Guiding political philosophy for a democratic Nigeria (III)

For the intellectuals who have also consistently failed Nigeria in their inability to locate the organizing ethos for a multi-ethnic, multi-religious country like Nigeria Mpahahlele has very harsh words for them even then. “Intellectual opinion is not organized at all in  Nigeria. Intellectuals are too busy  consolidating  economic gains that have  accrued  from  positions  they […]

For the intellectuals who have also consistently failed Nigeria in their inability to locate the organizing ethos for a multi-ethnic, multi-religious country like Nigeria Mpahahlele has very harsh words for them even then. “Intellectual opinion is not organized at all in  Nigeria. Intellectuals are too busy  consolidating  economic gains that have  accrued  from  positions  they have taken from retiring or retired whites.  And  any­ how, the civil service, which has the largest concentration of intellectuals, does not  promote,  still  less breed, intellectual freedom.”

Presciently, Mphahlele observed that the absence of a philosophical foundation or an existential challenge will leave Nigeria as a nation with unrealized potentials. In his words “If the challenge of independence can act on the Nigerian in anything like the same degree as the challenge of oppression does in South Africa, Nigeria can be a truly great country”

He also warned almost prophetically about the possibility of violence post-independence and the impact of colonialism “… only a fool is prepared to stake everything on the peace-loving qualities of Nigerians. Colonialism has an uncanny way of creating a host of ugly paradoxes by which it thrives. And when it recedes, these paradoxes appear to the unperceptive onlooker to be self-imposed.”

We have found a rather insightful witness in Ezekiel Mphahlele, a South African who was teaching at University College Ibadan at independence, to support our basic thesis that our founding fathers did not construct a strong philosophical foundation for our nascent nation. Our own Baba also agreed that “The only point on which Nigerian political leaders spoke with one voice was the granting by the British of political  independence – and even then they did not agree on the timing.”. In the euphoria of independence we left undone those things which we ought to have done.

Our national aspirations should inspire the next generation and provide them with the existential meaning of Nigeria. A meaning that transcends geography, natural resources and ethnicity. To grow Nigeria we must build a society that harness human resources, provides equal opportunities and develop capacity for innovation.

It is on this foundation that I want to interrogate the presence or absence of a guiding philosophy for Nigeria and the consequential impact on our political culture. Many have argued that the trouble with Nigeria is leadership and other have asked When is a Nation? Some insist that the absence of ideology is at the root of our political crisis. In all the views the constant is the agreement that there is trouble with Nigeria. The leadership question is key.

During the civil war General Gowon could not define why the task to keep Nigeria one must be done. Unlike Lincoln he could not locate the sacrifices, injuries and deaths arising from that war in a larger philosophical construct. Another opportunity missed.

The regime of General Murtala Muhammed rallied Nigeria with a muscular Pan-African agenda and acclaimed effort to stamp out corruption. This was followed by a more radical Pan-African agenda under General Olusegun Obasanjo when he succeeded Gen. Muhammed. The first Constituent Assembly, after the war, again saw politicians focusing on form and not content. Mid-wifed by the Military, the Assembly could not craft a national charter that can lay the philosophical foundation for the country. 

President Shagari’s ruling Party, National Party of Nigeria (NPN) spoke of One Nation, One Destiny. I am not sure much thought was given to either the nation or its destiny. The war against corruption turned out to be the basis of legitimacy of the General Buhari administration. The regime had no time or temperament to consider existential issues like national philosophy.

The Babangida administration attempted to redefine the economic structure of the country through a World Bank inspired Structural Adjustment Programme that Obasanjo accused of “lacking milk of human kindness and a human face”. Despite that scathing criticism it was one of the boldest effort to adjust the country structurally, at least economically. Aligned to the economic programme was a political experiment that led to government-created parties with the curious ideological differentiation of “a little to the left and a little to the right”.

The Abacha regime had no time nor patience for intellectual discourse. Its Constitutional Conference, however, was exceptional in the composition and the intensity of the debates against the backdrop of June 12 and its aftermath. General Abubakar implemented a single agenda of handover and together with his ruling council edited and promulgated the 1999 constitution.

In 1999, Peoples Democratic Party came to power with a promise of “power to the people” and Olusegun Obasanjo, fresh from Prison, as President.   After successfully handing over power,  Obasanjo had retired peacefully into commercial farming, but remained active in organisingprogrammes aimed at promoting peace, understanding and diplomacy not only within Nigeria and African region, but the world at large.

That activism has led him to many intellectually exciting books on nation building and politics such as This Animal Called Man; Call to Duty; Speeches, Not My Will,  A New Dawn; No Compromise With Apartheid; Towards Civil Rule and Africa in Perspectives. Others were A March of Progress; Nigeria and International Trade; Nzeogwu; Constitution For National Integration and Development; Africa Embattled; My Command: An Account of the Nigerian Civil War 1969-70 and I See Hope, among others.

African Leadership Forum is also another platform he founded in 1988 to help improve the current quality of leadership in Africa while at the same time helping to train the next generation of leaders for the continent in demonstration of his commitment to nation building efforts.

In 1999, Obasanjo’s party, the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) not only won the presidential election in the general elections, the party formed the majority in both the Senate and House of Representatives. The PDP turned out to be an ideologically fluid amalgam of strange bed fellows without an organising principle except to take-over from the military. No sooner had PDP assumed office that the first sign of stress surfaced. The issue of the choice of leadership in the two Chambers of the National Assembly dominated by elected representatives on the banner of the PDP proved divisive.

The handling of that crisis contributed in large part to the nature and susbsequent trajectory of the PDP. The co-option of the Alliance for Democracy in the effort to stop Senator ChubaOkadigbo effectively indicated the end of any ideological posturing of the political parties. I am sure there were many complexities to the story but President Obasanjo’s first term provided some indication on his position on the Nigerian question.

(Concluded next week)

Text of a paper presented on the occasion of the public lecture organised by the Youth Development Centre of the Olusegun Obasanjo Presidential Library, Abeokuta, May 2017.