to free and fair elections with no timelines indicated in the statement issued by the military. What does it take to make such a public announcement on national television that it has taken so long in coming? Already it is being reported that the protesters want such an announcement from the military that has remained taciturn like Nigeria’s own former maximum ruler, the late Sanni Abacha. This loud silence from the military cannot but bode ill for Egypt and democracy and it betrays ulterior motives in taking over power. All of a sudden the protesters seem to be having a new enemy in their hands. What a pathetic situation! What a betrayal!  

If my hypothesis holds true as it appears to be the case at the moment, then Egypt might not be out of the wood yet. And that would be a terrible thing indeed. There is no way a military coup could be regarded as liberation of the people from dictatorship because military rule is the very definition of dictatorship.  Hard to believe but all those impassioned protests and demonstrations; all that hard work and sleepless nights; all that adrenaline rush has ended up achieving no better results than putting the military from where Mubarak came back in power without firing a single shot. 

Honestly I don’t know whether this is progress or retrogression and I would want someone to tell me it is progress and explain to me why it is because right now it seems to me to be anything but progress.  And that’s why people must be careful when they talk glibly about revolution because no one knows where it might end and by their very nature they’re not always well planned and executed. The jubilation of the protesters at the demise of Mubarak is already turning into ash in their mouths with the way the military is handling the situation after taking over barely 48 hours ago. Granted it is rather early in the day but putting out a transition timetable or even promising to put out one in the next few days shouldn’t be such a big deal on the part of the military given that it is what the people have been fighting and dying for.

Perhaps the reaction of one Egyptian American, who happens to have been born in Egypt and now a Mayor of a small New Jersey town epitomizes the dilemma Egyptians have suddenly found themselves facing, not the ones jubilating in the streets at the ouster of Mubarak. When asked by a radio anchor man what he thought about the fact that although Mubarak is gone Egypt has relapsed into military rule with Mubarak’s ouster, and all of a sudden he waxed defensive. And all he could say was “Well the military is on the side of the people and is well respected by the Egyptian people.”

Hmm! Good talk indeed. Military is on the side of the people and respected by the Egyptian people! But is that the issue? Are we talking about how much Egyptians respect their military or about democracy? Who cares if the military is well respected and on the side of the people for now? Is that a reason for taking over power? That sounds to me like a justification for military rule right there and it would be troubling if that represents the thinking of fellow Egyptians, which is not, thankfully. It amounts to removing a bad ring from one finger and putting it on another finger of the same hand and call that change. It doesn’t sound to me like such a great idea, anyway. Yet the gentleman could not help but admit that it would take Egypt at least one full year to hold elections and he turned right round to blame Mubarak for not building democratic institutions like political parties and the sorts to hasten the transition.

But hello! This is not about Mubarak anymore. Power had already slipped out of his hands before he finally bowed out. You can’t blame the man for the failure of the revolution. It’s not about Mubarak but about the whole question regarding the management of the revolution itself which apparently had no discernible leadership that could have competently and nimbly steered the revolution to the desired democratic transition rather than simply dumping the nation in the waiting hands of the military and call that change or revolution.

There is no question that many Egyptians other than the protesters are extremely happy at the demise of Mubarak, but I’m not too sure they’re exactly jubilating in the streets at the fact of the military take over and all the uncertainties it brings no matter how much gloss we try to put on it to make it look less ugly. The facts on the ground today are extremely ugly and nothing close to what the average Egyptian had been fighting for, for decades.

Like it or not, the Egyptian military have surreptitiously sneaked back to power, this time around not through the front but through the back door, riding freely on the backs of youthful but inexperienced protesters that it had either struck a deal with on the cheap or manipulated to achieve its secret agenda of power grab.

To be honest with you this cannot bode well for the continent of Africa that is only just emerging from military dictatorships. Now African militaries have been presented, at least potentially, with a backdoor opportunity to presidential palaces across the continent and get in the game like their Egyptian counterparts.  Wherever there are large street protests the military could easily exploit that to stage coups in African nations by encouraging more protests and demonstrations that are calculated to sack democratic civilian administrations. And Africa could be back to square one. That is the new danger that is presented by the poorly managed Egyptian revolution, which has begotten the unwanted child of military rule.      

Events are still unfolding in Egypt and the following weeks and months will reveal more about the real intentions of the Egyptian military and the direction the country is headed. But under what authority is the military governing? Handing over the military invariably means the suspension of the country’s constitution because there is no place for military rule under the constitution. The military cannot therefore proceed to conduct elections within 60 days as provided for under the Egyptian constitution because it is not and cannot purport to be operating under that constitution.

What is more, the Egyptian military is not vested with the power and authority to hold elections under the Egyptian constitution. So let’s get the Egyptian constitution out of the way for now and perhaps forever. The entire constitutional order has been overthrown by the revolution. That is the legal and factual effect of the revolution. And this is where the whole thing gets tricky and uncertain.

For all the seeming success achieved by the revolution that we are all celebrating presently, Egypt might turn out to have moved backward rather than forward if, God forbid, the military begins to play games with its hold on power. And if that happens, it could mean that the protesters merely played into the hands of the military, who would become the greatest beneficiaries of the revolution. And the only saving grace would be swift conduct of elections which is a highly unlikely proposition and in fact next to impossible.

The Egyptian American Mayor referred to above couldn’t have been wrong then when he stated that election might not hold in less than one full year from now.  And I might add that that is even putting an optimistic face on it. Even with the best of intentions, conducting elections in a country that big with decades-old repressive laws and little democratic culture is not a walk in the park. Egypt has been in military hands since 1953 and has no clue about what it takes to get on the democracy track.

Right now Egypt is not in the least prepared for general elections and it is a long way from coming to that point. We’re probably talking about years not months of military dictatorship in Egypt before power is finally returned to the civilians. At the minimum it requires constitutional conference that would draw up a new constitution just like it was in Iraq and Afghanistan. And that alone is talking years not months in addition to the building of democratic structures before elections are held.

Whichever way one looks at it, it is the reality that should begin to dawn on not just the protesters but on the international community as well. It explains why authorities in the United States have reacted with seeming resignation because Mubarak might be gone but Egypt is far from having democracy or anything remotely close to it. And there are no guarantees either that that elections conducted by the military will be free and fair. What if the military head is interested in contesting the election or interested in the outcomes? The history of Egyptian leadership is the history of the transmutation of its military leaders into civilian dictatorships. And history and tradition are powerful forces to break with.

Given these scenarios one is beginning to have some serious misgivings about the direction Egypt is currently headed even as the streets of Egypt have erupted in wild jubilation over the demise of President Hosni Mubarak. This is not where I had expected the revolution to lead but this is where it has landed.

The revolution has clearly misfired. You just can’t trade one dictator for the other and call that change. It makes absolutely no sense to me, and frankly speaking, it is profoundly counter- productive. It represents a fundamental betrayal of the democratic yearnings of the Egyptian people. Egypt is no nearer democracy today after Mubarak’s ouster than it was yesterday before his suspicious ouster by the Egyptian military Supreme Council.

And this unpalatable result has come about due to the fact that the protesters focused all their attention on Mubarak rather than on finding ways and means of building viable democratic transition. And Egyptians are discovering rather belatedly that Mubarak’s ouster does not exactly translate to the democracy that they had been longing for and were legitimately looking forward to with the revolution. If anything, they’ve got quite the opposite. And that must be galling and heart wrenching indeed to millions of Egyptians, no matter how much they respect their military. Respecting the military when it is not in power is one thing, but having them in power is quite a different kettle of fish altogether. Both worlds do not meet.

This might sound uncharitable to the protesters and the military still basking in the euphoria of these revolutionary moments in Egypt, but I’m looking beyond these moments well into the future of Egypt in terms of the institution of democratic rule not decades from now but now!  Had the protesters worked out something of a transitional government headed by a civilian rather than the military with members of the opposition on board it might have been a whole lot better that putting khaki men in power.

Regrettably, that is not the case and Egypt has been thrown into grave uncertainties about what lies ahead. The international community should be worried. Sad to say but the streets have lost the initiatives and the revolution to the Egyptian military with whom they are no longer in a position to negotiate and to whom they can no longer dictate terms.

I one might ask, with whom might the protesters contend the next time around should the military prove unwilling or insincere in their pledge to return Egypt to democratic rule? The same tanks that were used to ring the square to enable them continue their protests unmolested could be turned against them if they begin to push the military too hard against their wish and agenda. Will they return to Cairo’s Tahrir Square to chase out the military? That is the reality of military rule the world over and Egyptian military rule cannot be any different. I hope they are and that would be welcome exception.

All the world can hope and pray for is for the military to demonstrate sincerity and honesty of purpose and hand over power to democratic civilian administration in the shortest timeframe possible. But with the conditions in Egypt that could be light years away. My heart bleeds for Egypt as she descends into the abyss of the unknown. No thanks to a derailed revolution.  

Perhaps there is no more fitting quote to end this piece than this from a protester, a pharmacist named Ghada Elmasalmy, 43, at the Liberation Square as reported by Reuters: “The army is with us but it must realize our demands. Half revolutions kill nations.”

With due respect to Ghada Elmasalmy, this is worse than half revolution, it is a derailed revolution. And by the way, who says the army is necessarily with you? The army might have just used you to get to power after all and kick your butts thereafter with jackboots, guns and military tanks. But let history, not me, be the ultimate judge. For now though, Egypt has moved squarely into the column of military ruled nations, well, just like Muammar Quadaffi’s Libya next door; no thanks to a derailed revolution.

From the stable of –Cutting-Edge Analytics—More than a blog, it’s a learning experience.

Franklin Otorofani is an Attorney and Public Affairs Analyst.

Contacts: mudiagaone@yahoo.com, https://mudiagamann.wordpress.com/

Bloodless Revolution in Nigeria—Fall of the Northern Oligarchs

–Cutting-Edge Analytics–

Bloodless revolution in Nigeria? Where is that coming from? Does it have anythingto do with the Tunisian, Egyptian and Yemeni streets? One could imagine the reader wondering what this is all about. Chill out folks! Don’t get worked up just yet at the mention of the word “revolution”, which many might erroneously imagine must be all bloody, violent, chaotic and street driven. Not necessarily so and this has nothing to do with the happenings in the Arab world that is playing catch up with Nigeria and other democratic states south of the Sahara in that department. Thank God for little mercies!  

Radical and abrupt changes which are termed revolutions are, by simple definition, the overthrow of existing social orders, which do not have to happen in the streets at all or involve violence of any sorts to qualify as revolutions. Revolutions could happen in the minds of men as, for instance, in the Renaissance in Europe; on factory floors as in the industrial revolution in Britain and in the laboratories as in the internet revolution that gave birth to the World Wide Web. It all depends on what type of change or revolution we are talking about in any given instances. And even in the field of politics that is inherently combustible, they don’t all have to be bloody either like in China’s Chairman Mao Zedong or Lenin’s Soviet Union; as for instance, in Mahatma Ghandi’s India; in Dr. Martin Luther King Jnr’s United States; in Yeltsin’s USSR and also in Ukraine’s so-called velvet revolution.

By the way, do you still remember Shehu Shagari NPN’s “Green Revolution” of the early 80s? Older folks should remember that ambitious but ill planned and ill executed agricultural program. It was supposed to be green not red and meant to put food on our families’ dinner tables. Never mind that it was turned to “brown revolution” by his NPN rogue leaders. Yes, revolutions can be bloodless and silent too and we’ve got one taking place right under our nose unnoticed, unheralded and uncelebrated. I have, however, made it my business to reveal it before fellow citizens and the world.  

It is perhaps unfair to ascribe to the entire north the selfish antics and machinations of a few individuals who happen to belong to that vast territory north of the majestic Niger and Benue rivers. And that’s why it is impolitic and over reaction to condemn or blame an entire religion such as Islam for the criminal and terrorist activities of a few adherents who use and hide under the name of the noble religion to perpetrate heinous crimes against humanity and fellow Moslems. This line of thinking also informed the protests of the government and people of Nigeria against the listing of Nigeria and Nigerians on the US Terror Watch list on account of the alleged attempt of Abdul Muttalab to blow up an American Airline on December 25, 2009.

What this shows is that people and nations alike are acutely aware of the fact that there are individuals, purely on primate missions, who would hide under the name of a collective to carry out nefarious activities in the hope of drawing the sympathies and empathies of memberships of the collective.

That awareness therefore advises us to be a little discriminatory in judging the actions of such individuals and thus resist the natural temptation of even linking the north with the political actions and activities of a few northerners who clearly do not have the mandate of the north to act on its behalf in any material particular. This is in recognition of the fact that in a democracy such as ours where freedom of association and speech are guaranteed and respected, individuals are free to associate for a common purpose and pursue their own political agenda in any manner they desire, provided of course such association and agenda are not against the laws of the land or for that matter infringe on the rights of others in the society.

The activities of Ciroma’s NPLF and AREWA must therefore be viewed against that backdrop. Both AREWA and NPLF do not have the mandate of the north to meddle in the internal activities of political parties including the PDP.  Time and again AREWA had publicly declared that it was a cultural not a political organization and as such would not delve into purely political matters. And AREWA is on record with such public declarations. Its own charter as a cultural organization forbids it from doing so because it is against the laws of the land under which it was registered. Flowing from the above premise and over and above that premise is the fact that at no time did the north as a whole or in part mandate AREWA or the NPLF to inject itself into and interfere in the internal matters of political parties in Nigeria including the PDP. And I stand to be corrected in this assertion by anyone who would come forward publicly to produce and tender such mandate.

I make bold to declare, however, that such a mandate is practically impossible to obtain from the north. And the reasons for that impossibility are pretty obvious to political watchers. Although that vast territory was governed in pre and post independent Nigeria as one monolithic geo-political entity in comparison to the Western, Eastern and later Midwestern regions right up to the 1967 when it was broken up into six states, the region is an amalgam of ethnic enclaves most of which are not at all at ease with one another just as it is in the southern parts of Nigeria. Although it has two dominant ethnic groups of Hausa and Fulani just like the Yoruba and Igbo in the south the territory bristles with a galaxy of minority ethnic groups indicated in several states with different and oftentimes opposing political proclivities. Asking or expecting the north to speak with one voice in political matters therefore is like asking or expecting the south to speak with one voice. It is simply impossible and we see that playing out aplenty in the north even today, because politics is as much a game of individual as it is of collective interests and when both interests clash individual interests tend to prevail.

Hard as the revered then Northern Premier, Ahmadu Bello, tried to weld the various ethnic groups in the region together to form a monolithic entity which he could then use to conquer the rest of the country as he had wished, he was no nearer his goal at death in 1966 than he was at the beginnings in 1960.  And today the ethnic fissures in the northern political landscape that were present at independence have grown wider and deeper into gullies making the very idea of one north rather oxymoronic.

That is why it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever when a group of individuals without prior recognition or authorization as the mouthpiece of the region rise up overnight and purports to speak and act for an entire region without presenting their authority so to do. It is trite both law and commonsense that before a man represents himself to others as speaking for or acting on behalf of another or group, the man should at least present his authority or authorization for so doing otherwise it becomes, at least potentially, a matter of fraudulent misrepresentation which is tortuous and criminal under both the Penal and Criminal Codes, respectively in force in the northern and southern parts of the country. It’s quite unfortunate that some people are getting away literarily with murder in Nigeria in the name of politics due to a rather weak and ineffective criminal justice system that seems to exist only in name.     

That being the case, therefore, the least that is expected of discerning members of the public is to exercise utmost caution when dealing with political imposters masquerading as ethnic champions. This is more so when it is realized that unscrupulous politicians who have nothing to offer their fatherland than what they stand to gain from the system would not hesitate to ride on the backs of ethnic horses to get want they want from the system rather than what they would give to the system. And this they do by pretending or purporting to be fighting to protect their ethnic interests—mind you, not the nation’s interests. You would think that they loved Nigeria with all their hearts and with all their souls. But no, they love themselves and their ethnic groups more than they love their nation even though it was the nation that made them to become whatever they are.  

Again, this is all the more so when other significant voices from the same ethnic group or geographical region with equal claim to the same ethnic group or region had loudly been raised in wholesale condemnation of the antics and machinations of the individuals in question. Such disclaimers and condemnations from such stakeholders should at least warn others that the imposters had no mandate of the region as a whole to embark on the kind of activities in question. Such caution or warning would be similar to the legal maxim, “Buyer Beware!,” because equity does not aid the indolent, the indifferent and the carefree individual who gets himself into injurious transactions that a more careful and diligent individual could have avoided. In politics though, the atmosphere is so clouded that the average citizen has a hard time discerning the dynamics and sift the wheat from the chaff. And to make matters worse politicians wear a lot of camouflage to hide their true identities, motivations and intentions which are easily passed off in altruistic garbs; in other words, wolves in sheep’s clothing. And that’s why many of us have taken to public affairs analysis to beam searchlight in the dark corners and crevices of the political landscape to help individuals make the best of an otherwise murky situation in politics and public affairs. 

The appropriation of the name of an entire ethnic group, region, geopolitical area, race or religion by a few unscrupulous individuals or groups in pursuit of their personal political ambitions or interests is as old as history itself and by no means peculiar to or limited to Nigeria or Africa. Perhaps the most poignant manifestation of this phenomenon reared its head in Germany in the case of the German Chancellor of the Third Reich, Herr Adolf Hitler, who deployed it to devastating effects leading to the 2nd World War who launched a bloody campaign for racial purification by eliminating Jews. In Serbia which was part of the defunct Yugoslavia, the racist rants of the likes of Slobodan Milosevic “the butcher of the Balkans” who died recently while facing trial at the Hague for crimes against humanity led to genocide in the former Serbian province of Kosovo. In Sudan the story is the same leading to ethnic cleansing with million deaths in cold blood and the imminent break up of that country through UN-sponsored referendum.

And in Nigeria as in the Middle East, we have equally witnessed in recent times its manifestations in ethno-religious conflagrations in parts of the country, particularly in the northern parts that have consumed tens of thousands of the lives and properties of innocent citizens that is akin to Hitler’s racial purification campaigns when it is remembered that it also led to the Nigerian Civil War in the late 60s where millions perished. Yes, the machinations of racists and ethnic bigots can and do results in ethnic cleansing. And that’s why all men and women of goodwill must rise up to confront it wherever and whenever it rears its ugly head again including even in the United States where Republican Tea-Party nuts have sought to revive racism in its most pernicious manifestations of the Ku Klux Klan variety.

And I dare say we have also witnessed its manifestations in the political antics and machinations of AREWA and the self-styled so-called Northern Political Leaders Forum (NPLF) led by the ageing Mallam Adamu Ciroma. Readers would have noticed the word “Northern” prominently appended to the name of this rogue association, which to all intents and purposes, is no more than a group of aggrieved individuals in the PDP, recruited by certain presidential aspirants of northern ethnic extraction in the PDP platform to help them fight the party over the implementation its zoning policy. That is an instance of the appropriation of the collective name and identity of an entire region by a group of individuals in pursuit of private political interests.

It can, therefore, be clearly seen that the NPLF is no more than a mercenary group of political contractors posing as champions of northern political interests. That this is a rouge group is underlined by its total rejection at the PDP primaries. These people couldn’t even mobilize their own people and they called themselves leaders. It is unimaginable to think that the agenda of AREWA and the NPLF would be so utterly rejected at the PDP primaries had both groups received prior mandate of the north to get a northerner on board the PDP gravy train and reject Jonathan. And what is more, the fact that not even their leader, Adamu Ciroma, was able to deliver his own Yobe state delegates to Abubakar Atiku at the PDP presidential primaries as were indeed other members of the forum is clear indication that these self-seeking individuals have little or no political values in their own backyards much less the entire north and the nation at large.

Now, were they acting on behalf of IBB, Atiku, Gusau and Saraki as their principals? You bet they were. But is that the same thing as having the mandate of the entire north? Absolutely not, and not one chance in hell! IBB, Atiku, Gusau and Saraki are not and do not represent the north. They are private individuals not sent by the north in pursuit of their own political ambitions representing themselves. The best that could be said about NPLF members is that they are hollow political drums sounded whenever necessary to browbeat and intimidate political opponents standing in their way. Is that politics, Nigerian style? No, it is politics AREWA and Ciroma style. And it is the brand of politics they have been used to playing since the beginning of time that they have yet to outgrow even in the 21^st century. Old habits, they say, die hard. It is unfortunate that this is the type of politics that the old generation is bequeathing to its younger generation in the north that has resulted in the cold blooded murder of a gubernatorial candidate. It’s a shame; a crying shame.

Now, let’s look at the matter a little more closely:  If the NLPF members were acting for IBB, Atiku, Gusau and Saraki as documented in their written consensus candidate agreement, shouldn’t they abide by the decisions of their principals four of whom have thrown in the towel and two of whom have publicly congratulated Jonathan on his victory at the PDP primaries? Who then is NPLF working for when its principals are no longer in the race? Since it has vowed to produce northern president for Nigeria, has it then acquired another principal or set of principals in the north presumably in the persons of General Muhammadu Buhari, Mallams Ibrahim Shekarau and Nuhu Ribadu? If so, are we looking forward to another consensus show or how are they going to choose among Buhari, Shekarau and Ribadu? Will it be through lucky dip or some lotto? I wish them good luck this time around with Ribadu staunchly refusing to step down for Buhari in the aborted political marriage between ACN and CPC. I suppose that Buhari’s running mate who happens to be a man of God, Pastor Tunde Bakare, would be asked to commit it to the hands of God to get Ribadu and Shekarau out of the way fast with power prayers. Watch out for spiritual warfare, folks, with the man of God in the trenches with a battle tested general like Buhari, and don’t forget the Islamic marabouts too!  As a matter of fact they may have started already with the revelation of Pastor Bakare that ordinary folks are already fired up with his candidacy.  Ribadu and Shekarau should beware of “Holy Ghost” fire!

Now, with both IBB and Saraki congratulating Jonathan and Atiku signaling his willingness to meet with Jonathan it is difficult to understand just what the NPLF and AREWA represent when AREWA issued a statement describing Jonathan’s victory as “legally and morally wrong”. And you wonder where was AREWA when its own northern governors and notable politicians led their own delegates to vote for Jonathan at the PDP primaries. Doesn’t that show conclusively that both AREWA and NPLF are toothless bulldogs even in the north? Doesn’t that show also that the northern oligarchs have rendered themselves irrelevant in today’s Nigeria even as they fight tooth and nail to regain political relevance? Doesn’t that in fact show they are living on borrowed time in the 21^st century Nigeria? And most importantly, isn’t that an indication of the fall and capitulation of the northern oligarchy? What more evidence does anyone need to come to these conclusions than the crushing defeat handed down to AREWA and NPLF? When dogs refuse to listen to their master what does that tell you of the relationship between the dogs and their master? The dog/master relationship is over! It’s that simple and the earlier Ciroma and his AREWA backed group realize this bitter truth the better for them. They have lost the north to the new generation of detribalized and nationalistic leaders, not ethnic champions, who do not subscribe to the old school notion of born to rule that had been the governing ideology of the northern oligarchy for over 50 years. When a prominent youth like the son of the former president Shehu Shagari in Sokoto comes out openly to declare that “then north is not born to rule,” what does that tell you about the prevailing mindset of the present generation of northerners? When a governor like Sule Lamido of Jigawa state tongue lashes AREWA for describing Jonathan’s victory as morally and legally wrong, what does that tell you about the prevailing sentiments in the north today? It tells you about changing paradigms.

Let me state this loud and clear: A divinely inspired silent revolution is currently sweeping across the north and the entire Nigerian political landscape heralded and spearheaded by the Jonathan presidency. And because it is quiet and bloodless not many Nigerians recognize or even see it. Yet it has poignantly manifested itself in the emergence of Jonathan and Mallam Nuhu Ribadu as presidential candidates of the PDP and ACN respectively. When was the last time you saw this happening in Nigeria? When was the last you saw the AG, UPN, AD, AC and the ACN fielding a youth as presidential candidate? And when was the last time you saw a ruling party in Nigeria dominated by old war horses from the majority ethnic groups led by the north fielding a minority as its presidential candidate? Can you remember the time that happened? I bet you’ll be scratching your head to recall the time because there was no such time in the history of the nation. Period! People like IBB who see this revolution at work have wisely stepped aside from its path to avoid getting crushed and that’s why he quickly readjusted his position to congratulate Jonathan on his victory at the PDP primaries. But the not-so-smart elements of the old guards will go down fighting for relevance. And that’s where Ciroma and his AREWA group come in. They want to be the last men standing on the path of a political hurricane in the name of the north. They want to be the ones to salvage a dying oligarchy.   

When an agent purports to overrule his principals it’s an unmistakable signal that the agent has a different agenda altogether other than that of his principals and should thenceforth be treated as such, for, he will be acting on its own and should bear the full consequences of his actions all by himself. And if in so doing Ciroma and his group have elected to quietly shift their political business to Buhari, the presidential candidate of the CPC, who had himself publicly condemned zoning and had called them names, as has been reported in the Tribune 020611, it only goes to confirm their profile as political contractors. As the reader shall see later in this presentation, NPLF is doing this behind the scenes while at the same time reaching out to Jonathan to get a leg up in his coming administration after the elections. If this is in fact the case it exposes the NPLF as a bunch of mercenaries that is out to feather its own nests using the name of the north.

It is true that political contracting and consulting are legitimate forms of business in a democracy. As we have seen, in the US for example, that has become Nigeria’s major role model in democracy, democracy is big business, complete with its own army of contractors, consultants and lobbyists and, what again? Analysts like us! That’s right, analysts like us! We are all in the business of democracy in one capacity or another even as ordinary voters. It doesn’t always have to involve material benefits or angling for political appointments and contracts. One could therefore say with some merit that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with political contracting and consulting in Nigeria as it is a just a species of business like any other business, and that Ciroma and his group are not the only ones in the business in Nigeria, anyway. All of that may be true on the face of it, but only to an extent. That’s right, only to an extent. Ciroma and his group may just be nothing more than political contractors, but here is the difference: No other contractor in this and any other fields of business appropriates the name of an entire region in its business activities.

As indicated even by its name, the NPLF does. 99.9% of the criticisms, attacks and condemnations of Ciroma and his group even from the north is hinged on their appropriation of the name of the north for their personal political undertakings. And that is not fair to other northerners, to put it mildly. That is identity theft. No one would care about them had they not appropriated the name of the north in pursuit of their selfish political interests. But they did and folks are not happy with that because it is misleading and patently fraudulent. In short, they are impostors, for crying loud!  Not merely misleading and fraudulent, their activities go beyond the call of politics and border on treasonable and seditious felonies.

While not outwardly violent in their activities per se although there have been quite a few moments of unguarded outbursts, there is no doubt that the antics and machinations of AREWA and its NPLF political wing have helped in no small measures in whipping up sentiments against certain ethnic groups in the north and unnecessarily overheating the polity leading to or exacerbating violent disturbances witnessed recently in parts of the north that are capable of tearing the nation apart. That was how a hitherto unknown Hitler started his campaign against the Jews in Germany before the pogrom began.

And now it gets even more interesting: Having been roundly defeated in their own turfs, these shameless groups are now reported to be scheming to reap where they did not sew. The Nigerian Tribune 020511 edition reported that Ciroma and his group have gone back to the drawing board, drawing up a list of plum ministerial positions that the incoming Jonathan government should reserve for them, again in the name of the north. Hmm!

The report states that the NPLF wants the office of Secretary to the Federal Government (SFG), Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Justice, Petroleum, Defense, and ambassadorial postings to the US and Britain among other plum positions reserved for the north. At the same time this report came out, Atiku has declared himself open to negotiation with Jonathan even as he is yet to concede victory to the man publicly. There is no question that Atiku is coordinating his strategies with Ciroma and his group and his so-called “open to discussion” offer is no more than what the Ciroma group is demanding, which is the sharing of the spoils of office presumptively in  the next Jonathan administration.

Could you imagine that? How does that sound to you as citizen? These people could not even disguise their selfish interests which they hawk under the banner of northern interests. They are already negotiating plum ministerial and ambassadorial positions for themselves and their hangers on ahead of the elections because they cannot survive even for a day outside of government. Denying them political power is tantamount to slamming death sentence on them and they will fight like prisoners on death row. A higher minded patriotic group could not have been discussing the spoils of office for its members and lackeys this early in the day before the elections. Is anybody in that group even thinking of how to move the nation forward? Is Ciroma and AREWA concerned about civil war in the north between Islamic fundamentalists and the natives in Plateau, Bauchi and elsewhere in the north? Why have AREWA and the NPLF kept mum over the activities of Boko Haram and other fringe groups wreaking havoc in the north in the name of religion? Could it be they are quietly or tacitly in support of their murderous activities? Does their loud silence not amount to acquiescence? Speak out AREWA and NPLF! The nation wants to know your stance in these matters not just about Jonathan and the presidency.  

While the rapproachment between Jonathan and the Ciroma group is a most welcome development and therefore one that should be encouraged by all well meaning individuals, it nevertheless represents the final capitulation of the northern oligarchy in the face of superior political forces that it is up against in today’s Nigeria.

Let us be clear about this: the reported move to work with President Jonathan is not borne out of the desire to work together to move Nigeria forward. I can tell you that straight up. On the contrary, it signals swift but shameless attempts on the part of AREWA and the NPLF aimed at the conversion of their crushing defeat and capitulation into political and, therefore material benefits, come May 29, 2011. And they are going about it as though they were operating from a position of strength rather than from a position of weakness. AREWA and NPLF must, however, be made to come to terms with the fact that having been routed in the political battlefields and capitulated to superior forces they are no longer operating from a position of strength as they might have been before the PDP primaries but from a position of weakness as they are after the primaries. They must come to terms with the fact that the war has been fought, won and lost and the vanquished are not in a position to dictate terms to the victor.  Battlefield losers do not dictate but accept terms imposed on them by the victorious parties. That is the reality of war. On no account therefore should AREWA and Ciroma’s NPLF purport to dictate to Jonathan what ministerial and ambassadorial or other positions should be reserved for its members in the name of the north. Mba! Leave north out of this.

Enough of this nonsense from AREWA and Ciroma gang! No part of the country is entitled to the presidency and the Nigerian electorate has just delivered that message loud and clear in the PDP primaries. AREWA and NPLF could be playing deaf or laboring under selective amnesia, but they need to be told also in no uncertain terms that just like the presidency, Nigeria’s ministerial and ambassadorial positions belong to all Nigerians and all of its constituent parts in equal terms, and no part is entitled to particular ministerial or ambassadorial positions under any guise whatsoever. And that was why Jonathan made an Iboman Chief of Army Staff (COAS) to drive home that point, the first such appointment in over 40 years. Yes, the old order changeth!  And more to the point: They should be made to understand the dynamics currently at play, which point directly and unmistakably to the unfurling of a silent revolution in which the old order changeth. Yes indeed.

And here is the bottom line: Anyone who is truly interested in serving his or her country should be willing to serve her in whatever capacity if and when given the opportunity. It bespeaks some hidden agenda or ulterior motives for anyone to demand the allocation of certain ambassadorial and ministerial portfolios to his ethnic group or geographical region. It is not only unethical but reeks of corrupt motives. These are the kinds of things that have conspired to drag us behind that the nation should put behind her completely. We cannot be crying about change only to hold on to the very things that have been holding us back. It makes absolutely no sense at all. And only a class of political degenerates whose collective malfeasances had held the nation back could even think in terms of business as usual where certain positions are reserved for certain geo-political groups to the total exclusion of other groups. These folks are in denial of the emerging new order. What planet are the Ciroma group and AREWA on? No disrespect but I would like to caution Mr. President here not to succumb to the machinations of the AREWA and NPLF renegades who have clearly outlived their usefulness. He now has the knife and the yam and cannot therefore accept dictation from the vanquished and compromise on the principles of change that is driving his administration. That is the bottom line because when he promised us change, it shouldn’t be theoretical change but change that, in the words of Obama, we can believe in not change in the abstract. As the Egyptian streets have demonstrated people want real change and not business as usual. Anyone reading this in Nigeria should help pass on this message unadulterated to the corridors of power because in this very message lies the political and therefore economic salvation of the nation.

Arrogance and Structural Liberation

But why are the NPLF and AREWA still carrying on as though they could still ace Jonathan in the presidential election in–spite of their crushing defeat? What trump card do they have left to play after the failure of the consensus gambit? The answer to this question may be found, if you don’t mind, in the Otorofani Theory of Power, which holds that a people who are used to the custody and control of the levers political power would soon develop attributes of political superiority and supreme confidence and the vice versa, which inevitably respectively comes with arrogance and timidity as the case may be.

The oligarchy in the north to which Ciroma belongs, had unquestionably up and until 1999, been in that position of the custodians and wielders of the levers of political power in Nigeria. The north is used to dictating the terms of political intercourse and where necessary imposing its will on the rest of the country. Most northern political actors of the old school were brought up that way. The departing colonial masters under Lord Luggard had made certain that the north would become the new political masters in Nigeria by deliberately skewing the federal structure in favor of the north which would make it possible for their successors to deploy divide and rule tactics against the south. I guess he must have done this to punish the southern politicians, who were impatiently demanding independence from him as against their northern counterparts, who were not in a hurry for independence and therefore never gave Luggard a hard time.

Don’t forget that demanding independence from a colonial administrator was tantamount to serving him a sack letter and putting him out of job of administering a nation three to four times bigger than Britain, his home country. Yes, Luggard was administering a country far larger than his own King was ruling over, and the south wanted him out immediately. The price for that impudence was a skewed federation in favor of the north. Badly needing independence with Ghana already ahead of the pack, both Chief Obafemi Awolowo and the Rt. Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe had no choice but to go along with a skewed federation that deliberately shortchanged the south.

Thus while the north had one regional government under one geo-political unit called Northern Region the south was split into two regional units under two separate and antagonistic regional governments of Western and Eastern Nigeria in order to permanently divide their peoples. And as if that was not enough the south was further split into three regional units in 1963 in the Republican Constitution not to strengthen it but to further weaken and divide their peoples. And all the while Prime Minister Tafawa Balewa and Premier Ahmadu Bello bluntly refused the splitting of the north into at least two regions even though it is geographically larger than the south and even though minorities in the north, just like their counterparts in the south, were stridently demanding to have their own region carved out for them from the northern region. Both leading politicians wanted the idea of One North ossified and they got what they wanted notwithstanding agitations to the contrary in the north spearheaded by Joseph Tarka in alliance with AG.

Am I getting into a bit of history here? You bet I am and for good reasons too. You cannot adequately understand the present unless you knew the past. Knowledge of the past provides the guideposts to navigate the present and the future and that’s why history is so important because it is the compass guiding our ship of state and therefore our national destiny. Don’t ever mess with your history because it defines who and what you are both as an individual and as a nation. And that is why I’m getting into this because it offers a clear perspective on the matters at hand otherwise I have written more than enough in this Mother of all Articles to warrant adding this historical portion to it. This is the most important part of this article and that’s why it was reserved for last. So I would respectfully urge the reader to stick around a while longer because it gets even better with cutting edge analytics.

Now, here is the deal and get this clear particularly for the younger folks: But for the civil war and General Gowon’s political masterstroke of splitting the country into twelve states in 1967, the north would have remained one huge monolith and thus retain the power to dictate political outcomes to the rest of the regions. That power was lost forever with the twelve state structure and it was one of the first casualties of the Nigerian civil war. While regretting the deaths of millions of Nigerians who gave up their lives for the unity of this great African nation and the pride of the black race, we must nevertheless tarry awhile to express our profound gratitude to the Nkemba of Nnewi, Chief Odumegwu Ojukwu for starting the liberation struggle from the northern oligarchy, and more directly, to General Yakubu Gowon for splitting the country into twelve states with six in the north and six in the south to balance the federal structure and level the playing field.

It is not for nothing that Gowon’s action was dubbed political masterstroke. Some might think it was directed at breaking Ojukwu’s back by yanking off Rivers and Calabar peoples from the former Eastern region. True, but I’m here to tell you that it went beyond that to liberate the south and the minorities in the north from the stranglehold of a monolithic and bearish north that had remained unbreakable under Tafawa Balewa and Ahmadu Bello.

It could be seen clearly that the Nigerian Civil War was the true beginnings of the liberation of the south from the Luggardian political shackles. However the resultant political benefits that would naturally have derived from that liberation were arrested by the imposition of military rule which ironically began not with the north but with the south specifically the east with the General Agui Ironsi regime which itself predated the Nigerian civil war. As students of history would readily appreciate one of the reasons for the reprisal coup against the Ironsi regime by northern military elements was the alleged plan of the Ironsi regime to abolish regionalism and federalism and replacing same with unitary system of government, which the north rightly saw as a threat not only to its monolithic stranglehold on the rest of the country, but a sign of its looming domination by the south particularly the Ibos. I don’t have to go into details here but suffice it to state that given the poisoned political atmosphere at the time such fears were not entirely unfounded. With the ouster of the Ironsi regime, however, the north was able to quickly regain the political power it had lost momentarily in the Major Nzeogu coup that brought in Ironsi to power, with Lt. Colonel Yakubu Gowon in power obviously for the north. And as they say, the rest is history.

Readers might ask, why Gowon a Christian and a man from the Middle Belt that had been fighting to break away from the northern region? Good question? The answer is simple: Gowon happened to be the most senior northern military officer in the Nigerian army then as northerners of the Hausa/Fulani ethnic stocks shunned enlistments in the military back then that was considered inferior to political leadership positions. The north was simply not cut out for military rule due to its healthy disdain for military careers. Military rule was forced upon it by the Nzeogu coup that eliminated its prized political leadership. The top echelon of the military was occupied by the Yorubas and the Ibos and southern minorities with the Middle Belt tagging along.

Therefore, in the face of towering generals like Ironsi and Ogundipe and others from the south the north was forced to look for similar officers. And the highest military officer the north could find to head the military government after the overthrow and killing of Ironsi was a Middle Beltan and a Christian for that matter with the rank of Lt. Colonel. That was how Gowon became Head of State and age 28 or so. And using the civil war as a convenient excuse, Gowon proceeded to break up the north into six states and in so doing liberated not only his own people but the more importantly the south as a whole. Now, Gowon may or may not have thought of it that way and I could be reading this motive into his action in splitting the north into six states gratuitously. But what does it matter anyway if the resulting liberation of his people and the south was advertent or inadvertent?  It matters not if his actions produced unintended but salutary consequences for the polity as a whole. Liberation is always a good thing however it came. As would be expected, however, he was to become the first and the last military Head of State and Christian leader from the minority ethnic groups in the north. The succession of both civilian and military rulers from the north since Gowon; starting from Murtala Muhammed, Shehu Shagari, Muhammadu Buhari, Ibrahim Badamasi Babsngida, Sanni Abacha, Abdulsalam Abubakar and Musa Yar’Adua are all non-Christians and from the Hausa/Fulani stock. Is that a coincidence or what? I’ll leave that for the reader to figure out. But having succeeded in dominating the Armed Forces by weeding out officers from other parts of the country through premature retirements and dismissals, they no longer have need for the Middle Belt minority officers like Gowon. They now had both the civilian leadership and the military muscle as a fallback position.

Political Liberation

If the advent of the Nigerian Civil War led to structural or systemic liberation of both the south and the Middle Belt minorities as indicated above, the advent of democracy in 1999 heralded the political liberation of the south. It is instructive to note in this regard that this political liberation would have occurred much earlier in 1993 had the same north not moved to annul the 1993 presidential election won hands down by late Chief MKO Abiola. The political turmoil that greeted that annulment and the resulting deaths of Abiola and Abacha was to force the hand of the north to concede leadership to Olusegun Obasanjo—a loyal and trusted hand who had earlier succeeded the late Murtala Muhammed killed in the abortive Dimka coup in 1975, and had promptly and faithfully handed over power back to the north in the person of Shehu Shagari over and above his own kinsman, Obafemi Awolowo, in a stoutly disputed election. Remember, OBJ was totally opposed to Abiola’s political ascendancy in 1993, much to the relief of the north. But not for long as the hand of history moved inexorably. 

Unknown to northern power brokers, however, the Obasanjo of 1975 was not the same Obasanjo of 1999 and the OBJ of 1999 was not the same OBJ of 2003, and the OBJ of 2003 was not the same OBJ of 2007, and the OBJ of 2007 was, for that matter, not the same OBJ of 2010. The north had a different animal in its hand with OBJ. Egged on by divine inspiration of sorts, OBJ has, against all expectations, completely transformed himself from being an errand boy of the north to become critical part of, indeed the very heart, of the national movement for the complete re-engineering of the Nigerian political union on more equitable terms even as the old order crumbles. The result is Jonathan at the helm of national affairs—and due to make history come April in the next presidential election—an unthinkable proposition barely a year ago. And that has sounded the death knell for the Northern Oligarchy and the rebirth of a New Nigeria where all constituent units and citizens have equal stakes in their national affairs.

I don’t know about you, but I have two words for it: Bloodless Revolution!

It takes away nothing from the north. It only levels the playing field for all, for a more perfect union and that is a good thing! When Ndigbo lines up behind Jonathan that is the message they are sending. When Oduduwa sons and daughters line up behind Jonathan that is the message they are sending. When Middle Beltans line up behind Jonathan that, of course, is the message they are sending. When progressive northerners line up behind Jonathan that is the message they are sending to the old guards. And when Niger Deltans line up behind Jonathan that is the message they are sending loud and clear. It’s a message that will reverberate through the nooks and crannies of the nation. Finally, that is the message citizen Otorofani is sending out here. Who has a problem with that? The old guards in the north, of course!  Too bad they may wind up casualties of the bloodless revolution. It might be bloodless but it will still produce casualties all the same. I can’t wish for more…

From the stable of –Cutting-Edge Analytics— More than a blog—It’s a learning experience!

Franklin Otorofani is an Attorney and Public Affairs Analyst.

Contacts: mudiagaone@yahoo.com, https://mudiagamann.wordpress.com/

 

 

 

 

 

When National Interests Clash With National Values: United States in Moral Quandary Over Stalemated Egyptian Protests

The volcanic eruption of popular anger into sustained massive street protests against the 30-year old brutal and dictatorial regime of the Egyptian leader, President Hosni Mubarak, has once again brought into stark relief the difficulties involved in balancing, as former US Secretary of States under HW Bush, James Baker, puts it, “national values and national interests.” In drawing this distinction Baker lays bare the basic principles undergirding United States’ foreign policy objectives which have been passed down from one administration to another regardless of the party in power.

Baker has by this arbitrary categorization, however, drawn a stark distinction between national values and national interests, which are not necessarily co-terminus. Where they are co-terminus the United States speaks loud and clear but where they are not she tends to speak from both sides of the mouth in doublespeak or muffled voice that tends to question her professed commitment to democracy globally. However, when she speaks in such muffled voice as she has indeed been forced to do quite often she is actually trying to balance both interests without appearing to abandon either at any time. This is an extremely difficult if not impossible task particularly in a situation that calls for a clear and straightforward position from the acclaimed leader of the free world. And that’s why the Egyptian protesters have by and large discounted US support for their single most important demand for the ouster of their ageing and brutal dictator. Even Muhammed El Baradei, the former UN Chief Weapons Inspector in Iraq, criticized the US for speaking from both sides of her mouth; talking about how important Mubarak has been as an ally and her support for the right of Egyptians to peaceful protests and demands for democracy. That is a delicate balancing act because the United States is trying to hold on to both. The problem though is that the US cannot protect Mubarak and at the same time help the protesters meet their demands for his immediate ouster. Put another way, she cannot hold on to both national values and national interests at the same time insofar as she sees a distinction between both that need not be made.

But what precisely are these national values and national interests that Baker talked about? US national values as reeled out by the respected Baker consist of democracy, freedom and human rights. And while not explicitly defining US national interests, he was quick to mention Mubarak’s role in securing peace with the state of Israel and stability in the region as being in US national interest. And so also is the fact that although Egypt is not a major oil supplier to the US like Saudi Arabia, for example, it has 8% of world trade passing through the Suez Canal according to Bloomberg Businessweek. And according to the New York Times about 4.5 barrels of world crude supplies in addition to 12% of global liquefied natural gas trade pass through both the Suez Canal and the Sumed Pipeline located in and controlled by Egypt. There is no question then that an uncontained crisis in Egypt would severely adversely affect world trade and stymie the tepid recovery of the global economy as oil prices have already risen even as it is for fear of possible disruption of oil supplies to world markets. That is part of the national interests that has the US stuttering. But Mubarak’s graceful exit is the quickest means of securing those critical supply lines by bringing the crisis to a quick end rather than the other way around that might prolong it.  

Mubarak has also cracked down on Islamic fundamentalists rooting for an Islamic state fashioned after Iranian model, particularly the Moslem Brotherhood, which has been at the receiving end of the Mubarak regime to the obvious pleasure of the United States. In the light of these glaring national interests, therefore, he cautioned against abandoning a strategic ally such as Mubarak and allowing Egypt to potentially fall into the waiting hands of radical Islam. He was full of praise for President Barak Obama’s handling of the situation so far, as indeed other leading figures, such as Senator Charles Schumer, from the State of New York. That is in line with precedents, as for instance, when late Saddam Hussein brutally cracked down on popular uprising against his rule at a time he was contending with Iran in the battlefield and supported by the United States. That crackdown was later to provide the Iranian authorities with the required evidence of genocide to hang him.

Ever the since the Egyptian crisis erupted and caught Washington flat footed, she has been scrambling to craft a carefully calibrated response to the crisis; one that would balance both competing interests of national values and national interests. In series of frantic consultations with her European allies the Obama administration had been signaling that it wanted nothing but orderly transition in Egypt not a revolution in order not to rock the boat in the Middle East. And that’s why every public statement issuing forth from the government, whether coming from White House Chief Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, the US Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton, or from the President Obama himself, had been carefully prefaced with how great an ally Mubarak had been to the United States and his role in the Middle East peace process, while at the same time expressing United States’ commitment to freedom of expression and peaceful protests.  But that is not what the protesters are demanding. They are not demanding freedom of expression or right to peaceful protests. They already have those and are in fact expressing them by engaging in the protests without molestation by the authorities. What they want is for Mubarak to resign immediately. They are fed up with him after 30 years in power. One female protester put it best: “It’s a shame that I’m 33 and I have not enjoyed the right to choose the leader of my country as in other countries” or something to that effect. She, like others want Mubarak out of the way permanently to enable them carry on with their lives not merely to grant Egyptians freedom of expression and the right to protest.  It looked like Washington didn’t get it or was acting in denial.

The entire Washington political establishment is acutely unwilling to have Mubarak disgraced out of office as was his Tunisian counterpart. In fact, US government officials have faithfully refrained from using the world “dictator” to describe Mubarak. The marked difference between United States and the west’s response to similar protests in Iran barely a year ago and the Egyptian protests is underlined and explicable by the Baker distinction between US national values and US national interests. In Iran both interests coalesced into one whole and that explained why the United States and other western powers were at the forefront in cheering and supporting the protesters and forcefully demanding that their needs should be met. Were such protests to erupt in countries like Syria, Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea the United States and the west would likewise move decisively in support and if need be provide both direct and indirect assistance to the organizers to help them succeed in overthrowing those regimes. But the story would be different when such protests are happening in countries like Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and many others that are friendly to the United States and the west. And you say different strokes for different folks, which translates to the application of double standards. Double standards are worse than no standards at all because they provoke adverse reactions and elicit charges of inconsistency at best and hypocrisy at worst in the minds of affected parties.

And that inevitably raises the question as to whether national interests should be allowed to trump national values? The answer has been answered in the affirmative by the US government in its reluctance to see Mubarak go as demanded by the protesters and thus willing to have him organize an orderly transition to democratic rule, citing, as Baker again puts it, the need for “stability”. Hear Baker again: “Stability should not be a dirty word…stability is good,” to rub it in, in the NBC Matt Lauer interview.

And it further raises the question as to whether national values are part of national interests and vice versa. If nations are going to draw a clear distinction between national values and national interests and the former is to be subordinated to the latter whenever there is a clash, then it is fair to conclude that national values are inferior to national interests and could therefore be sacrificed at a whim. The United States has been in bed with dictators throughout history in virtually all continents in countries like Cuba before Castro, Iran before the Ayatollah and the entire countries in the Middle East that know no democracy and human rights by willfully sacrificing her national values on the altar of her national interests that are at best temporary and shifting. And that has dealt huge blow to her credibility the world over when she begins to push for democracy in unfriendly nations. There is virtue in consistency no matter what. There is virtue in constancy of principles no matter what.

In the name of stability in the Middle East and peace with Israel, the United States is ready to have Mubarak remain in power till the end of his current term in September and he has promised not to go for re-election. But where is the guarantee that he will keep to that promise which, by the way, is not written in stone. How many dictators have been known to keep their words when the pressure is off their backs? I know of none in history. That is not to say that the 82 year old Mubarak will not honor his word made under extreme pressure in a special public television broadcast to his 85 million fellow countrymen and women in the thick of the protest, but to underline the fact that those words mean nothing in the end if he is let off the hook. And even if he leaves as age is not on his side, what is the guarantee that he will be able to preside over credible election later this year? How could a brutal dictator like Mubarak be allowed to preside over the conduct of a credible election?

Already the man has begun a crackdown on the protesters by organizing massive counter protests and thousands are reported to have fled the Cairo’s Tahrir Square, the epicenter of the protests, and the army has ordered the protesters to vacate the square telling them that they had delivered their message and are capable of bringing stability to Egypt, which is clear signal that it is feed up with the endless protests and ready to impose order by force if need be. Yes even as he promised reforms a brutal crackdown is already underway as I pen these lines and this bodes ill for the ultimate success of the already flowering people’s revolution.

In fact, Brian Williams of NBC’s Nightly News is reporting that there has been a dramatic power shift in favor of Mubarak literarily overnight. The narrative has changed and Mubarak seems to have turned the table on the protesters within 24 hours. And what is more, the little concessions extracted from the brutal hands of Mubarak are completely reversible since nothing concrete has been achieved with the so-called negotiations with the opposition elements. In fact, the whole protest locomotive seems to hurtling down the anti-climax lane with this new twist as the protesters, or those who refused to quit are now at the receiving end, treated to horsewhips and “Rock and Molotov cocktails” as reported including gunshots. Some deaths have even been reported. He reports that for now the pro-Mubarak forces have gained or at least appear to be gaining the upper hand.

This clearly indicates that Mubarak has successfully mobilized counter revolutionary forces to abort the revolution midstream. And that will be good news for dictators all around the world. The situation is still fluid on the ground and everything can change in a moment as we have seen as everyday bring new developments. But if indeed the Egyptian revolution winds up a failure the greatest beneficiaries will be Mubarak and his brother dictators in the Arab world, all the way from Libya to Syria, all of whom are US allies excepting Syria’s Assad. And it will a deal terrible blow to democratic forces throughout the Middle East who were looking to draw inspiration from Egypt, the largest and most influential Arab country in the world. There would have been a huge domino effect if the revolution had succeeded in Egypt but that prospect is fast receding as I write this with the latest developments. This is happening because the United States which has tremendous leverage with Mubarak has refused to play ball on the side of the protesters on the principle that the devil you know is better than the angel you don’t know.

However, such principle is not only self serving but ultimately defeats the cause of democracy in the part of the world that badly needs it. And the US will come out of it damaged in the eyes of democratic forces throughout the region due to her dubious, non-committal stance. It would go down in history that when the US was presented with two choices between a brutal dictator, Mubarak on the one hand, and the Egyptian people, on the other hand, she decided to side with the dictator in the name of national interests and stability in the Middle East. And that is in tune with Mubarak’s challenge to his people to choose between stability and chaos. The US is essentially singing the same tune with Mubarak about stability and orderly transition. And he has moved to enforce stability. No one would blame the US for that had she not represented and presented herself to the world as the global champion of democratic values and had sought to promote such values in a rather selective fashion.

And that is putting it mildly. If truth be told the United States is afraid of democracy coming to Egypt that could wind up installing unfriendly Islamic fundamentalists in power that would antagonize Israel. In fact, Baker voiced that fear in the interview in the NBC’s Today Show by Matt Lauer, cited earlier. The US is afraid of empowering them like it happened earlier in Lebanon with Hezbollah and in the Palestinian territory of Gaza with Hamas were Hamas was handed landslide victory in a democratic election. It is to be recalled that the Bush administration bluntly refused to recognize the Hamas victory. However, the idea that only friendly regimes are entitled to govern is utterly ridiculous and does extreme violence to the very notion of democracy. Whoever emerges as the clear choice of the people whether friendly or unfriendly to Washington and the west is entitled to govern in a democratic dispensation. Why is it impossible or too difficult to deal with democratically elected governments that, for the time being, happen to be unfriendly to the United States? It seems that the west believes in changing attitudes through adverse process of antagonism rather than through what Reagan called “constructive engagement” with difficult regimes. And Reagan was a Republican the last time I checked, the very party that is opposed to having any form of engagement with the so-called “Axis of Evil”. Obama himself had said he was willing to engage with Iran and even North Korea that clearly hostile regimes. And he has kept his words. That is the way it should be, not the other way around.

Why, one might ask, should a nation that preaches democracy prefer to deal with dictatorial regimes that deny their own people basic freedoms than with democratically elected governments that happen to be hostile or unfriendly? Hostility is a relative term and it could be turned around with certain mutual assurances. I find that totally hypocritical and absurd.  And the distinction between national interests and national values does not even begin to address it because there is no genuine reason for that distinction in the first place. It is wholly artificial. We cannot be preaching about democracy where the people are allowed to choose their leaders in a free and fair election and at the same time appearing to dictate who their choices should be and if their choices happen to be at variance with ours proceed to distance ourselves from their choices even to the extent of not recognizing the clear choices of the people in an otherwise free and fair election. We cannot eat our cake and have it back. It’s just not possible.

In conclusion it’s about time the United States embarked upon a comprehensive review of her foreign policy posture under the current president with a view to totally eliminating the artificial distinction between national values and national interests. Both should not be treated as separate categories with one cavalierly sacrificed for the other at the drop of a hat, but rather treated as one whole, holistically as one corpus of national interests. If they must remain separate, however, then on no account should national interests be allowed to trump national values, which are more permanent national treasures to be defended, protected, cherished and projected to the outside world than interests in oil and the Middle East peace process, which are neither here nor there. Global respect for the United States comes not from her interests in oil. Other nations too have interests in oil shipments and in the Middle East peace process. Why should those now more important than her cherished national values?    

The United States was not founded on national interests that were acquired along the way, but on national values of democracy, liberty, freedom and human rights as enunciated in the Bill of Rights enshrined in the US constitution and in the Declaration of Independence. And the US along with her values was there before the state of Israel came into being in 1948. She was there before the crisis in the Middle East came into being and before the Islamic fundamentalists and terrorism came into being. These values predated even the founding of the United States itself and ought to be held sacrosanct and inviolable. It is a shame that the United States is now in bed with dictators in the Middle East such as Mubarak to put out the light on freedom, democracy and human rights, their muffled defense in the case of Egypt and other friendly dictatorial states around the world, notwithstanding. It’s time to take a consistent stand, not straddling between the opposing and irreconcilable worlds of dictatorship and democracy. A nation that was forged by the fire of revolution should not be seen to tamp down the flame of a revolution.

Should that mean abandoning an old ally and side with those who want him out immediately rather than later? Well, if that is the price to pay for democracy, so be it. He should not have been an ally in the first place. The moral dilemma involved in abandoning an ally is self inflicted and need not have arisen in the first place if the United States had been true to her founding ideals and her constitution. The very notion of the United States being in bed with brutal dictators is indeed repugnant to many of her citizens and admirers and a bitter pill to swallow. Therefore, this crisis should be a turning point in US relations with the world. The US has no business being in bed with petty dictators. Cuddling dictators might be an American tradition not started by Obama, but it should be up to him, the candidate and president of change to change that unenviable tradition. The cold war is over and there is absolutely no reason to be in bed with dictators as a counterpoise against the Soviets. Over to you, President Barack Obama! This is your call. Start the process of the policy review now before another crisis hits in another part of the world because, sure enough, another will hit in due course.

From the stable of –Cutting-Edge Analytics—Where News Meets the Intellect–

Franklin Otorofani is an Attorney and Public Affairs Analyst.

Contacts: mudiagaone@yahoo.com, https://mudiagamann.wordpress.com/